Red Sox 2012 Spring Training Thread.

[seabeachfred]

Wow, not sure how we got onto the meaning of life, but there you go. There are English usages of "facts" where it's synonymous with "statements" and has no bearing on the truth of the assertion (e.g., "the facts of life"). This is, IMHO, sloppy usage but it does happen.

 

If you want to claim that fact != truth, then by all means go ahead. But it's not congruent with the most common usages of the word. When people say "fact", they more often than not mean "something that is true".

 

Of course, what a fact means or implies is subject to opinion and interpretation. There, all bets are off.

 

BTW, Cecil Adams is a columnist who answers questions (any question) submitted by readers, usually things that are mundane but interesting, like: "Why do shower curtains billow in when you take a shower?"

 

+

Boomer, didn't the two of us go round and round with this the past year elsewhere? Well I'm not touching this with a hot poker. When I was teaching, I broke it down simply in absolutes and degrees of certainty. In mathematics, science and astronomy there are absolutes that can be derived once you learn what they are. In human affairs there are no absolutes, just degrees in certainty. You shoot for approximate truth, never absolute. While there are absolutes in those aforementioned fields, in the field of political science, philosophy, psychology and history there can never be absolutes, just degrees of certainty.

 

And that's all I have to say on that subject. Back to Spring Training.

[Emmz]

+

Boomer, didn't the two of us go round and round with this the past year elsewhere? Well I'm not touching this with a hot poker. When I was teaching, I broke it down simply in absolutes and degrees of certainty. In mathematics, science and astronomy there are absolutes that can be derived once you learn what they are. In human affairs there are no absolutes, just degrees in certainty. You shoot for approximate truth, never absolute. While there are absolutes in those aforementioned fields, in the field of political science, philosophy, psychology and history there can never be absolutes, just degrees of certainty.

 

And that's all I have to say on that subject. Back to Spring Training.

 

Agreed with all of this.

[seabeachfred]

Go to "user cp" on the upper left-hand corner' date=' then there's an option to "modify avatar".[/quote']

 

Thanks Emmz; that was actually easy. I owe you one....or two or three. I got it from my wife's file. I will look to see if I can get a better one. At least now I feel part of the crowd.

[Emmz]

Naaaah, it was as easy to describe/guide you through as it was for you.

[Elktonnick]

Naaaah' date=' it was as easy to describe/guide you through as it was for you.[/quote']

 

When I was in college we used to use the line "Exception that proved the rule" as a gag line when we were incorrect. Neither my philosophy nor math profs thought it witty or clever. They were not amused. They thought it sophomoric which of course is what it was. LOL

[Bellhorn04]

I read something semi-interesting by SI's Verducci today. He suggested that with the expanded interleague play starting next year, the two leagues are going to have to decide to either use the DH in both leagues or eliminate it. And he thinks that it's more likely that the NL will adopt the DH, because the players union will make a big push for it (more jobs available).

[The Boomer]

+

Boomer, didn't the two of us go round and round with this the past year elsewhere? Well I'm not touching this with a hot poker. When I was teaching, I broke it down simply in absolutes and degrees of certainty. In mathematics, science and astronomy there are absolutes that can be derived once you learn what they are. In human affairs there are no absolutes, just degrees in certainty. You shoot for approximate truth, never absolute. While there are absolutes in those aforementioned fields, in the field of political science, philosophy, psychology and history there can never be absolutes, just degrees of certainty.

 

And that's all I have to say on that subject. Back to Spring Training.

 

Well, that's not exactly right at all with respect to science; check out Godel's Incompleteness Theorem or Karl Popper's work. We never know anything is actually true; we only know what is false since we can prove things false but never true. However, once something is falsified, then it can't be an never was true. "True" is really shorthand for "hasn't been disproved yet". Now, I'm not betting someone is going to come along and show that 1+1 != 2, but we do know that within any formal system (say, arithmetic) there are propositions that are true that cannot be proven.

 

In this sense, exceptions literally disprove the rule, which is where this all started.

 

Fred, let me say that your habit of saying you won't comment on something, then commenting on it, then saying we all ought to move on is really annoying. Just comment if you want to or don't if you don't.

[The Boomer]

I read something semi-interesting by SI's Verducci today. He suggested that with the expanded interleague play starting next year' date=' the two leagues are going to have to decide to either use the DH in both leagues or eliminate it. And he thinks that it's more likely that the NL will adopt the DH, because the players union will make a big push for it (more jobs available).[/quote']

 

That is the only way things can go. The AL and the MLBPA will never agree to dump the DH so the NL will have to agree to add it. Alternatively, we could just dump IL play, which is my preferred option.

[The Boomer]

When I was in college we used to use the line "Exception that proved the rule" as a gag line when we were incorrect. Neither my philosophy nor math profs thought it witty or clever. They were not amused. They thought it sophomoric which of course is what it was. LOL

 

When that happened to me in my first two years at college, I would respond that I was a sophomore, so what did they expect?

[seabeachfred]

Well, that's not exactly right at all with respect to science; check out Godel's Incompleteness Theorem or Karl Popper's work. We never know anything is actually true; we only know what is false since we can prove things false but never true. However, once something is falsified, then it can't be an never was true. "True" is really shorthand for "hasn't been disproved yet". Now, I'm not betting someone is going to come along and show that 1+1 != 2, but we do know that within any formal system (say, arithmetic) there are propositions that are true that cannot be proven.

 

In this sense, exceptions literally disprove the rule, which is where this all started.

 

Fred, let me say that your habit of saying you won't comment on something, then commenting on it, then saying we all ought to move on is really annoying. Just comment if you want to or don't if you don't.

 

I wasn't being argumentative Boomer so I don't know why you had to take a caustic stance at what I said. There was no intent on countering what you said and in fact, I taught that same stuff in my Rhetoric class and it came from Aristotle himself, not exactly a bumpkin in the brains department. If you are going to be t hat sensitive we are not going to get along here either. I said I wouldn't comment on it meant I wouldn't start splitting hairs on the topic as you and o thers have done here. It did not mean I didn't have something to offer on it little that it was. Let's not look to start a feud again. We don't need it and this board doesn't deserve it.

[User Name]

Well, that's not exactly right at all with respect to science; check out Godel's Incompleteness Theorem or Karl Popper's work. We never know anything is actually true; we only know what is false since we can prove things false but never true. However, once something is falsified, then it can't be an never was true. "True" is really shorthand for "hasn't been disproved yet". Now, I'm not betting someone is going to come along and show that 1+1 != 2, but we do know that within any formal system (say, arithmetic) there are propositions that are true that cannot be proven.

 

In this sense, exceptions literally disprove the rule, which is where this all started.

 

Fred, let me say that your habit of saying you won't comment on something, then commenting on it, then saying we all ought to move on is really annoying. Just comment if you want to or don't if you don't.

 

The literal interpretation of the phrase exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis or "the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted" means that the exception strengthens the rule.

 

The popular characterization of "Exception proves the rule" as a misnomer started when people started it out of context. It is meant to be used as a link in the chain of relativism + non-absolutism.

 

Basically, since it is said, "there are no absolutes", the fact that the phrase itself would mean an absolute, meaning it would contradict itself, therefore meaning that the only way the rule would be correct is if it allowed for an exception.

 

In this context, while it absolutely spits in the face of the theory of non-contradiction, because every viewpoint cannot be correct, but the problem with that is every viewpoint cannot be wrong either.

 

As you mention in your post, we cannot prove absolute truth or fallacy to anything.

 

In short: No absolutes.

[The Boomer]

I wasn't being argumentative Boomer so I don't know why you had to take a caustic stance at what I said. There was no intent on countering what you said and in fact' date=' I taught that same stuff in my Rhetoric class and it came from Aristotle himself, not exactly a bumpkin in the brains department. If you are going to be t hat sensitive we are not going to get along here either. I said I wouldn't comment on it meant I wouldn't start splitting hairs on the topic as you and o thers have done here. It did not mean I didn't have something to offer on it little that it was. Let's not look to start a feud again. We don't need it and this board doesn't deserve it.[/quote']

 

Saying that a post annoys me is not starting a feud.

 

Aristotle was a fine thinker for 300 BCE but was things have progressed a bit since then.

 

I was not arguing against your point, simply adding to it.

[jung]

I have been wondering about additional inter-league play bringing the whole DH issue to a head. I do tend to think the NL eliminating it across MLB successfully would be a tall order. I would not bet on it.

 

I would actually think there is a better chance that inter-league play would go down for the count before the AL drops the DH or the NL adopts it.

 

One of the AL arguments is that you pay pitchers to pitch. Do you really want them up at the plate or on the base paths? I don't think they are at the same risk out there as everyday players. They really don't have much incentive to crowd the plate for example. Not only is there more strategy and in game personnel decisions in the NL but I always think that when a pitcher does help himself at the plate. It is a real event and I am glad we still have the opportunity to see it on occasion.

 

On the other hand AL pitchers are under duress up and down the batting order with no pitcher to look forward to as an easy out. So we don't see rallies die in the pitchers spot and we see pitchers really having to work their butts off on the mound under a good deal of stress.

[Emmz]

Lol, if there are no absolutes in this world, there effectively ARE absolutes. Thats why that rule defeats itself. It all actually started because I said Miller is never going to work out, and thats my opinion. User just wanted to nitpick that I was trying to be omniscient or something, even though I previously said he can, and I just don't think he will.

 

I don't think I should have to specify "imo" before every statement, or else it be perceived as an absolute. User would never have brought up absolutes if I had said Miller is going to work out.

 

Anyways, everyone on this site makes an absolute statement in pretty much every post, lets not get that petty where we have to have 5 pages of broken record argument to see of absolutism exists or not.

[The Boomer]

Lol, if there are no absolutes in this world, there effectively ARE absolutes. Thats why that rule defeats itself. It all actually started because I said Miller is never going to work out, and thats my opinion. User just wanted to nitpick that I was trying to be omniscient or something, even though I previously said he can, and I just don't think he will.

 

I don't think I should have to specify "imo" before every statement, or else it be perceived as an absolute. User would never have brought up absolutes if I had said Miller is going to work out.

 

Anyways, everyone on this site makes an absolute statement in pretty much every post, lets not get that petty where we have to have 5 pages of broken record argument to see of absolutism exists or not.

 

You are absolutely wrong that people make absolute statements in pretty much every post. Shame on you

 

Serious question: How do you signify sarcasm on this board?

[Emmz]

You don't, you're sarcastic and hope they catch on. Or if you want to, you could always go /sarcasm.

[Emmz]

Or, use the eyeroll smiley.

[The Boomer]

I have been wondering about additional inter-league play bringing the whole DH issue to a head. I do tend to think the NL eliminating it across MLB successfully would be a tall order. I would not bet on it.

 

I would actually think there is a better chance that inter-league play would go down for the count before the AL drops the DH or the NL adopts it.

 

One of the AL arguments is that you pay pitchers to pitch. Do you really want them up at the plate or on the base paths? I don't think they are at the same risk out there as everyday players. They really don't have much incentive to crowd the plate for example. Not only is there more strategy and in game personnel decisions in the NL but I always think that when a pitcher does help himself at the plate. It is a real event and I am glad we still have the opportunity to see it on occasion.

 

On the other hand AL pitchers are under duress up and down the batting order with no pitcher to look forward to as an easy out. So we don't see rallies die in the pitchers spot and we see pitchers really having to work their butts off on the mound under a good deal of stress.

 

I think the NL flavor of the game allows for more in-game tactics and is more traditional, but those aren't reasons to make the AL use it. If pitchers could hit even a little I could see defending the NL flavor but now they are basically an automatic out. So you're trading an automatic out 1-3 times per game for some PH/matchup gyrations in later innings.

[The Boomer]

Or' date=' use the eyeroll smiley.[/quote']

 

But I need the eyeroll smiley for when I'm actually rolling my eyes!

[User Name]

Do you roll your eyes when people are ridiculous? I know i do.

[User Name]

I have been wondering about additional inter-league play bringing the whole DH issue to a head. I do tend to think the NL eliminating it across MLB successfully would be a tall order. I would not bet on it.

 

I would actually think there is a better chance that inter-league play would go down for the count before the AL drops the DH or the NL adopts it.

 

One of the AL arguments is that you pay pitchers to pitch. Do you really want them up at the plate or on the base paths? I don't think they are at the same risk out there as everyday players. They really don't have much incentive to crowd the plate for example. Not only is there more strategy and in game personnel decisions in the NL but I always think that when a pitcher does help himself at the plate. It is a real event and I am glad we still have the opportunity to see it on occasion.

 

On the other hand AL pitchers are under duress up and down the batting order with no pitcher to look forward to as an easy out. So we don't see rallies die in the pitchers spot and we see pitchers really having to work their butts off on the mound under a good deal of stress.

 

Probably the best course of action would be to allow the DH in the entire league.

[Emmz]

But I need the eyeroll smiley for when I'm actually rolling my eyes!

 

Thats why it kind of works for snide sarcasm.

[User Name]

Valentine raves about Iglesias

 

FORT MYERS, Fla. - While at this juncture it still looks like Mike Aviles as the starting shortstop, keep an eye on Jose Iglesias in the rear view mirror.

 

Valentine had many good things to say about the 22-year-old Cuban-born shortstop today.

 

On his at-bats:

 

"They’ve been OK. I don’t think his technique is what it needs to be but his AB’s have been good. If we add a little more technique and rhythm and something to give him the ability to recognize the pitch earlier and time it better, he might be close,” Valentine offered.

 

Asked if he were receptive to coaching, Valentine said, "Iglesias has been outstanding on my watch. I haven’t been in the cage with him so I’m not totally sure what’s going on. I know it’s proper and I don’t know what his aptitude is from there to the game. What I’m seeing is very good."

 

Is he indeed "special?"

 

"Well, yes. Here’s the specialness - he has a special tracking device on fly balls unique to very few from what I’ve seen so far. He has a special ability to transfer the ball from glove to hand. He has a specialness moving and range and game awareness, I can tell he can transfer the ball from a longer distance more than anyone I’ve ever seen and he's got that GPS in his mind," explained Valentine.

.

Valentine was asked whether anyone could have hauled in a pair of popups that Iglesias caught in a "B" game vs. the Twins late last week and he said, “I dare say no one in this camp based on the skill set. Few, if anyone – Ozzie (Smith) and Rey Ordonez could do that. There’s a few but very few. They’re runs and outs. They are not hits and they could be runs if there are people on base. The pop up is not a skill that should be discarded. Especially in today’s world."

 

A lot of people don't think he's ready, but from the way Valentine is pimping him up, it seems he may become the new everyday SS for the Red Sox.

[jung]

I would actually be willing to give up having the opportunity to see ball played "the old fashioned way" to get consistency across the leagues. In fact I think that the NL giving up its position is the second most likely outcome, second to abandoning inter-league play. I would give up either inter-league play or seeing baseball the old way to have consistency.

 

My desire to see ball played the old way every once and awhile is really a selfish desire. I just want to be able to. But with more inter-league play in the works, my selfish desire needs to go by the boards.

[The Boomer]

Thats why it kind of works for snide sarcasm.

 

I get it, but I'm usually starting the sarcasm, not just reacting. Anyhow, if everyone on the board just assumes I'm being facetious 80% of the time, you won't go to far wrong.

[The Boomer]

A lot of people don't think he's ready' date=' but from the way Valentine is pimping him up, it seems he may become the new everyday SS for the Red Sox.[/quote']

 

I think Bobby is just trying to squash the annual "who's the SS" meme that always seems to arise in ST. Aviles will be the SS and Iglesias will be in AAA, where he won't get any spotlight unless he's generating it himself.

 

I am not sure it's well-advised for Bobby V. to be making these comments as it is raising expectations well beyond where they should be, but he sure does like to hear himself talk.

[SoxSport]

Aviles is a nice player, but I suspect SS is Iglesias' job to lose. SS is a defensive position, and that works a lot in his favor--especially with a DH in the lineup who can hit. I've seen the kid hit once so far in a ST game. He lined a rope to left center for an out. You just never know about a kid who hasn't had much minor league experience. He may have been affected by injuries in Pawtucket last year. They are paying this kid about $2mil per year, and probably want to see him earn it in the Show if possible. Time will tell.

[jung]

I would be tickled to death if it is Iggy's job to lose. My most optimistic expectation for him was a call up after 2-3 months. I hope if it is truly his job to lose that it is representative of the degree of progress that we would not have expected going into this ST.

 

My only concern is that I believe the Sox have been pushing him along faster than he should have been going. Maybe this is the year it pays off. Maybe this is the year that the time he should have been putting in at lower minor league levels comes back to haunt him. I want to say that it will be fun to see how the Sox handle Iggy in any event. However if they have moved him along to quickly and he really stumbles in his first real shot at the bigs I am not going to be happy.

[a700hitter]

As much as Valentine would like to bring Iggy north. I don't think that they want to put a lot of pressure on him if he is not ready. Also, it would force their hand to dump Aviles or Punto. I think they will wait until Iggy plays his way to the big leagues or one of the other 2 gets injured.

[seabeachfred]

As much as Valentine would like to bring Iggy north. I don't think that they want to put a lot of pressure on him if he is not ready. Also' date=' it would force their hand to dump Aviles or Punto. I think they will wait until Iggy plays his way to the big leagues or one of the other 2 gets injured.[/quote']

 

You never know about Bobby; he can be unorthodox in some of the things he does. Personally, I think Iggy would be better served with one more full season at Pawtucket where he can work on his whole game, working the count, stealing bases, plate discipline, etc, etc. Oh, he can start out for the Red Sox at SS if Valentine deems it but the problem there is suppose a couple of our key hitters pull a 2011 Youk, or Crawford, or Drew? Suddenly, Iglesias would be expected to do a little more hitting to earn his keep and the pressure could mount on the kid. If Aviles and Punto can make the routine play and turn the DP they should be fine for this season---in my opinion. However, that's Bobby 's decision to make, and to be honest I have a lot more confidence in his field generalship than I ever did with Francona.