Red Sox 2012 Spring Training Thread.

[User Name]

No, you're debating petty semantics that have no effect on the current discussion.

 

So we can agree to agree?

 

It's not petty semantics. You stated clearly he would "never be good". That was my only point of contention. Your words, not mine.

[VA Sox Fan]

Hughes problem has been injuries. When fully healthy' date=' he has demonstrated that he can be very effective as a starter or reliever. [b'] The Yankees ruined Joba's arm by changing his role IMO[/b].

 

That's what scares me about Bard.

[Emmz]

It's not petty semantics. You stated clearly he would "never be good". That was my only point of contention. Your words' date=' not mine.[/quote']

 

Out of how many times I said he technically could be good? You're cherrypicking and trying to debate a non-issue, a technicality. Look, call yourself a hair-splitter and lets move on.

[User Name]

Out of how many times I said he technically could be good? You're cherrypicking and trying to debate a non-issue' date=' a technicality. Look, call yourself a hair-splitter and lets move on.[/quote']

 

I'll admit that i'm a hair-splitter if you admit that you said he could never improve and that's wrong.

[User Name]

That's what scares me about Bard.

 

The main difference between Joba and Bard is body type and injury history. Joba was always an injury-prone fat slob, while Bard has a good pitcher's frame and has always been generally healthy. It's a pretty big difference.

[Emmz]

Apparently a lot of people flunked "Logic 101" here, because Cecil Adams (whoever that is) forgets the precept: "There are no absolute truths or fallacies" given the non-existence of "true objectivity", aka theory of relativism. I understand and admit that the general usage in the English language has its extent of rhetoric and is to an extent, "misused", but the general application, in this case, (as it pertains to absolutism) holds water.

 

But hey, the scholars here on Talksox must be right, so i rescind my argument.

 

Oh, wait: \o/ and :)

 

The term makes no sense, the application to the argument doesn't work out, and the actual claim that "an absolute is never correct" is funny for two reasons. Lets say it's correct at the moment. Doesn't that exception prove the rule to be, well, incorrect? Thats where the phrase falls flat on its face.

 

Here's another absolute that is correct: Adolf Hitler is dead. John Lennon is dead. The Germans lost in both World Wars. I could go on for hours. Stating an absolute is never correct means that there is nothing factual, EVER. So your actual "exception" isn't even an exception, it belongs to a long list of absolutes that are absolutely correct.

 

Ready to say uncle yet? School's out.

 

\o/

[Dojji]

The main difference between Joba and Bard is body type and injury history. Joba was always an injury-prone fat slob' date=' while Bard has a good pitcher's frame and has always been generally healthy. It's a pretty big difference.[/quote']

 

The other difference is that Joba was successful as a starter in the minors.

 

A concern about Bard being effective in a starting role is legitimate until proven otherwise.

[Dojji]

Actually I can definitely think of an "exception that proves the rule" in the semantic sense. The scenario I'd have in mind would be someone coming up with an off the wall "exception" that's technically legit but has no bearing in reality. Sort of using the phrase as a more polite version of "if that's the best you can do, we're done here."

 

Regardless, all this straining at gnats has little bearing on the fact that Emmz has nothing in this argument but skepticism not particularly well backed by persistent ad homenim argument and repeated attempts to prove a negative -- or to admit by omission that she can't.

 

You really aren't in a position to crow to anyone about Logic 101 at the moment, Emmz. Just saying.

[Emmz]

I'll admit that i'm a hair-splitter if you admit that you said he could never improve and that's wrong.

 

Okay, is that your version of a moral victory?

 

That's pointless, but I don't think he's going to pan out. I shouldn't have to say "in my opinion" in front of everything I say, or be at risk of having to defend myself from petty cgerrypickers.

 

If you had access to my head and could prove I actually believe that I know he's never going to work out, then you'd have a case.

 

But fine, if it's a moral victory to take away from an otherwise losing effort on your behalf, then fine, I said "he will never be good".

 

\o/

[User Name]

I'm going to go ahead and assume you and Boomer didn't fully read the example he posted, for reference.

 

The misnomer happens because the literal interpretation of the phrase: "The exception tests the rule" can't be used, by itself, to prove the lack of absolutism. But as many before have done, and will continue to do, when trying to prove relativism, the phrase applies (misnomer and all) because it can (and has been) interpreted that the rule can be proved because the exception exists.

 

Giovanni Torriano expressed it best in his 1666 compilation of proverbs: "The exception gives Authority to the Rule."

 

The problem here happens because the application in legal terms (An exception that does not mean the law is abolished from here on) as Cicero initially said, and where the phrase is initially from is not the same as the logical application of it. In other words, the "misnomer" happens because there is a legitimate second interpretation of the phrase.

 

But hey, Cecil Adams.

 

Oh, and "School's out".

[User Name]

Okay, is that your version of a moral victory?

 

That's pointless, but I don't think he's going to pan out. I shouldn't have to say "in my opinion" in front of everything I say, or be at risk of having to defend myself from petty cgerrypickers.

 

If you had access to my head and could prove I actually believe that I know he's never going to work out, then you'd have a case.

 

But fine, if it's a moral victory to take away from an otherwise losing effort on your behalf, then fine, I said "he will never be good".

 

\o/

 

Thanks, now i can sleep.

[Emmz]

Actually I can definitely think of an "exception that proves the rule" in the semantic sense. The scenario I'd have in mind would be someone coming up with an off the wall "exception" that's technically legit but has no bearing in reality. Sort of using the phrase as a more polite version of "if that's the best you can do, we're done here."

 

Regardless, all this straining at gnats has little bearing on the fact that Emmz has nothing in this argument but skepticism not particularly well backed by persistent ad homenim argument and repeated attempts to prove a negative -- or to admit by omission that she can't.

 

You really aren't in a position to crow to anyone about Logic 101 at the moment, Emmz. Just saying.

 

Apparently you didn't read anything. And pretty much everyone agrees that he's not likely to be a success, thats all I ever said. Quit talkin' out yer ass!

[SoxFanForsyth]

Punto and Iggy just turned a nice little DP.

 

Bad news on Crawford. Worse news that Jackso was right.

[Emmz]

I'm going to go ahead and assume you and Boomer didn't fully read the example he posted, for reference.

 

The misnomer happens because the literal interpretation of the phrase: "The exception tests the rule" can't be used, by itself, to prove the lack of absolutism. But as many before have done, and will continue to do, when trying to prove relativism, the phrase applies (misnomer and all) because it can (and has been) interpreted that the rule can be proved because the exception exists.

 

Giovanni Torriano expressed it best in his 1666 compilation of proverbs: "The exception gives Authority to the Rule."

 

The problem here happens because the application in legal terms (An exception that does not mean the law is abolished from here on) as Cicero initially said, and where the phrase is initially from is not the same as the logical application of it. In other words, the "misnomer" happens because there is a legitimate second interpretation of the phrase.

 

But hey, Cecil Adams.

 

Oh, and "School's out".

 

You didn't even touch the fact that I debunked your whole "absolutes are never correct" argument. I'm waiting. You let school out before it even started, bro.

 

Considering you had to quote some dead guy (who is absolutely dead) to "prove" that there is indeed an exception to prove a rule, I'll make the assumption you're desperate to win this argument. You've already lost on all fronts. An exception that proves a rule does nothing but disproves the rule, this is basic logic.

[Bellhorn04]

The other difference is that Joba was successful as a starter in the minors.

 

A concern about Bard being effective in a starting role is legitimate until proven otherwise.

 

Agreed that there's plenty of concern about him being effective. There seems to be another concern out there about Bard getting messed up to the point he's useless in either role, because of what happened with Joba. But I can't think of too many cases like Joba's.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Watching Miller, his key is to get his 94 fastball over the plate. Forget 97. He's out of control at that speed.

He has a nice slider which he seems to control better than his fastball.

 

Yesterday, at least, he was pumping 97 on the black. Did surprisingly well. Apparently Valentine is very interested in him.

 

Apparently McClure is just telling him to pitch comfortably rather than focusing on every step of his mechanics. Basically, just go pitch like you did in college.

 

It may be beneficial for the Sox to put him in the rotation out of ST just to make sure that what he's doing doesn't fix him before they release him because he doesn't have options and won't make it through waivers.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I think i read a piece somewhere where Mclure mentions the same thing. They are trying to rebuild his mechanics from scratch' date=' which will likely lower his velocity, but velocity is nothing if you can't throw strikes.[/quote']

 

Don't think they're doing that. From everything I've read, they've just slightly tweaked it so he's not throwing excessively across his body, but at the same time not making him start from scratch, and they say he's taking well to it (heard that before).

[SoxFanForsyth]

That's what scares me about Bard.

 

The good thing about Bard making the transition this year is that he's got a pitching coach who did the same thing.

 

Plus, Joba made the transition on June 3rd, so he didn't have an entire offseason to ready himself like Bard has had.

[Eastern Maine]

Punto and Iggy just turned a nice little DP.

 

Bad news on Crawford. Worse news that Jackso was right.

 

Iggy makes everything look easy.

[Eastern Maine]

Great at bat by Iggy.

[SoxFanForsyth]

The other difference is that Joba was successful as a starter in the minors.

 

A concern about Bard being effective in a starting role is legitimate until proven otherwise.

 

I have a question for you.

 

Do you think that Bard's BB/9 will bump from 3.0 to 9.4? Or that his WHIP will go from 0.959 to 2.053??

 

He struggled so much as a SP because his walks were 3x what they are now, and his WHIP was over 2x what it is not.

 

To project him to be a failure as a SP based on numbers he put up as a 22 year old in A ball is silly.

 

We've all see how good his stuff plays at the MLB level in the most elite division in all of baseball. Projecting him to just flat lose it makes no sense to me. :dunno:

[SoxFanForsyth]

Twins look like the bad news bears.

[VA Sox Fan]

Agreed that there's plenty of concern about him being effective. There seems to be another concern out there about Bard getting messed up to the point he's useless in either role' date=' because of what happened with Joba. But I can't think of too many cases like Joba's.[/quote']

 

The good thing about Bard making the transition this year is that he's got a pitching coach who did the same thing.

 

Plus, Joba made the transition on June 3rd, so he didn't have an entire offseason to ready himself like Bard has had.

 

Good points guys!

[User Name]

You didn't even touch the fact that I debunked your whole "absolutes are never correct" argument. I'm waiting. You let school out before it even started, bro.

 

Considering you had to quote some dead guy (who is absolutely dead) to "prove" that there is indeed an exception to prove a rule, I'll make the assumption you're desperate to win this argument. You've already lost on all fronts. An exception that proves a rule does nothing but disproves the rule, this is basic logic.

 

Or you didn't read the post.

 

Theory of relativism: Because there is no true "objectivity" (everything is affected by opinion, or perception, one way or the other) there are no absolute fallacies or absolute truths. In other words, there are no absolutes, therefore, absolutes are never correct.

 

"Basic logic".

[Emmz]

Or you didn't read the post.

 

Theory of relativism: Because there is no true "objectivity" (everything is affected by opinion, or perception, one way or the other) there are no absolute fallacies or absolute truths. In other words, there are no absolutes, therefore, absolutes are never correct.

 

"Basic logic".

 

Thats why its called a theory, because logically it actually falls flat on its face. The Germans absolutely surrendered in WW2 and WW1. Your name is your name, the Bible exists. I just ate steak. Those are all absolutes. The Theory of Relativism is the most ridiculed "rule" of logic because its absolutely incorrect. Its not my fault you believe anything you read in your teachers' handbooks as fact. SCIENCE has debunked the Theory of Relativism several times over.

 

Rules aren't proven by exceptions. EVER.

[Bellhorn04]

Twins look like the bad news bears.

 

How did Buchholz look?

[SoxFanForsyth]

How did Buchholz look?

 

Shaky at first. Left a lot of balls up and out of the zone. Got a key DP ball to bail him in the 1st, although there was only a man on 1st w 1 out, he still wasn't looking good.

 

Settled down in the 2nd, K'ing the last 2 after putting men on 1st and 2nd with 1 out.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Here comes Padilla. Oh boy.

[User Name]

Thats why its called a theory, because logically it actually falls flat on its face. The Germans absolutely surrendered in WW2 and WW1. Your name is your name, the Bible exists. I just ate steak. Those are all absolutes. The Theory of Relativism is the most ridiculed "rule" of logic because its absolutely incorrect. Its not my fault you believe anything you read in your teachers' handbooks as fact. SCIENCE has debunked the Theory of Relativism several times over.

 

Rules aren't proven by exceptions. EVER.

 

Science also supports the lack of absolutism. Just FYI.

 

Also, even if you were to go by the literal definition of Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, then you're saying that the exception strengthens the rule.

 

The rule is that absolutisms are never correct.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Iggy, a nice little bunt single