Red Sox 2012 Spring Training Thread.

[User Name]

Iglesias is fast.

[SoxFanForsyth]

And swipes a bag!!

[User Name]

If he can harness that speed, then we're talking about much better possibilities for production.

[yeszir]

Guys, let's leave this for general discussion and move the game discussion to the game thread I just made please. Feels good to say that.

[Dojji]

Don't think they're doing that. From everything I've read' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

What they were doing with Miller last year was working, he just kept falling back into bad habits where his release point was all over the place. When he was repeating the mechanics they were trying to get him to master, he actually was very effective, he just couldn't seem to remember to keep doing it and became inconsistent.

 

Not surprising really. Muscle memory is a pain in the butt to reprogram when you have a kid who's been throwing the ball one way for most of his life. Any pitcher who can completely rework their delivery has my respect because it's not easy to do.

 

What I saw looked more like a slow learning curve than a bust. Like I said, you look at the numbers and it's hideously bad, he was a boom and bust type with far too much "bust." But he had his share of really good appearances too. I think it's still well within his ability to master the art of pitching -- it's just not going to be as easy as it would have been if he'd learned the same techniques he's trying to master now, while he was a 21 year old prospect at AA ball. DET and FLA rushed the HELL out of this kid, and it's obvious in the tons of fundamental pitching stuff he never learned as a result.

 

The fact is that they *did* bring "Good Miller"out more frequently than he'd been able to be that guy before. That's how he had hideous pitching numbers and a 6-3 record. He needs to gain consistency fast if he wants to stick, but I'd say pretty comfortably that Miller has a nonzero chance to be our 5th starter -- and a decent one -- by the end of the year.

[User Name]

What they were doing with Miller last year was working, he just kept falling back into bad habits where his release point was all over the place. When he was repeating the mechanics they were trying to get him to master, he actually was very effective, he just couldn't seem to remember to keep doing it and became inconsistent.

 

Not surprising really. Muscle memory is a pain in the butt to reprogram when you have a kid who's been throwing the ball one way for most of their lives. Any pitcher who can completely rework their delivery has my respect because it's not easy to do.

 

The fact is that they *did* bring "Good Miller"out more frequently than he'd been able to be that guy before. That's how he had hideous pitching numbers and a 6-3 record. He needs to gain consistency fast if he wants to stick, but I'd say pretty comfortably that Miller has a nonzero chance to be our 5th starter -- and a decent one -- by the end of the year.

 

That's extremely true.

[Spitball]

Muscle memory is a pain in the butt to reprogram when you have a kid who's been throwing the ball one way for most of his life. Any pitcher who can completely rework their delivery has my respect because it's not easy to do.

 

You are correct. Any sport activity requires thousands of repetitions to create rote muscle memory in order to recreate the process on a consisitent basis. But, muscle memory can be reworked. It may not be easy, and it certainly requires an acceptance and dedication by the athlete. Often times the player, successful through his life, resists change or modifications.

 

I think some organizations believe it is acceptable to go with the athlete's natural or unnatural mechanics. The Pirates, for whatever reasons, are an example. Jimmy Anderson, Ian Snell, and Bronson Arroyo were examples of pitchers from the late 1990s and late 2000s who threw across their bodies. Arroyo came to the Red Sox and made some adjustments. He became successful but his K rate dropped in 2005 (I think that was the year). Traded to Cincinnati, he somewhat reverted to his across the body mechanics and struckout 180-something batters in his first NL season. Hmmm...

[Elktonnick]

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.

 

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism

While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.

 

Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

 

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

 

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

 

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

[a700hitter]

Relative Truth: Andrew Miller is tall

Relative Truth: Andrew Mller throws hard

Absolute truth: Andrew Miller throws left-handed

Absolute Truth: Andrew Miller is a stinky major league pitcher

[User Name]

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism

While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.

 

Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

 

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

 

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

 

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

 

That's why "the exception proves the rule" in its logical application, provides support for the "no absolutes" rule. Even the "rule" is relative.

 

Because there is no real objectivism (as you have so aptly pointed out in your example, everything is mired in opinion or POV) everything is relative to the eye of the beholder.

 

A classic example of this is "1 +1" theory: To a mathematician, 1 +1=2, but to a farmer, when pairing up animals 1 + 1, may equal 3 or 4 new animals.

 

So in their relative application, is either wrong?

 

Absolutisms cannot be proven correct.

 

Take the example posted by my friend above here:

 

"Andrew Miller is a stinky Major League Pitcher": To some, the fact that he is a Major League player signifies that he's "good enough" to be a Major Leaguer, ergo, not "stinky".That is their viewpoint, and you may see it as flawed, but is it wrong?

 

As for left-handed example, is it physically impossible for him to throw right-handed? If it isn't (and it isnt') then that's also a relative truth.

 

I will admit, that if there's a sound argument to counteract the "no absolutes" theory is the Logical Absolutes theory, and their usual example of "something cannot bring itself into existence", but then again, even that is debatable because of the uncertainty regarding the creation of the universe.

 

The law of non-contradition, however, seems a lot more applicable to the situation, given that the multiple POV aspect of Non-absolutism seems to contradict that ule.

[a700hitter]

One comment on this whole argument that started because one poster essentially said that Miller stinks and would never amount to anything. The important part of that statement was that he stinks, but we have been engaged in a ridiculous argument for 2 days about whether "never" means "never". I have seen this argument many times from Dutchy, Imperial59, YazSideburn and atWork. They always engaged in this type of argument that wastes every one's time. Feel free to debate the meaning of "always" in that statement. It is very annoying that the ignore feature is practically useless when stupidity like this is engaged in for pages. Absolute Truth: Dutchy et al = UN

[User Name]

And you fail yet again, because your absolute truth is absolutely wrong.

[a700hitter]

This argument should be in the cut the crap thread.

[a700hitter]

UN, i don't know what you are posting after my posts, and. I don't care.

[User Name]

Doesn't seem like it.

[mvp 78]

We had quite a long argument about big vs small market recently. Does that mean me or iOrtiz is AtWork?

 

Personally, I wouldn't say never, but even if he became league average (Salty) people would still fight about how much he sucks.

[SoxSport]

I see Bobby had Iggy leading off and Middlebrooks playing 3B yesterday. Iggy even stole a base.

The signs are there these kids will get a good look and the team will run this year. Regardless, it boils down to what the top 3 guys in the rotation will do--unless some other pitcher surprises. They can win if the top 3 are solid and healthy.

[Dojji]

We had quite a long argument about big vs small market recently. Does that mean me or iOrtiz is AtWork?

 

Personally, I wouldn't say never, but even if he became league average (Salty) people would still fight about how much he sucks.

 

Salty IS league average. Everything he does pretty well and everything he does pretty poorly average out to a reasonably normal starting catcher. If he can work on blocking pitches better and get on base a bit more consistently he'll be above average.

 

He's good for a 95 OPS+ which is actually substantially above the catching norm and he's a replacement level defender dragged down a bit in numbers by trying to handle the K-ball for the first time in his life last year. He also caught 31% of runners stealing against him, so his arm isn't awful. Like I said, it averages out. He compares roughly to a Miguel Olivo type, or did last year. That's not awesome, but it isn't a hole at catcher either.

 

Frankly before he ran out of gas in late August he'd been doing much better. September was murder for Salty and probably played a big role in what happened to the team. Through August he had a .781 OPS, which for a catcher is outright good. He'd been a nontrivial asset to the team up to that point. I'd expect him to try to improve his conditioning so he can take 400 at bats without flagging like that and that ought to make a big difference.

[a700hitter]

We had quite a long argument about big vs small market recently. Does that mean me or iOrtiz is AtWork?

 

Personally, I wouldn't say never, but even if he became league average (Salty) people would still fight about how much he sucks.

If he's league average, he's adequate and tall. If he isn't league average, he sucks.

[Emmz]

Iglesias is fast.

 

Example of a true absolute. The ideal that there is no absolute defeats itself, I could've rested my case a long time ago. Science absolutely does not in any way disprove absolutes. Example or it didn't happen.

 

Science has dedicated its entirety on discovering facts about what can only can be described as "how s*** operates". Facts are absolutes, end of discussion. Earth is not flat, Earth orbits the sun, Jupiter is a gas giant. Fact, fact, fact. Absolutes, all three.

[Emmz]

So, ready to eat your crow yet?

[User Name]

Example of a true absolute. The ideal that there is no absolute defeats itself, I could've rested my case a long time ago. Science absolutely does not in any way disprove absolutes. Example or it didn't happen.

 

Science has dedicated its entirety on discovering facts about what can only can be described as "how s*** operates". Facts are absolutes, end of discussion. Earth is not flat, Earth orbits the sun, Jupiter is a gas giant. Fact, fact, fact. Absolutes, all three.

 

He's slow compared to in-his-prime Juan Pierre. He's light-speed fast compared to me. Example of relativism.

 

Science has also dedicated itself to understanding the different avenues of "how s*** works", which are not absolute.

 

Funny thing about your science example, a lot of things science calls "facts" now are modifications of things that were "facts" before and were proven wrong. And some of those absolute "facts" you call now will likely be dispelled in the coming years.

 

It's a never-ending cycle.

[User Name]

Keep trying.

[Emmz]

He's slow compared to in-his-prime Juan Pierre. He's light-speed fast compared to me. Example of relativism.

 

Science has also dedicated itself to understanding the different avenues of "how s*** works", which are not absolute.

 

Funny thing about your science example, a lot of things science calls "facts" now are modifications of things that were "facts" before and were proven wrong. And some of those absolute "facts" you call now will likely be dispelled in the coming years.

 

It's a never-ending cycle.

 

Yes, before they had modern tools and knowledge to completely blow past facts off the map, most of which were made up by philosophers with no knowledge of how s*** works.

 

Death is absolute. When you're dead you're dead, it can't be any more simplistic than that.

 

The earth factually revolves around the sun, this will never be disproven, because it is a fact. There was no science involved when everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. It was a guess, so once again, you're incorrect. The composition of Jupiter and Co. was tested, their surface is gas, again, fact. Keep it going, the longer yoh hold out, the more s*** you'll have to eat.

[Emmz]

Also, I think the most amusing thing about this is that you think your judgment is superior to a scientists.

[User Name]

Yes, before they had modern tools and knowledge to completely blow past facts off the map, most of which were made up by philosophers with no knowledge of how s*** works.

 

Death is absolute. When you're dead you're dead, it can't be any more simplistic than that.

 

The earth factually revolves around the sun, this will never be disproven, because it is a fact. There was no science involved when everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. It was a guess, so once again, you're incorrect. The composition of Jupiter and Co. was tested, their surface is gas, again, fact. Keep it going, the longer yoh hold out, the more s*** you'll have to eat.

 

While i love the threats about eating s*** because of a discussion on a message board on the internet, that's kind of the point.

 

As tools become advanced, more and more "facts" are disproven, and more opinions appear on subjects.

 

The problem is, that for a statement to be absolute, it needs to 100% discredit any other opinion on the subject, and that's nearly (noticed i said nearly) impossible to do in any subject.

 

As for death, some will say "life after death" and "reincarnation" exist. You can't prove either are lies, so the "death is death" statement is a relative fact.

 

As for the rest of the example, what is now defined as "orbit" may be refered to as something else in a couple of years, rendering the definition obsolete, and the fact as well. Does the definition of "gas" stay or change with the evolution of technology? You can't prove or disprove either.

[User Name]

Also' date=' I think the most amusing thing about this is that you think your judgment is superior to a scientists.[/quote']

 

Your words, not mine. Which is funny coming from someone who always complains about people "reading between the lines" when she posts.

[Emmz]

While i love the threats about eating s*** because of a discussion on a message board on the internet, that's kind of the point.

 

As tools become advanced, more and more "facts" are disproven, and more opinions appear on subjects.

 

The problem is, that for a statement to be absolute, it needs to 100% discredit any other opinion on the subject, and that's nearly (noticed i said nearly) impossible to do in any subject.

 

As for death, some will say "life after death" and "reincarnation" exist. You can't prove either are lies, so the "death is death" statement is a relative fact.

 

As for the rest of the example, what is now defined as "orbit" may be refered to as something else in a couple of years, rendering the definition obsolete, and the fact as well. Does the definition of "gas" stay or change with the evolution of technology? You can't prove or disprove either.

 

Death is death. Life after death or reincarnation is AFTER death, this is another fact. Your previous identity in both cases are still effectively deceased, even if there is a life after death. This is factual, and this has never changed since the firat organism in the universe kicked the bucket.

 

Changed definitions and calling it something else don't change the fact of what's there/what's happening. The funniest thing about all of this is that without absolutes, any rule would be a complete crock. That's how your argument defeated itself pages ago. What else do I have to debunk for you?

 

Might just have to call you a troll and move on.

[Emmz]

Your words' date=' not mine. Which is funny coming from someone who always complains about people "reading between the lines" when she posts.[/quote']

 

You're using some outdated book you got in logic class to attempt to debunk scientific facts. Come on. Irrational comparison.

[a700hitter]

The first garbage bag has been put out to the curb.

UPDATE, 10:33 a.m.: Silva has shoulder inflammation and is no longer in the mix for a rotation spot according to Valentine.

 

Sounds like it's a major issue as his long-term future "is being discussed" according to the manager.