Pablo Sandoval

[Kimmi]

And those that never made that argument, which you're jumping in with everyone else because for some reason it's all about how you react emotionally to the argument rather than what is actually said?

 

I am not sure that there is anyone here who has not contributed to the fat jokes or assumptions on Pablo's character because he is fat.

 

FTR, fat people are strongly discriminated against. There is a very strong perception of them as being lazy, worthless, or lacking self control, much of the same sentiments that have been posted here.

[Dojji]

the assumptions are not because he is fat, Kimmi. the assumptions are because he came into camp

 

1: heavier than he was last year

2: heavier than his own camp said he was and

3: far heavier than what he promised to report to camp weighing

 

Weight is a secondary issue here. The real issue is that yet again, Pablo Sandoval is not what he advertised himself to be, he did not keep his promises to the franchise to try to keep his weight under control, and he put the team in a bind by his own decisions and actions. If a player had a simplar problem with alcoholism that put the team in a bind because the player was not able to perform his duty, the reaction both by the team and by the fans would have been the same.

 

Of course there will be some additional juvenile immaturity because the problem is specifically his weight, believe me I get that, I've been severely overweight for most of my life. The difference is I didn't sign a contract to perform as a professional athlete, a job that requires physical fitness, and then proceed to completely fail to take care of myself, report into camp well above what the team expected me to weigh, and expect everyone to be fine with this.

 

The weight is secondary here. Broken promises and a player showing up in unexpectedly poor health and in no shape to do the job he's paid for are the real problems, and the sense that since the problem is weight-based, it's also self-inflicted, doesn't help (sometimes that's true, sometimes it isn't, but if Pablo literally can't contain his weight, that's even a bigger problem for the team as he's even less likely to be able to return to playable condition if that is true).

[Kimmi]

No it isn't. A question that's based on an assumption is as unstraightforward as it gets. The question is one that clearly comes with a bias. A bias is another word for a slant or an angle, not words one normally associates with the word "straightforward."

 

that's what the media would call a "gotcha question" because to answer it at all you have to play into its fundamental assumptions and then the media can call you on the fact that you've done so and find all kinds of ways to put words into your mouth. It's not quite as bad as "when did you stop beating your wife?" but it's in the same category.

 

you haven't got an answer to that question that satisfies you because no one's played into a question that they know is tilted, either deliberately or accidentally. And I'm sorry Kimmy, I have too much respect for your intelligence to assume it was done accidentally..

 

I'm not trying to tilt anything. We all know that Pablo may not play that well. I have acknowledged that many times. I just think it is in the team's best interest to see if he can regain 2014's numbers, or some semblance of them.

 

If he can, the team would be much better off than they would be if he sat on the bench and became more or less worthless.

 

You all know that I'm right about that, whether you want Pablo to play or not.

 

It's not a question of whether he will or won't rebound. No one can answer that. It's a question of IF he can, will the team be better off? Of course the answer is yes. But there's no way to know whether he can or can't unless he's given the chance to start.

 

So, it's better to keep him on the bench and pretty much assure that he'll be worthless?

[Dojji]

you may not be trying to tilt anything, but the question is tilted. It is not a straight question, and will not get and does not deserve a straight answer.

 

the question about whether Pablo was ready and able to play his position is renedered irrelevant by the fact that he is not. And the question of whether he ever would be again is up to Pablo. Playing time is one way a team can control a player, it's not an entitlement. In fact it's one of the few carrots a team can dangle to reform a player's behavior. So until he works his butt off (literally) and is good to go? Welcome to the bench, Pablo, please sit on the part with the load-bearing legs directly under it.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Dojji

[Thunder]

I am not sure that there is anyone here who has not contributed to the fat jokes or assumptions on Pablo's character because he is fat.

 

Hi, how are ya?

[a700hitter]

Thank you. The link from Sox Prospects to Pablo's player page has him officially listed at 180 lbs.

 

Seriously, a buddy of mine on another site posts literally every article and tweet regarding the Sox imaginable. He has posted nothing about an amount that Pablo weighs. If he hasn't found the information, it probably doesn't exist. Which means that there is a lot of speculation going on about how much weight Pablo has gained.

At his listed weight of 255 from last year (which we know is a ficton), he is 30 -4- lbs overweight at 5'11".

[Dojji]

a700 is right. Even if you recongize that he is a prety stocky, thick-bodied guy even without the weight issues, a guy who's 5'11" has no excuse to weigh more than about 220 or so, if they're trying to be in the top physical condition they're capable of being in.

[a700hitter]

Once the fat jokes and character assassinations are made, and continue to be made, it detracts from the sincerity of the argument. That's all I'm saying.

Kimmi, it is called humor. The jokes are not meant to bolster any argument. Why so serious?

[Dojji]

Kimmi, it is called humor. The jokes are not meant to bolster any argument. Why so serious?

 

because it's one of her few remaining legs to stand on.

[a700hitter]

If Pablo and Castillo played their positions at good levels, would the team be better off with them as starters and Shaw and Holt as bench players than they would be the other way around? Let's assume that Pablo and Castillo would play as well as Shaw and Holt would play, which is certainly within the realm of possibility.

 

This is your question, right? Isn't it based on a questionable assumption?

Despite the questionable assumption, I answered the question days ago. Kimmi reads everything, but continues to say that no one has answered her question.

 

The answer is "No" because Pablo's upside if he turns the clock back is not high enough to justify the wait (not weight) and keep Shaw on the bench.

[Kimmi]

the assumptions are not because he is fat, Kimmi. the assumptions are because he came into camp

 

1: heavier than he was last year

2: heavier than his own camp said he was and

3: far heavier than what he promised to report to camp weighing

 

Weight is a secondary issue here. The real issue is that yet again, Pablo Sandoval is not what he advertised himself to be, he did not keep his promises to the franchise to try to keep his weight under control, and he put the team in a bind by his own decisions and actions. If a player had a simplar problem with alcoholism that put the team in a bind because the player was not able to perform his duty, the reaction both by the team and by the fans would have been the same.

 

Of course there will be some additional juvenile immaturity because the problem is specifically his weight, believe me I get that, I've been severely overweight for most of my life. The difference is I didn't sign a contract to perform as a professional athlete, a job that requires physical fitness, and then proceed to completely fail to take care of myself, report into camp well above what the team expected me to weigh, and expect everyone to be fine with this.

 

The weight is secondary here. Broken promises and a player showing up in unexpectedly poor health and in no shape to do the job he's paid for are the real problems, and the sense that since the problem is weight-based, it's also self-inflicted, doesn't help (sometimes that's true, sometimes it isn't, but if Pablo literally can't contain his weight, that's even a bigger problem for the team as he's even less likely to be able to return to playable condition if that is true).

 

Do you have any proof of your first three statements?

 

I'm not sure where the "broken promises" come from either. Did Pablo promise to lose weight? Do we know for sure that Pablo is heavier than when he left the team last season?

 

Honestly, I think people would be a lot more forgiving if Pablo was an alcoholic.

 

I still believe that Pablo deserves a chance to start in real games because we don't know for sure how good he might be, but I respect your and everyone else's opinion about Pablo not deserving the starting job based on his limited range and his poor defense.

 

I will not respect anyone's opinion on the type of character or person Pablo is based on assumptions made based on his appearance.

[Kimmi]

a700 is right. Even if you recongize that he is a prety stocky, thick-bodied guy even without the weight issues, a guy who's 5'11" has no excuse to weigh more than about 220 or so, if they're trying to be in the top physical condition they're capable of being in.

 

I have not denied that.

 

He's played at that weight his entire career. Is it possible that he can play well again at that weight?

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, it is called humor. The jokes are not meant to bolster any argument. Why so serious?

 

They might not be meant to bolster any argument, but they detract from an argument.

 

Is it okay to make racial slurs in the name of humor?

[a700hitter]

Honestly, I think people would be a lot more forgiving if Pablo was an alcoholic.

 

He's not an alcoholic. But plenty of alcoholics have performed atvery highlevels as long as they were not drunk during the game. Mickey Mantle is the first name that pops to mind. The problem with being obese (and he is obese --his fictional weight is 255) is that you simple can't perform at that weight at the major league level in a competent manner. i am sure that there are some 200 lb women that are very good dancers, but they can't be a prima ballerina at that weight. No one is biased against fat people.

[Kimmi]

He's not an alcoholic. But plenty of alcoholics have performed atvery highlevels as long as they were not drunk during the game. Mickey Mantle is the first name that pops to mind. The problem with being obese (and he is obese --his fictional weight is 255) is that you simple can't perform at that weight at the major league level in a competent manner. i am sure that there are some 200 lb women that are very good dancers, but they can't be a prima ballerina at that weight. No one is biased against fat people.

 

But Pablo has performed at that weight for his entire career, up until last year. Is it possible that he can regress?

 

And people most definitely are biased against fat people.

 

There is a lot of research on the topic. Here is just one of many blurbs:

 

In every single country monitored, obesity had become associated with laziness and a lack of self-control, with the sole exception of Tanzania, where skinniness is still associated with death from HIV. Even there, attitudes were classed as “neutral” as opposed to “fat-friendly.” In other words, if you have a plus-sized waist, the entire world is demonstrably, objectively against you. And there’s not a thing you can do about it.

[mvp 78]

I have not denied that.

 

He's played at that weight his entire career. Is it possible that he can play well again at that weight?

 

He's fatter than ever and can no longer field his position. Not much else to say about it.

[mvp 78]

I am not sure that there is anyone here who has not contributed to the fat jokes or assumptions on Pablo's character because he is fat.

 

FTR, fat people are strongly discriminated against. There is a very strong perception of them as being lazy, worthless, or lacking self control, much of the same sentiments that have been posted here.

Professional athletes shouldn't be fat.

[mvp 78]

In case you haven't noticed, I will defend almost any Sox player until I'm blue in the face, veteran or rookie.

 

Which is why the arguments go nowhere.

[Kimmi]

FTR, I am not trying to come off as being holier than thou, although I'm sure it's coming across that way.

 

I can't deny that I have made assumptions or judgments about people based on their appearances. And I have been very wrong.

[Kimmi]

Which is why the arguments go nowhere.

 

Why? Does this make my arguments are invalid?

[Dojji]

But Pablo has performed at that weight for his entire career, up until last year. Is it possible that he can regress?

 

No he hasn't. Pablo has slowly but steadily gained weight throughout his entire career.

 

And people most definitely are biased against fat people.

 

Yes, because being fat is something you can theoretically change, it's a poor lifestyle choice, and it's not an attribute that usually combines well with being a professional athlete at an important defensive position that requires a player able to move around, stop, start and change direction quickly. 3b is a oposition that above all else requires quick stop and start mechanics, and it's the one thing that Pablo Sandoval is going to have more and more trouble with both as his waistline expands and as his body ages.

 

Even if he wasn't slowly but steadily expanding his borders, he's at an age when athletes start to break down in little ways, and that's only going to be magnified by the fact that he is a little fatter each year. He needs to bring that back under control somehow, or he's going to be out of the league entirely in the next handful of years. It's a fate that's overtaken quite a few overweight players, especially those who are not pitchers or 1B.

[mvp 78]

Let me give you a more serious comparison. If all of these Pablo fat jokes and slurs were instead racial jokes and slurs, or sexist jokes and slurs, would it be any different?

 

If I were mostly very competent at my job, then had a bad month and got demoted, and then men made jokes about how I was a dumb bimbo who slept my way into getting my job, and that women only have one good purpose, or that women belonged in the home. Then when someone called them on those comments, they said but oh, "this has nothing to do with her being a bimbo or a woman, she didn't attend the training that was offered last month, so she deserved to get demoted". In the meantime, the bimbo/sexist jokes continue to be made at every chance they get.

 

Would you not think that these people had more of an issue with their perception of me as a bimbo/woman, rather than with the fact that I didn't attend training?

 

What if they were racial jokes and slurs? Would that be okay?

 

At the very least, it takes away from the sincerity of the argument.

 

Better analogy:

 

Tax accountant fails to read up on new tax regulations before tax season. He screws up a bunch of tax returns. The next year, he again misses his CPE's and blows up his first few returns. Would his coworkers be wrong for saying "dude, go to some trainings?" Would his clients have a right to complain?

[mvp 78]

Why? Does this make my arguments are invalid?

 

It means the arguments are pointless because you refuse to see a different point of view. You'll argue for a player no matter what contrary evidence exists.

[jad]

Criticizing a professional athlete for being fat is not 'fat-shaming.' It's not a moral issue (perhaps Sandoval is a fine family man who rescues puppies). It's a performance issue: he can't move the way professional infielders have to move. Basketball prospects might be too short (tough bananas). A distance runner who put on 40 pounds while working tirelessly for The Greater Good is not going to be able to compete on the course. And a player who broke a leg (even if through no fault of his own) will not be able to play. So bench the f** f*** (oops; I mean "him").

[a700hitter]

But Pablo has performed at that weight for his entire career, up until last year. Is it possible that he can regress?

 

And people most definitely are biased against fat people.

 

There is a lot of research on the topic. Here is just one of many blurbs:

No. Sandoval is bigger now than he has ever been. No one is disputing that. He has reached a weight at which no one can perform. It is that simple. Hopefully, he takes this as a wake up call and starts to drop some weight. I meant to say that no one here is biased against Pablo because he is fat. We are just acknowledging that he can't perform at his current weight. Edited April 3, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

They might not be meant to bolster any argument, but they detract from an argument.

 

Is it okay to make racial slurs in the name of humor?

A person's race, religion, ethnic background do not effect a player's performance. Weight directly impacts his performance. You are drawing a false equivalency.

[User Name]

And Castillo can't hit. Is his defense going to outweigh his complete inability to hit?

 

Yeah. Because, by WAR standards, Castillo was slightly above replacement last year, while Sandoval was the worst regular in baseball. Even if his offense bounces back to his career averages, the summation of being one of the worst defenders and one of the worst baserunners in baseball would drag his value to below replacement anyways. The numbers don't back you up here. At all. In the least.

[User Name]

No it isn't. A question that's based on an assumption is as unstraightforward as it gets. The question is one that clearly comes with a bias. A bias is another word for a slant or an angle, not words one normally associates with the word "straightforward."

 

that's what the media would call a "gotcha question" because to answer it at all you have to play into its fundamental assumptions and then the media can call you on the fact that you've done so and find all kinds of ways to put words into your mouth. It's not quite as bad as "when did you stop beating your wife?" but it's in the same category.

 

you haven't got an answer to that question that satisfies you because no one's played into a question that they know is tilted, either deliberately or accidentally. And I'm sorry Kimmy, I have too much respect for your intelligence to assume it was done accidentally..

 

There is an actual name for that logical fallacy: It's called "loaded question". In law vernacular, when you use a question like that during a trial, you'll be immediately objected because you're making a question that guides the witness/defendant to a specific answer.

[Hitch]

Why? Does this make my arguments are invalid?

 

By definition if you will defend all players until blue in the face you will defend them by looking for more and more tenuous reasons to do so.

 

As equally loaded as your earlier question - would it be better to have Shaw playing 3rd base at the level he was last year and has been in ST, or, the Pablo at the level he was last year and has been in ST?

 

And fat jokes or not, the guy is fat and out of shape. The fact he needs to lose weight to get his range back is absurd. A professional athlete supposedly. To walk into camp overweight after that performance level last season was an absolute disgrace.

 

He deserves to be on the bench. A hungrier kid want it more.

[a700hitter]

By definition if you will defend all players until blue in the face you will defend them by looking for more and more tenuous reasons to do so.

 

As equally loaded as your earlier question - would it be better to have Shaw playing 3rd base at the level he was last year and has been in ST, or, the Pablo at the level he was last year and has been in ST?

 

And fat jokes or not, the guy is fat and out of shape. The fact he needs to lose weight to get his range back is absurd. A professional athlete supposedly. To walk into camp overweight after that performance level last season was an absolute disgrace.

 

He deserves to be on the bench. A hungrier kid want it more.

As the reasons and support become and more tenuous, the credibility decrease proportionately.