Fire alex cora

[notin]

Not really but whatever the eye of the beholder sees I guess is ok.

 

 

The Eye of the Beholder read your comment about the Sox needing to consult “with those on here who really know what we should be doing.”

 

Sorry for failing to genuflect at the Altar of Dombrowski in your presence. I’ll be sure to make sure my future opinions are pre-approved by you.

 

See how it’s done? If you’re going to be an *******, do it right and do it unabashedly. Don’t go all passive-aggressive and then deny doing it.

[cp176]

The Eye of the Beholder read your comment about the Sox needing to consult “with those on here who really know what we should be doing.”

 

Sorry for failing to genuflect at the Altar of Dombrowski in your presence. I’ll be sure to make sure my future opinions are pre-approved by you.

 

See how it’s done? If you’re going to be an *******, do it right and do it unabashedly. Don’t go all passive-aggressive and then deny doing it.

 

You don't have to educate me as to how it's done. Trust me on that one. Does that sound condescending . I do try to play nicely but I'm finding it to be a bit of a tough go. Know what I mean? Without telling anyone how I really feel, I think there are other ways to state the obvious. Now if it is a face to face thing that is a little different. I'm a pretty easy read.

[cp176]

You don't have to educate me as to how it's done. Trust me on that one. Does that sound condescending . I do try to play nicely but I'm finding it to be a bit of a tough go. Know what I mean? Without telling anyone how I really feel, I think there are other ways to state the obvious. Now if it is a face to face thing that is a little different. I'm a pretty easy read.

 

By the way, i don't consider what i said to even resemble passive aggressive. I was pretty clear I think. there are people who post here who I think certainly pretend to know more about all things Red Sox than the people actually running the show.

[notin]

By the way, i don't consider what i said to even resemble passive aggressive. I was pretty clear I think. there are people who post here who I think certainly pretend to know more about all things Red Sox than the people actually running the show.

 

I doubt any do, but that doesn’t mean they have to agree with the Sox FO. By the way, do you only feel that way about Dombrowski Critics? I’ve never seen you so critical of anyone who disparages Cherington.

 

And really, the only people who didn’t think Dombrowski was going to dismantle the farm were those in denial. The man has an obvious history, so obvious his tactics were discussed in every story about his hiring. It happened. There are repercussions that the Sox have to go through right now...

[moonslav59]

Interesting - i don't consider myself passive aggressive and I don't think I am condescending nor all knowing. What do you call yourself?

 

I know I can be condescending, at times, and come off as a know-it-all more than I mean to be. I guess that's the difference between you and me.

 

If you don't think what you said is condescending and passive aggressive, then you don't know the meanings of those words. Look in Webster's. They give an example of passive aggressive. Here it is:

 

You and the experts are right of course and any other argument doesn't matter.

[moonslav59]

I keep rereading this. it doesn't really sound like something you would post. Doesn't seem very nice.

 

It was nicer than what you wrote, and true, too, unlike your post.

[moonslav59]

By the way, i don't consider what i said to even resemble passive aggressive. I was pretty clear I think. there are people who post here who I think certainly pretend to know more about all things Red Sox than the people actually running the show.

 

We have opinions that differ from you and team management. Not everyone takes what we say as us "pretending to know more..."

 

I guess when you disagree with a team decision, it's not pretending to know more, right? It's just an opinion.

 

Look, I know I come across too strongly many times. I have opinions and I voice them. I don't always preface them with "IMO..." but I assume people just take it that way. I don't see things in black and white. I know you find it hard to believe I can be really thankful for DD but still have serious issues with what he did, but I do.

 

I'm tired of hearing about how stat geeks always act like they know it all or what they say is the final statement to end all discussion. To me, you and those who bash stat geeks come across as more "know-it-alls" than we do.

 

Plus, some of us stat geeks actually played the game, too. You aren't the only one.

 

[Kimmi]

No fair voting 3 day old posts as Post of the Day.

 

If people can vote for their own post as Post of the Day, I can certainly vote for a 3 day old post.

[Bellhorn04]

If people can vote for their own post as Post of the Day, I can certainly vote for a 3 day old post.

 

I am also opposed to voting for one's own post.

[Kimmi]

True, but OTOH he had a quarter billion to spend on Pablo, Hanley and Rusney.

 

Thanks Larry!

[cp176]

I know I can be condescending, at times, and come off as a know-it-all more than I mean to be. I guess that's the difference between you and me.

 

If you don't think what you said is condescending and passive aggressive, then you don't know the meanings of those words. Look in Webster's. They give an example of passive aggressive. Here it is:

 

You and the experts are right of course and any other argument doesn't matter.

 

I'm not really ready to buy the passive aggressive crap but thanks for the free psycho analysis. I freely admit that I have issues but somehow I have been able to deal with them.

[Kimmi]

I am also opposed to voting for one's own post.

 

And rightly so!

 

To be honest, I wasn't even aware that I was voting for a 3 day old post. LOL

[cp176]

I doubt any do, but that doesn’t mean they have to agree with the Sox FO. By the way, do you only feel that way about Dombrowski Critics? I’ve never seen you so critical of anyone who disparages Cherington.

 

And really, the only people who didn’t think Dombrowski was going to dismantle the farm were those in denial. The man has an obvious history, so obvious his tactics were discussed in every story about his hiring. It happened. There are repercussions that the Sox have to go through right now...

 

 

That is a good observation. Are you hinting that I did not like Cherington? I don't think that I disliked him. i was actually in favor of most of his moves - even the questionable ones. Do I think that he was as good at his job as Dombrowski? No I don't. I probably support Dd the way i do simply because I am opposed to the piling on. It's the pack mentality I tend not to like.

[cp176]

We have opinions that differ from you and team management. Not everyone takes what we say as us "pretending to know more..."

 

I guess when you disagree with a team decision, it's not pretending to know more, right? It's just an opinion.

 

Look, I know I come across too strongly many times. I have opinions and I voice them. I don't always preface them with "IMO..." but I assume people just take it that way. I don't see things in black and white. I know you find it hard to believe I can be really thankful for DD but still have serious issues with what he did, but I do.

 

I'm tired of hearing about how stat geeks always act like they know it all or what they say is the final statement to end all discussion. To me, you and those who bash stat geeks come across as more "know-it-alls" than we do.

 

Plus, some of us stat geeks actually played the game, too. You aren't the only one.

 

 

The only stat geeks that i bash on here are the ones who tend to think that they never can be wrong. Some of whom do not communicate with me and I'm ok with that. i actually appreciate the posters here who I think do in fact realize that there is more to the game than what the stats tell us. You are painting a rather nasty picture of me. I don't like it much and I think that you are wrong but i can live with it.

[cp176]

It was nicer than what you wrote, and true, too, unlike your post.

 

 

Obviously i don't agree with you.

[Slasher9]

The only stat geeks that i bash on here are the ones who tend to think that they never can be wrong. Some of whom do not communicate with me and I'm ok with that. i actually appreciate the posters here who I think do in fact realize that there is more to the game than what the stats tell us. You are painting a rather nasty picture of me. I don't like it much and I think that you are wrong but i can live with it.

I still find myself saying “basehit” every time there is a ball hit on the screws up the middle. More often then not it is an out now. Stupid shifts. I’m not sure if I will ever get used to them....

[moonslav59]

The only stat geeks that i bash on here are the ones who tend to think that they never can be wrong. Some of whom do not communicate with me and I'm ok with that. i actually appreciate the posters here who I think do in fact realize that there is more to the game than what the stats tell us. You are painting a rather nasty picture of me. I don't like it much and I think that you are wrong but i can live with it.

 

You say you've gone back and re-read my post. How about going back and re-reading your post?

 

I think that you moved the goal posts just a bit as you often seem to do. I should know better than to argue with someone who is right. Now don't indulge me by telling me about all of the mistakes you have made. Also do not waste your time by telling me that nothing personal is intended in what you say. you and the experts are right of course and any other argument doesn't matter.

 

I'm fine with the goalpost moving comment, although I view it as just adding to or expanding my original post and not goal post moving, but everything else was a clear put-down. It is classic passive aggression and condescension.

 

You say you appreciate posters who realize there is more to the game than stats, and I assume you meant me, but then you "paint a rather nasty picture of me" and the part about "any other argument doesn't matter" is way off base. I'm always open to any debate. On the DD issue, I have often defended him and taken issue with Kimmi and some posters' use of certain words like "destroyed" and "decimated." I feel like I'm in the middle ground on DD, and you paint me out to be a some kind of closed-minded radical anti-DD-ite.

 

Okay, maybe I've been more critical than defending of DD, but it's the nature of sites like this. People tend to talk more about what they disagree with or take issue with than things they agree with.

 

 

 

 

[cp176]

I still find myself saying “basehit” every time there is a ball hit on the screws up the middle. More often then not it is an out now. Stupid shifts. I’m not sure if I will ever get used to them....

 

I know. They frustrate me as well but i'm pretty sure that if i was still coaching, i'd be using them.

[cp176]

You say you've gone back and re-read my post. How about going back and re-reading your post?

 

I think that you moved the goal posts just a bit as you often seem to do. I should know better than to argue with someone who is right. Now don't indulge me by telling me about all of the mistakes you have made. Also do not waste your time by telling me that nothing personal is intended in what you say. you and the experts are right of course and any other argument doesn't matter.

 

I'm fine with the goalpost moving comment, although I view it as just adding to or expanding my original post and not goal post moving, but everything else was a clear put-down. It is classic passive aggression and condescension.

 

You say you appreciate posters who realize there is more to the game than stats, and I assume you meant me, but then you "paint a rather nasty picture of me" and the part about "any other argument doesn't matter" is way off base. I'm always open to any debate. On the DD issue, I have often defended him and taken issue with Kimmi and some posters' use of certain words like "destroyed" and "decimated." I feel like I'm in the middle ground on DD, and you paint me out to be a some kind of closed-minded radical anti-DD-ite.

 

Okay, maybe I've been more critical than defending of DD, but it's the nature of sites like this. People tend to talk more about what they disagree with or take issue with than things they agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

it's all good Moon. it is becoming a bit too personal for me. Overly sensitive yes - passive aggressive nope. If someone wants to call me an ass hole, I'm ok with that. I was a teacher and a coach. I have been called lots of things. Passive aggressive is somewhat new but perhaps I am. If i felt that I was though, once again I would admit it.

[cp176]

I still find myself saying “basehit” every time there is a ball hit on the screws up the middle. More often then not it is an out now. Stupid shifts. I’m not sure if I will ever get used to them....

 

 

i'm glad you post here. you make me chuckle even when i don't agree with you. I need to lighten up.

[Slasher9]

I know. They frustrate me as well but i'm pretty sure that if i was still coaching, i'd be using them.

 

i started using shifts 2 years ago with my 12U team. i chuckle everytime it works.

[Slasher9]

i'm glad you post here. you make me chuckle even when i don't agree with you. I need to lighten up.

 

haha. i just used "chuckle" too. if we all agreed it would be boring as hell in here. keep your opinions coming......

[S5Dewey]

 

I'm tired of hearing about how stat geeks always act like they know it all or what they say is the final statement to end all discussion. To me, you and those who bash stat geeks come across as more "know-it-alls" than we do.

 

Hmmm... I was going to stay out of this pissing contest until this ^^ hit too close to home for my liking.

 

Speaking only for myself and as someone who's been bashing 'stat geeks' for some time I find that to be a poor representation of 'our' attitude. I'd venture to say that most of 'us' believe that there's a lot that goes on in the dugout and on the field that can't be quantified - and this is the important part now - those unquantifiable things are at least as much a part of the game as the stats are. However, when we have the temerity to step up and say so we're met with a barrage of statistics designed to somehow "educate' us.

 

Here's what the stat geeks don't seem to get: We question the statistics as to their value in anything other than historical value and predicting a player's career performance. They have little to nothing to do with a player's next AB or pitch. Therefore using your statistics to prove that your statistics are right doesn't cut a lot of ice with us. We see baseball in a more global way with the impact of statistics and things like momentum, clutch and choke, and all those other things that are dependent on a player's mental state at the moment being more or less equal.

 

Cue up more statistics now to further "educate" us...

Edited October 17, 2019 by S5Dewey

[moonslav59]

 

I'm tired of hearing about how stat geeks always act like they know it all or what they say is the final statement to end all discussion. To me, you and those who bash stat geeks come across as more "know-it-alls" than we do.

 

Hmmm... I was going to stay out of this pissing contest until this ^^ hit too close to home for my liking.

 

Speaking only for myself and as someone who's been bashing 'stat geeks' for some time I find that to be a poor representation of 'our' attitude. I'd venture to say that most of 'us' believe that there's a lot that goes on in the dugout and on the field that can't be quantified - and this is the important part now - those unquantifiable things are at least as much a part of the game as the stats are. However, when we have the temerity to step up and say so we're met with a barrage of statistics designed to somehow "educate' us.

 

Here's what the stat geeks don't seem to get: We question the statistics as to their value in anything other than historical value and predicting a player's career performance. They have little to nothing to do with a player's next AB or pitch. Therefore using your statistics to prove that your statistics are right doesn't cut a lot of ice with us. We see baseball in a more global way with the impact of statistics and things like momentum, clutch and choke, and all those other things that are dependent on a player's mental state at the moment being more or less equal.

 

Cue up more statistics now to further "educate" us...

 

Stat geeks use data to support their claims. Non stat geeks use anecdotal evidence or personal observations to support their claims.

 

Both side believe they are right and have evidence to support their positions. Both sides come across as righteous and maybe some as know-it-alls. Both sides are trying to "educate" the other side, and it "hits home" when someone criticizes whatever side you are on.

 

Here's an example: someone claims, "JBJ is in an awful slump." I reply, "he has an .830 OPS over the last week and is at .800 over the last month." Yes, in my mind, I'm thinking, "That's an end to this debate," and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that way. Maybe the guy has 10 cheap hits and has K'd 40% of the time. I can see how someone would think I'm being a smug stat geek, but I don't see it that way. We can flip the script to the other side and find an equal examples of smugness from those who disavow stats or don't use them as much. They've "played the game" or "coached the game." Some appear to assume every stat geek never played the game or understand any nuances of the game or what goes on in a player's head or in the dugout of clubhouse. Maybe, the assumption is all stat geeks were nerds who never played sports. Who knows.

 

It bugs me. It bugs you. I'm not sure either of us mean to bug the others, but it clearly happens. (Okay, some hear seem to intentionally bug others.)

 

I don't think either side is worse than the others, and I recognize both sides doing the same thing, and I'm guilty myself, at times.

 

[notin]

The only stat geeks that i bash on here are the ones who tend to think that they never can be wrong. Some of whom do not communicate with me and I'm ok with that. i actually appreciate the posters here who I think do in fact realize that there is more to the game than what the stats tell us. You are painting a rather nasty picture of me. I don't like it much and I think that you are wrong but i can live with it.

 

Stat geeks never say that can never be wrong.

 

Just because someone counters an observation with statistical evidence is only an discussion ender if you stop discussing the point.

 

I get labeled as one of those know-it-all stat geeks despite that I actually rarely quote statistics.

[Bellhorn04]

I get labeled as one of those know-it-all stat geeks despite that I actually rarely quote statistics.

 

That's because you've got the know-it-all part nailed.

[notin]

That's because you've got the know-it-all part nailed.

 

It's really a curse,

 

And oddly, I usually get called that for asking questions, not pointing anything out or presenting actual counter-information...

[Bellhorn04]

It's really a curse,

 

And oddly, I usually get called that for asking questions, not pointing anything out or presenting actual counter-information...

 

It's not odd, I've seen your questions.

[cp176]

Stat geeks never say that can never be wrong.

 

Just because someone counters an observation with statistical evidence is only an discussion ender if you stop discussing the point.

 

I get labeled as one of those know-it-all stat geeks despite that I actually rarely quote statistics.

 

You must know that I have the utmost respect for all stat geeks whatever that might mean. What do you think the % of people who actually use analytics in a useful way can be called stat geeks? what is a stat geek by the way?

[moonslav59]

You must know that I have the utmost respect for all stat geeks whatever that might mean. What do you think the % of people who actually use analytics in a useful way can be called stat geeks? what is a stat geek by the way?

 

54.574%