Dipre

Holy f***ing s*** WTF? You're kidding right? You're not kidding, WTH?

Want further proof? You know who OWN the Sox? Such pitching luminaires as Ted Lilly and Andy Sonnastine own the Sox. The aces, them.

Indeed. (Lame joke btw) Oh, and the big groundout kills yet another mole with one of his titanic swings.

Fixed that for you.

Cowardice. Had you not been interested in proving a point, you would not have engaged my "irrelevant arguments" Jesus Christ man, grow a pair!

Hey, i never said anything about "decline". I love how things get twisted when my words are right out there in black and white.I said he was not as good as a COF.Does that translate to "decline"

Boy, you keep looking for FAIL like it's your long-lost son. TheKilo called you out on Damon's value not being as high as a COF. I agreed to his statement, and that's where the argument started. We've been arguing about his value as a COF all along, but now that you've been proven wrong, you try to steer away the argument into: "Bu bu bu but i was talking about offensive decline" Not once during the argument have we talked about offensive decline, because i'd be an idiot to say he has declined, what i do state, and correctly so, is that he isn't that good as a COF as he'd be as a CF. And this, my Nobel-winning friend, is a fact.

But the problem is, no one talked about decline. I called him out because he was using Damon's balls as a substitute for Listerine, talking as if Damon is some kind of elite performer, don't get me wrong, he's pretty good, but my argument was that his value was not as high since he became a COF as it was when he was in center, he turned it around to imply that i had somehow implied that Damon's offensive production has declined, which i haven't, i merely stated what is the truth, that performance would be much more valuable in CF, because the Yanks are paying Damon a shitload of money to be an about-average LF.

The master of strawman. If you point out one time i have said Damon's stats have declined, you win a cookie. Listen, Einstein, we're talking about positional value, and since i have the vision to distinguish between the obvious difference of offensive performance when compared to other players in the same position, and offensive decline, which is a phrase i have not used in any of my posts, then my clients are in very good shape, however, your friends at the old people home must be beginning to lose patience with your inability to relate subjects within a conversation. And by the way, don't talk about being a dumb-ass if you fail to acknowledge the difference between position and decline, it's making you look like a colossal douche.

You know your tuesday sucked when Gom vs. Jacko has been the highlight of your day.

Forget it, ORS, a700 makes the strawman a way of life, arguing with him is useless. He knows very well the following things: A) Damon IS NOT LEADING OFF FOR THE Yankees, which is the basis for his whole argument. B ) Positional scarcity plays a huge factor in determining offensive production in comparison to a player's peers, because, if, say, Hanley Ramirez was moved to a COF, he's be an above average producer, maybe and All-Star reserve, and if moved, to, say, 1B, he doesn't even make the team. What he is carefully avoiding in his argument is that good offensive numbers in primarily defensive positions such as the central line (C, 2B, SS, CF), are much easier to acquire than in primarily offensive positions, or the corners, and also something else, i saw Jacko take into account Damon's 2009 numbers to back up a700's argument, LOLOLOLOLOL, it's May 19th, expect Damon to finish with a rather pedestrian OPS by positional standards which every person except a700 takes into account when trying to establish offensive value for a baseball players. "But, but, but, he has an outside chance at 3,000 hits". Yeah, that argument holds about as much water as a 6-year -old's bladder after drinking a liter of coke.

Yeah, this thread f***ing delivers............. Yet more Yankee ballwashing from Jacko.

Lol @ strawman. His offense had remained steady. What has changed, is the perception of the quality of his production based on positional standards. Henderson, Gwynn and Raines, like Ichiro, have such outstanding tools that they could've even been played at 1st base and might still have made the Hall. However, you do know they don't fit the mold of prototypical COFs, and, besides that, comparing them to the overabundance of awesome that is Johnny Damon really has no value, you'd be better off comparing him to the likes of Juan Pierre and Denard Span, and you'll understand what i mean.

So per your argument, since Damon is a good "No. 1 or 2 hitter", playing him at first would retain his offensive value?

It does, but on his current pace, he'll be OPSing on the high .6's before the month is over. I know i can't see the future, but the way he's looking at the plate lately, i don't see him improving on his current level of suck.

Johnny Damon does not hold above-average value at a COF spot. That is a fact, further discussion of the matter is useless.

Again, he can play 3rd, what i am stating is that he SUCKS at 3rd. Dear lord........

Not much higher, but he's drawing most of his OPS from his SLG, which has stopped in its tracks, and his .315 OBP is DREADFUL.

I couldn't find average catcher numbers for this moment in the season. But let me assure you this. The MLB average catcher is hitting better than Jason Varitek.