Kimmi

While on the topic of rule changes, I am also opposed to managers just pointing to 1B when they want to intentionally walk a batter rather than making the pitcher throw 4 balls. I was also against getting rid of the 'fake to 3rd, throw to 1st' thing. Leave the game alone! To heck with those people who don't have enough patience or enough of an attention span to enjoy a baseball game with all of its beauty and nuances.

LOL That is funny.

Unbeknownst to yourself, you just paid me one of the highest compliments that you could pay me. Honestly, I'm not a stat geek in the sense that the Fangraphs or Baseball Prospectus guys are. I wish I were as smart as them when it comes to stats. I am a hardcore stat geek in terms of buying into and supporting their work. Maybe I should be called a 'stat geek groupie'.

It's almost as if I wrote this post myself, right down to the Joe West reference.

Stat geeks unite!

Stats very rarely enter the picture when I'm watching a game. However, IMO, they are 100% necessary in order to get the best assessment of a player and in order to get the best understanding of the game. For me, they enhance the enjoyment of baseball.

Well I don't think it's a good idea either.

Here's the thing. What other argument or discussion is going on right now? It's not like this discussion is hijacking any other discussions. It's either discuss whatever topic is at least drawing some interest, even if it's been debated to death, or it's empty threads. Maybe you prefer empty threads, which is fine. I prefer having something to talk about. Start another topic, if you'd like. If it interests me, I'll participate. FTR, I approve of the Quentin signing, which I believe I already stated.

LOL Was that Softlaw? While I have no way of knowing for certain, I am very certain that a700 and Softlaw are not the same poster.

I have no problem with debating the existence of 'clutch'. I enjoy such topics. I don't think there's a whole lot else to discuss right now that hasn't already been discussed. Perhaps once spring training gets going. But on the note of other topics, I am very displeased that ERod is still considering pitching in the WBC. If he did not have an injury concern, I still wouldn't like it, but I'd be okay with it. The fact that he retweaked his knee this offseason really puts me off on the idea. I understand that he wants to represent his country in the WBC. However, the Red Sox have to be his top priority.

For years, people believed that the reason that they caught a cold or the flu was because they went out in bitter cold weather or they went out with wet hair, or something along those lines. My mom still believes that to be the case. Why did they believe that? Because they experienced it. They lived it. They know it happened. They went out in the cold and they got sick. There's a saying about correlation not implying causation that holds very true.

Three things about this type of statement: 1. Your idea that stat geeks have never experienced competition or championships is simply not true. 2. It's a copout. It's an easy way to discredit the work that is being done, and once again, it's not even true. 3. For someone who dislikes labels, you are painting a label on a large group of people with such statements.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.

Well said jad.

We really don't know what we can expect from Pablo. However, I am pleased to see that he is still looking quite slim, and I am pleased that he reported to camp early. He is at least doing the right things so far in trying to make amends for last season.

I am still going with team depth, in general. Once again, I'm not talking about our bench players or any replacements that we might need for a week or so. I'm talking about a long term replacement in the case of a long term injury. Is it more of a weakness than what other teams have? Perhaps not, in which case I don't think this team has any real weaknesses.

And several of us clutch non-believers have acknowledged that there is no proof that it doesn't exist.

One of my favorite shows. Personally, I love 'geeks'. I think they're awesome. I love the math geek from the comic strip Foxtrot. Intelligence is a very sexy quality. Fangraphs and similar sites are baseball porn to me. And +100 for your recent posts in this thread.

First off, as far as I know, I haven't 'pinned' the traditionalist label on any poster here. Yes, I talk about baseball traditionalists, but not about any poster in particular. At any rate, IMO, it's in no way a derogatory term, and it is not an all or nothing term. My father is a baseball traditionalist. I respect him more than any other man, and I have no desire to call him something derogatory. I, myself, am a traditionalist in many ways, even in certain aspects of baseball, and I am proud of it. As a self-proclaimed stat geek, I have been labeled as someone who has never played on winning teams and therefore have to rely on statistics to answer everything. I have been labeled by you as being smug and, ironically, as someone who likes to give derogatory labels to everyone that I disagree with. Unfortunately, there comes a point in many of your debates, where you stop debating the issue and you resort to trying to discredit the other poster with insults. You have labeled me as a homer, then turned around and labeled me as a negative whiner. I made the mistake of engaging you with this nonsense. I won't make it again. If you're not up to the challenge of discussing or debating baseball with me, then you're not worth my time. Stick to baseball.

Except that is pretty much the opposite of what you said before.

Not in a derogatory fashion. And not anymore so than anyone else here does. I refer to people as traditionalists. Others refer to people as stat geeks. There's no difference.

I know that you likely won't believe this, but stat geeks are probably far more objective and less likely to be swayed by bias than you give them credit for. They aren't trying to prove themselves right. They may have an opinion on something going in, but they are not going to 'sway' the numbers to prove themselves right.

Then again, you don't think 'fat slob' is derogatory. You insult people in any way you want, then somehow 'rationalize' it as being okay.

False statement.

But that is not the case.