Pointing out how small sample sizes can change o a dime is not "giddiness."
Once again, you misread the room.
I'm glad we did not demote him, when you wanted to. Your claim that your idea was justified further highlights you inability to admit you were MAYBE wrong.
I say "maybe," because Devers could go 1 for 30 and one could claim you were right.
I'm not claiming I was right or you were wrong. I was just pointing out how small sample sizes should not be used to make major changes, and how just a few good games or one huge game can turn the numbers into or near respectability.
Read into this anything else you wish. I'm not giddy or saying you and others were wrong, but man, you are sure quick to point out when others are wrong. I guess that's why you assume that is what others are doing.