Post by: Zan on April 10, 2006, 01:30:02 am
With that exception noted, I believe that we have been way too aggressive on the basepath this season. I can't remember exactly how many times we've blown hit-and-runs and stolen base attempts, but I feel like we're succeeding at a sub-50% clip.
I can't argue with Garner's magic touch with the lineup, but sometimes I think we manufacture outs way too often. But what do I know?
Has anyone else gotten this same impression?
Post by: tophfar on April 10, 2006, 02:03:20 am
Quote:
Today I saw Ausmus get a hit that would have been a DP if it weren't for the SS moving to cover the bag.
With that exception noted, I believe that we have been way too aggressive on the basepath this season. I can't remember exactly how many times we've blown hit-and-runs and stolen base attempts, but I feel like we're succeeding at a sub-50% clip.
I can't argue with Garner's magic touch with the lineup, but sometimes I think we manufacture outs way too often. But what do I know?
Has anyone else gotten this same impression?
well, considering the season is 6 games old, you have one "exception" and can't remember much of any of these other "blown" opportunities, and that we've averaged 7 runs a game over these same six games, and are 4 - 2, and would be 5 - 1 but for one bullpen meltdown, and won't say 6 - 0 barring the pettite blow up, i would say....
no. no i haven't gotten that impression so far yet.
Post by: Waldo on April 10, 2006, 02:42:36 am
Post by: Twoniner on April 10, 2006, 05:42:12 am
Post by: CrawfordBoxes on April 10, 2006, 09:45:06 am
Post by: JimR on April 10, 2006, 10:43:40 am
Post by: MusicMan on April 10, 2006, 11:12:37 am
Quote:
Wilson is 0/2 on stolen base attempts so far this season. But I think it's way too early to sound the alarm.
Esp. considering that the throw to get him on one of those was practically a lightning bolt from the hand of Zeus.
Post by: Andyzipp on April 10, 2006, 11:19:21 am
It how his teams play, whether they're hitting well or not, but ESPECIALLY when they're not hitting well.
The team has above average speed in the 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 spots. They're going to be aggressive with that as part of their team makeup.
Post by: NeilT on April 10, 2006, 11:25:02 am
Post by: EasTexAstro on April 10, 2006, 11:28:32 am
Quote:
I'm counting on my fingers. Ausmus is above-average?
Average his speed with HQ, Chavez, and Munson....
Brad is above average.
I think Budgirl can attest to his speed.
Post by: Andyzipp on April 10, 2006, 11:40:37 am
So you don't hurt yourself, Neil, I'm talking about Biggio, Taveras, Wilson, Ausmus and Everett.
Post by: pravata on April 10, 2006, 11:48:49 am
Quote:
I would say, personal feelings aside, if you don't like this style of baseball, you'd do well not to watch any games that Phil Garner is the manager of.
It how his teams play, whether they're hitting well or not, but ESPECIALLY when they're not hitting well.
The team has above average speed in the 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 spots. They're going to be aggressive with that as part of their team makeup.
The non agressive style makes me wince. In the blowout vs the Marlins, in the 9th, Berkman was on 2nd and Ensberg sharply singles to right. Berkman goes towards 3rd, stutter steps, looks back and hesitates. He only makes it to 3rd. Clearly the ball was dropping. Yet he only makes it to third. The game was out of hand at the time but it made me cringe.
Post by: HudsonHawk on April 10, 2006, 12:23:15 pm
Quote:
Today I saw Ausmus get a hit that would have been a DP if it weren't for the SS moving to cover the bag.
With that exception noted, I believe that we have been way too aggressive on the basepath this season. I can't remember exactly how many times we've blown hit-and-runs and stolen base attempts, but I feel like we're succeeding at a sub-50% clip.
I can't argue with Garner's magic touch with the lineup, but sometimes I think we manufacture outs way too often. But what do I know?
Has anyone else gotten this same impression?
It's been six games and four stolen base attempts. If you've gotten any impression at all, I'd say you're not seeing much of the big picture. Secondly, have you watched the Astros the last few games? This is like complaining about a football team "I know we're scoring 40 points a game, but we've had too many incomplete passes."
Post by: Limey on April 10, 2006, 12:27:41 pm
Quote:
It's been six games and four stolen base attempts. If you've gotten any impression at all, I'd say you're not seeing much of the big picture. Secondly, have you watched the Astros the last few games? This is like complaining about a football team "I know we're scoring 40 points a game, but we've had too many incomplete passes."
On BBT this weekend, one of the anal-ists was citing the Rangers' lack of dingers as a problem. They'd only hit 6 (in 5 games, or something) when they'd hit 270 last season.
It's just sad, really.
Post by: HudsonHawk on April 10, 2006, 12:45:40 pm
Quote:
On BBT this weekend, one of the anal-ists was citing the Rangers' lack of dingers as a problem. They'd only hit 6 (in 5 games, or something) when they'd hit 270 last season.
It's just sad, really.
Yeah, but they hit 135 of those dingers in one game against the Astros.
Post by: MusicMan on April 10, 2006, 12:50:54 pm
Quote:Quote:
I would say, personal feelings aside, if you don't like this style of baseball, you'd do well not to watch any games that Phil Garner is the manager of.
It how his teams play, whether they're hitting well or not, but ESPECIALLY when they're not hitting well.
The team has above average speed in the 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 spots. They're going to be aggressive with that as part of their team makeup.
The non agressive style makes me wince. In the blowout vs the Marlins, in the 9th, Berkman was on 2nd and Ensberg sharply singles to right. Berkman goes towards 3rd, stutter steps, looks back and hesitates. He only makes it to 3rd. Clearly the ball was dropping. Yet he only makes it to third. The game was out of hand at the time but it made me cringe.
Bagwell to Berkman pretty much covers the baserunning spectrum.
Post by: NeilT on April 10, 2006, 12:54:56 pm
Quote:
For a catcher, I'd say yup. Not as fast as he was in 1998, but who is?
So you don't hurt yourself, Neil, I'm talking about Biggio, Taveras, Wilson, Ausmus and Everett.
Thanks. I'm just glad there aren't 11 people on a baseball team. There aren't, are there?
Post by: Zan on April 10, 2006, 11:13:14 pm
Quote:
Wilson is 0/2 on stolen base attempts so far this season. But I think it's way too early to sound the alarm.
Good point. I didn't intend to sound an alarm on Wilson. I just, in general, sometimes feel like Garner's one downside is overaggressive baserunning. But I'm a big fan of him, and I consider that a minor downsider, if one at all. I could be mistaken.
I was just surprised the other day when (if I remember correctly) we hit and run with Ensberg on 1b and Wilson at bat. That struck me as a questionable hit and run combo, but what do I know?
And good point on the small sample size and good record. I wasn't whining about our offense. Just trying to gauge y'all's thoughts on whether Garner pushes too hard to manufacture runs.
Post by: Zan on April 10, 2006, 11:20:35 pm
Quote:
BS
Huh?
It strikes me as ironic that you would ever allude to someone else as a pompous know-it-all. I asked a question, stated an impression (which I didn't assert as fact), and sought feedback. You offered a know-it-all one-liner that dismissed the question entirely.
Why is everything to you an argument that requires polarizing rhetoric?
Post by: Zan on April 10, 2006, 11:24:02 pm
Quote:Quote:
Today I saw Ausmus get a hit that would have been a DP if it weren't for the SS moving to cover the bag.
With that exception noted, I believe that we have been way too aggressive on the basepath this season. I can't remember exactly how many times we've blown hit-and-runs and stolen base attempts, but I feel like we're succeeding at a sub-50% clip.
I can't argue with Garner's magic touch with the lineup, but sometimes I think we manufacture outs way too often. But what do I know?
Has anyone else gotten this same impression?
It's been six games and four stolen base attempts. If you've gotten any impression at all, I'd say you're not seeing much of the big picture. Secondly, have you watched the Astros the last few games? This is like complaining about a football team "I know we're scoring 40 points a game, but we've had too many incomplete passes."
I agree with that. I had the impression before the season, and I was reminded of it the first week.
As for the football analogy, I concede the point.
Just trying to get y'all's take. I appreciate all responses (except for Jim R's, because I consider him ridiculously predictable).
Post by: EasTexAstro on April 10, 2006, 11:41:17 pm
Quote:Quote:
Wilson is 0/2 on stolen base attempts so far this season. But I think it's way too early to sound the alarm.
Good point. I didn't intend to sound an alarm on Wilson. I just, in general, sometimes feel like Garner's one downside is overaggressive baserunning. But I'm a big fan of him, and I consider that a minor downsider, if one at all. I could be mistaken.
I was just surprised the other day when (if I remember correctly) we hit and run with Ensberg on 1b and Wilson at bat. That struck me as a questionable hit and run combo, but what do I know?
And good point on the small sample size and good record. I wasn't whining about our offense. Just trying to gauge y'all's thoughts on whether Garner pushes too hard to manufacture runs.
Since Garner has taken over, the team has been agressive. I'm not trying to be an ass, but if you like Ganrer, you like agressive. Just like the exception listed above, if you are agressive, it creates situations. Now, sometimes it may seem to hurt, but sometimes it opens the holes in the defense when the timing is correct.
I personally like agressive offense. The players have to buy into the theory to make it work, and I think they have.
Post by: Zan on April 10, 2006, 11:48:37 pm
Quote:
Since Garner has taken over, the team has been agressive. I'm not trying to be an ass, but if you like Ganrer, you like agressive. Just like the exception listed above, if you are agressive, it creates situations. Now, sometimes it may seem to hurt, but sometimes it opens the holes in the defense when the timing is correct.
I personally like agressive offense. The players have to buy into the theory to make it work, and I think they have.
Good point.
Post by: CJM on April 11, 2006, 12:08:26 am
Quote:Quote:
Wilson is 0/2 on stolen base attempts so far this season. But I think it's way too early to sound the alarm.
Good point. I didn't intend to sound an alarm on Wilson. I just, in general, sometimes feel like Garner's one downside is overaggressive baserunning. But I'm a big fan of him, and I consider that a minor downsider, if one at all. I could be mistaken.
I was just surprised the other day when (if I remember correctly) we hit and run with Ensberg on 1b and Wilson at bat. That struck me as a questionable hit and run combo, but what do I know?
And good point on the small sample size and good record. I wasn't whining about our offense. Just trying to gauge y'all's thoughts on whether Garner pushes too hard to manufacture runs.
That wasn't a hit and run. It was a 3-2 count and Ensberg may have went on his own expecting either contact or a walk (maybe in a effort to keep out of a double play?). At this level there are players that (can)run without needing a sign given to them.
Quote:
It strikes me as ironic that you would ever allude to someone else as a pompous know-it-all. I asked a question, stated an impression (which I didn't assert as fact), and sought feedback. You offered a know-it-all one-liner that dismissed the question entirely.
You may get better feedback in the future if you take a couple of extra minutes to look the actual information up before posting. The only specific play mentioned in your first post was evidence against your argument (the successful Ausmus hit and run). You may not have ment it to, but I felt your post came off as whining a little. This is not a good place to whine.
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 12:11:26 am
Post by: BizidyDizidy on April 11, 2006, 12:26:07 am
Quote:
I hate to say this, but I was out of line calling Jim R out. I apologize. That was stupid. While I'm much more a fan of Arky and while for some reason Jim R and Craig the Bastard's posts always seem to rub me the wrong way, it's stupid of an outsider to complain about the way insiders posts. I recant my Jim R dis. I was out of line to come in and question an insider.
Gayest. Post. Ever.
Post by: EasTexAstro on April 11, 2006, 12:29:50 am
Quote:Quote:
I hate to say this, but I was out of line calling Jim R out. I apologize. That was stupid. While I'm much more a fan of Arky and while for some reason Jim R and Craig the Bastard's posts always seem to rub me the wrong way, it's stupid of an outsider to complain about the way insiders posts. I recant my Jim R dis. I was out of line to come in and question an insider.
Gayest. Post. Ever.
Have you not read Barzilla?
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 12:32:39 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Wilson is 0/2 on stolen base attempts so far this season. But I think it's way too early to sound the alarm.
Good point. I didn't intend to sound an alarm on Wilson. I just, in general, sometimes feel like Garner's one downside is overaggressive baserunning. But I'm a big fan of him, and I consider that a minor downsider, if one at all. I could be mistaken.
I was just surprised the other day when (if I remember correctly) we hit and run with Ensberg on 1b and Wilson at bat. That struck me as a questionable hit and run combo, but what do I know?
And good point on the small sample size and good record. I wasn't whining about our offense. Just trying to gauge y'all's thoughts on whether Garner pushes too hard to manufacture runs.
That wasn't a hit and run. It was a 3-2 count and Ensberg may have went on his own expecting either contact or a walk (maybe in a effort to keep out of a double play?). At this level there are players that (can)run without needing a sign given to them.Quote:
It strikes me as ironic that you would ever allude to someone else as a pompous know-it-all. I asked a question, stated an impression (which I didn't assert as fact), and sought feedback. You offered a know-it-all one-liner that dismissed the question entirely.
You may get better feedback in the future if you take a couple of extra minutes to look the actual information up before posting. The only specific play mentioned in your first post was evidence against your argument (the successful Ausmus hit and run). You may not have ment it to, but I felt your post came off as whining a little. This is not a good place to whine.
Thanks for the heads up. I ASSURE you that I wasn't intending to whine.
I know less baseball than everyone here, but if the Ensberg-Wilson DP was the result of Ensberg having a green light at his own will, I'd also consider that dubious.
I have watched every game, and I am willing to get specific, but I think I'm better advised to drop the issue. I don't want to come across as whining. I love Garner, and I this is my sole beef - that sometimes I feel we take aggressive baserunning overboard. But I readily admit that I don't know what I'm talking about. Like I said, it's an impression.
In my defense, I do want to point out that if you read my original post, I really wasn't asserting anything strongly. It was more of an impression and a question. I was inviting correction, and I think that usually is mutually exclusive with whining.
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 12:35:00 am
Quote:
Gayest. Post. Ever.
Huh? Are you a homophobe?
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 12:38:24 am
Quote:
The only specific play mentioned in your first post was evidence against your argument (the successful Ausmus hit and run).
I wasn't making an argument. I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was asking a question, and I appreciate those who gave compelling responses.
Post by: BizidyDizidy on April 11, 2006, 12:38:25 am
Quote:Quote:
Gayest. Post. Ever.
Huh? Are you a homophobe?
Who said I was using gay as a derogatory?
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 12:42:10 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Gayest. Post. Ever.
Huh? Are you a homophobe?
Who said I was using gay as a derogatory?
That's being obtuse. You can say what you want, but the intended connotation of the word "gay" in your post was obviously not positive or neutral.
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 12:42:21 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Wilson is 0/2 on stolen base attempts so far this season. But I think it's way too early to sound the alarm.
Good point. I didn't intend to sound an alarm on Wilson. I just, in general, sometimes feel like Garner's one downside is overaggressive baserunning. But I'm a big fan of him, and I consider that a minor downsider, if one at all. I could be mistaken.
I was just surprised the other day when (if I remember correctly) we hit and run with Ensberg on 1b and Wilson at bat. That struck me as a questionable hit and run combo, but what do I know?
And good point on the small sample size and good record. I wasn't whining about our offense. Just trying to gauge y'all's thoughts on whether Garner pushes too hard to manufacture runs.
That wasn't a hit and run. It was a 3-2 count and Ensberg may have went on his own expecting either contact or a walk (maybe in a effort to keep out of a double play?). At this level there are players that (can)run without needing a sign given to them.Quote:
It strikes me as ironic that you would ever allude to someone else as a pompous know-it-all. I asked a question, stated an impression (which I didn't assert as fact), and sought feedback. You offered a know-it-all one-liner that dismissed the question entirely.
You may get better feedback in the future if you take a couple of extra minutes to look the actual information up before posting. The only specific play mentioned in your first post was evidence against your argument (the successful Ausmus hit and run). You may not have ment it to, but I felt your post came off as whining a little. This is not a good place to whine.
Thanks for the heads up. I ASSURE you that I wasn't intending to whine.
I know less baseball than everyone here, but if the Ensberg-Wilson DP was the result of Ensberg having a green light at his own will, I'd also consider that dubious.
I have watched every game, and I am willing to get specific, but I think I'm better advised to drop the issue. I don't want to come across as whining. I love Garner, and I this is my sole beef - that sometimes I feel we take aggressive baserunning overboard. But I readily admit that I don't know what I'm talking about. Like I said, it's an impression.
In my defense, I do want to point out that if you read my original post, I really wasn't asserting anything strongly. It was more of an impression and a question. I was inviting correction, and I think that usually is mutually exclusive with whining.
So why, do you think, (and please keep the qualifiers and obsequities to less than 75% of your post) the Astros would put on a hit and run with Ensberg? Failing that one, could we have a discussion of the meaning of the word "Backfiring?"?
Post by: BizidyDizidy on April 11, 2006, 12:42:56 am
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 12:53:36 am
Quote:
So why, do you think, (and please keep the qualifiers and obsequities to less than 75% of your post) the Astros would put on a hit and run with Ensberg? Failing that one, could we have a discussion of the meaning of the word "Backfiring?"?
1) I don't know. Maybe it wasn't a hit-and-run. Please tell me.
2) Am I misusing the word "backfiring"?
Thanks.
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 12:55:17 am
Quote:
You wrote a paragraph about how Jim is some kind of "insider" and you were wrong to question him. Sounded like you were ready to jump his bones to me.
The dude's written almost 8,000 posts. I considered it obvious what I meant by "insider."
Post by: BizidyDizidy on April 11, 2006, 12:56:37 am
What's offensive is that what you thought was wrong with your lameass post was that you questioned an "insider". How about that it was stupid crap?
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 01:02:05 am
Quote:Quote:
So why, do you think, (and please keep the qualifiers and obsequities to less than 75% of your post) the Astros would put on a hit and run with Ensberg? Failing that one, could we have a discussion of the meaning of the word "Backfiring?"?
1) I don't know. Maybe it wasn't a hit-and-run. Please tell me.
2) Am I misusing the word "backfiring"?
Thanks.
1) Figure it out. Or not, stick with what you know.
2) Turns out you're misusing the word "wasn't"
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 01:14:58 am
Quote:
Windbag?
What's offensive is that what you thought was wrong with your lameass post was that you questioned an "insider". How about that it was stupid crap?
You win. I'm a gay lameass who writes stupid crap.
I have no problem disagreeing with an insider. I regretted calling his post style out, because it's not really any of my business if a dude on a random website is pompous.
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 01:16:52 am
Quote:
2) Turns out you're misusing the word "wasn't"
Ha! I must admit, that was pretty funny.
Post by: mihoba on April 11, 2006, 07:54:52 am
Quote:
I have no problem disagreeing with an insider. I regretted calling his post style out, because it's not really any of my business if a dude on a random website is pompous.
baserunning
Post by: Col. Sphinx Drummond on April 11, 2006, 09:10:52 am
Quote:
...could we have a discussion of the meaning of the word "Backfiring?"?
What that happens with an internal-combustion engine when prematurely ignited fuel, or unburned exhaust gases, explode. Immediately followed by a booming noise.
Post by: lc_db on April 11, 2006, 09:30:43 am
Quote:Quote:
The only specific play mentioned in your first post was evidence against your argument (the successful Ausmus hit and run).
I wasn't making an argument. I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was asking a question, and I appreciate those who gave compelling responses.
Have you not figured out that "arguing" is a way of life here? Perhaps it should be listed in the Glossary.
Argument: Exchange between site members while attempting to prove a point. Synonym: Thread
Post by: Phil_in_CS on April 11, 2006, 10:02:44 am
Quote:
You wrote a paragraph about how Jim is some kind of "insider" and you were wrong to question him. Sounded like you were ready to jump his bones to me.
That's not an image I want to think about
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 12:02:16 pm
Quote:Quote:
...could we have a discussion of the meaning of the word "Backfiring?"?
What that happens with an internal-combustion engine when prematurely ignited fuel, or unburned exhaust gases, explode. Immediately followed by a booming noise.
Right, but shirley he was using it in a figurative sense. Yet, given it's origin, would you say that it "wasn't asserting anything strongly"? Booming noise sounds assertive to me. Of course "asserting "could also be pronounced "mealy mouth whining to cover a passive aggressive attempt to deflect from the fact that he was making a judgement after 6 freakin games". Or maybe he was trying to describe a slider.
Post by: S.P. Rodriguez on April 11, 2006, 12:17:52 pm
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 12:20:33 pm
Quote:
Is the reference to a "12-6 slider" now synonomous with a bullshit argument? Sorry, I haven't been taking good notes and the class is advancing without me!
It will never replace fantacrap, but in my mind, yes. However, it has about as much chance of catching on as does "Clutchlett".
Post by: astro pete on April 11, 2006, 12:21:10 pm
Quote:
Is the reference to a "12-6 slider" now synonomous with a bullshit argument? Sorry, I haven't been taking good notes and the class is advancing without me!
If you subscribe to the notion that a slider can't break straight downward, then I suppose it does.
Post by: EasTexAstro on April 11, 2006, 12:24:20 pm
Quote:Quote:
Is the reference to a "12-6 slider" now synonomous with a bullshit argument? Sorry, I haven't been taking good notes and the class is advancing without me!
It will never replace fantacrap, but in my mind, yes. However, it has about as much chance of catching on as does "Clutchlett".
Clutchlett -- Isn't that the name of a female body part piercing decoration?
Post by: MusicMan on April 11, 2006, 12:25:34 pm
Quote:Quote:
Is the reference to a "12-6 slider" now synonomous with a bullshit argument? Sorry, I haven't been taking good notes and the class is advancing without me!
If you subscribe to the notion that a slider can't break straight downward, then I suppose it does.
That's like subscribing to the "notion" that all objects will exert this mysterious force called "gravity" in proportion to their size.
Post by: davek on April 11, 2006, 12:28:16 pm
Quote:Quote:
Is the reference to a "12-6 slider" now synonomous with a bullshit argument? Sorry, I haven't been taking good notes and the class is advancing without me!
If you subscribe to the notion that a slider can't break straight downward, then I suppose it does.
Of if you subscribe to the notion that the world is actually round...
Same type concept...
Post by: lc_db on April 11, 2006, 12:28:54 pm
Quote:Quote:
It will never replace fantacrap, but in my mind, yes. However, it has about as much chance of catching on as does "Clutchlett".
Clutchlett -- Isn't that the name of a female body part piercing decoration?
I thought it was part of the manual transmission in a MINI Cooper.
Post by: Craig on April 11, 2006, 12:32:49 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
It will never replace fantacrap, but in my mind, yes. However, it has about as much chance of catching on as does "Clutchlett".
Clutchlett -- Isn't that the name of a female body part piercing decoration?
I thought it was part of the manual transmission in a MINI Cooper.
I saw some chicks in Vegas wearing enough metal to make a Cooper transmission. Or at least a Briggs and Stratton.
Post by: astro pete on April 11, 2006, 12:46:00 pm
Quote:
That's like subscribing to the "notion" that all objects will exert this mysterious force called "gravity" in proportion to their size.
I can't convince you that you see something that you don't. I suppose it's foolish to try any more than I already have.
Post by: Astroholic on April 11, 2006, 12:51:09 pm
Post by: JimR on April 11, 2006, 01:08:20 pm
biz, let me assure you that NO ONE thinks that you believe that gay is derogatory. petey, i hope Daddy bought you a company to work at b/c your stubbornness will get you in trouble at someone else's company.
carry on.
Post by: MusicMan on April 11, 2006, 01:09:40 pm
Quote:
not sure why but a certain Whitesnake song just popped in my head. "here we go again...."
If the video accompanied it, that may not be so bad.
Post by: davek on April 11, 2006, 01:15:37 pm
Might be time to change the old medication again...
Post by: JimR on April 11, 2006, 01:23:42 pm
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 03:12:28 pm
Quote:
...have missed the oh so enlightening posts of folks who 1) do not know the difference between a steal, a hit and run and starting the runner to stay out of a DP
Does this sound like the language of someone trying to enlighten you:
Quote:
but sometimes I think we manufacture outs way too often. But what do I know? Has anyone else gotten this same impression?
Let me go ahead and preempt an inevitable response from someone and admit that the answer to the rhetorical "What do I know?" question is "Nothing."
That's what I don't get - you're ripping me as a know-nothing, sarcastically calling me "enlightened," when the whole purpose of my post was to ask a question.
Post by: JimR on April 11, 2006, 03:18:28 pm
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 03:49:06 pm
Quote:
...the whole purpose of my post was to ask a question.
This is disingenuous. The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
Post by: astro pete on April 11, 2006, 04:07:02 pm
Quote:
This is disingenuous. The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
Nice. Disregard every question he asked throughout the thread, comment only on the omission of a question mark in the subject, then come to the conclusion that *he's* being disingenuous.
A plain (and objective) reading of the thing indicates that, yes, he thinks Garner is being over-aggressive, *but* that he also wanted to know other people's thoughts on the matter.
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 04:15:17 pm
Quote:Quote:
This is disingenuous. The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
Nice. Disregard every question he asked throughout the thread, comment only on the omission of a question mark in the subject, then come to the conclusion that *he's* being disingenuous.
A plain (and objective) reading of the thing indicates that, yes, he thinks Garner is being over-aggressive, *but* that he also wanted to know other people's thoughts on the matter.
A plain reading says he had this prejudice about baserunning before the season started. It's common in the "moneyball" mentality. Watch, now we get the pie faced protests of confusion about what that's supposed to mean.
Post by: astro pete on April 11, 2006, 04:22:25 pm
Quote:
A plain reading says he had this prejudice about baserunning before the season started. It's common in the "moneyball" mentality. Watch, now we get the pie faced protests of confusion about what that's supposed to mean.
Or, the pie faced protests of confusion about what in the world his impression about over-aggresiveness on the basepaths has to do with baserunning prejudice.
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 04:27:58 pm
Quote:Quote:
A plain reading says he had this prejudice about baserunning before the season started. It's common in the "moneyball" mentality. Watch, now we get the pie faced protests of confusion about what that's supposed to mean.
Or, the pie faced protests of confusion about what in the world his impression about over-aggresiveness on the basepaths has to do with baserunning prejudice.
I've seen better. Your eyes need to be much wider, and try to make your mouth form an O. You're hardly even trying.
Post by: homer on April 11, 2006, 04:31:33 pm
Quote:
I've seen better. Your eyes need to be much wider, and try to make your mouth form an O. You're hardly even trying.
Piazza has probably heard this a few times in his life.
Post by: astro pete on April 11, 2006, 04:32:08 pm
Quote:
I've seen better.
Likewise.
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 06:50:32 pm
Quote:Quote:
...the whole purpose of my post was to ask a question.
This is disingenuous. The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I intentionally used words like "I think" and "I feel" and "sometimes I think" to distance myself from overconfident rhetoric. And that was genuine.
It's ironic that you're calling me disingenuous on a thread where:
1) I became convinced after reading responses that my initial impression was overstated and exaggerated, if not entirely wrong.
2) A man was able to act as if he didn't mean anything negative by the word "gay" when he wrote, "Gayest. Post. Ever."
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 06:55:33 pm
Quote:
The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I'll be honest and say my title looked like I was making an argument. That was unintentional, and I recognized that I had failed to put a question mark (which I meant to do). I didn't think it would be an issue, so I didn't edit the title at the time.
So I concede your point about the title. But I assure you that I meant it as a question. Yes, I had a prejudice, like we all do on every issue. But it was a question, genuinely put.
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 06:58:14 pm
Quote:Quote:
The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I'll be honest and say my title looked like I was making an argument. That was unintentional, and I recognized that I had failed to put a question mark (which I meant to do). I didn't think it would be an issue, so I didn't edit the title at the time.
So I concede your point about the title. But I assure you that I meant it as a question. Yes, I had a prejudice, like we all do on every issue. But it was a question, genuinely put.
I can't read anything other than what you write. If you want to come along later and provide a Zan to TZ dictionary I will translate. We have a couple of those already. As for BD, he's a buffoon.
Post by: Zan on April 11, 2006, 07:06:41 pm
Quote:
I can't read anything other than what you write.
I agree. I just didn't know why you deemed which portion of what I wrote was disingenuous. The bulk of my post was full of tentative statements and questions, which you chose to read disingenuous motivation into.
All I wanted was to get feedback on my question. If my question were disingenuous, I'd still be arguing my initial impression.
Post by: NeilT on April 11, 2006, 07:08:36 pm
Quote:Quote:
The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I'll be honest and say my title looked like I was making an argument. That was unintentional, and I recognized that I had failed to put a question mark (which I meant to do). I didn't think it would be an issue, so I didn't edit the title at the time.
So I concede your point about the title. But I assure you that I meant it as a question. Yes, I had a prejudice, like we all do on every issue. But it was a question, genuinely put.
If you keep answering him, he'll never stop posting. It's weird, but it's kinda fun in a sick way.
Post by: VirtualBob on April 11, 2006, 07:23:51 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I'll be honest and say my title looked like I was making an argument. That was unintentional, and I recognized that I had failed to put a question mark (which I meant to do). I didn't think it would be an issue, so I didn't edit the title at the time.
So I concede your point about the title. But I assure you that I meant it as a question. Yes, I had a prejudice, like we all do on every issue. But it was a question, genuinely put.
If you keep answering him, he'll never stop posting. It's weird, but it's kinda fun in a sick way.
Speaking of sick (and whining), I just managed to catch up on this entire post in one sitting. Who do I sue to get that time back? The only thing worth reading in the entire thread was the link to Jim's article on baserunning. That kind of put the whole thing in some perspective.
Post by: BizidyDizidy on April 11, 2006, 07:42:22 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I'll be honest and say my title looked like I was making an argument. That was unintentional, and I recognized that I had failed to put a question mark (which I meant to do). I didn't think it would be an issue, so I didn't edit the title at the time.
So I concede your point about the title. But I assure you that I meant it as a question. Yes, I had a prejudice, like we all do on every issue. But it was a question, genuinely put.
I can't read anything other than what you write. If you want to come along later and provide a Zan to TZ dictionary I will translate. We have a couple of those already. As for BD, he's a buffoon.
Aren't you cranky.
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 10:39:41 pm
Quote:Quote:
I can't read anything other than what you write.
I agree. I just didn't know why you deemed which portion of what I wrote was disingenuous. The bulk of my post was full of tentative statements and questions, which you chose to read disingenuous motivation into.
All I wanted was to get feedback on my question. If my question were disingenuous, I'd still be arguing my initial impression.
I'm fine with that, as far as it goes. But then you started getting whiny, because, someone was mean to you. And then it became relevant, to me (but not to others, we'll get to that later) whether you were just trying to ask a question. That's how we get into the lack of a question mark, the fact that you had a prejudice against agressive base runners prior to the season and you bring it up 6 games into the season. So now, to me, in future there's going to be some doubt as to whether your question is really a question and not a stalking horse.
Post by: pravata on April 11, 2006, 10:49:55 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I'll be honest and say my title looked like I was making an argument. That was unintentional, and I recognized that I had failed to put a question mark (which I meant to do). I didn't think it would be an issue, so I didn't edit the title at the time.
So I concede your point about the title. But I assure you that I meant it as a question. Yes, I had a prejudice, like we all do on every issue. But it was a question, genuinely put.
If you keep answering him, he'll never stop posting. It's weird, but it's kinda fun in a sick way.
Speaking of sick (and whining), I just managed to catch up on this entire post in one sitting. Who do I sue to get that time back? The only thing worth reading in the entire thread was the link to Jim's article on baserunning. That kind of put the whole thing in some perspective.
Here's tha thing. You don't sue nobody. If you haven't realized by now that you're reading at your own risk, you were standing on apple crates by the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" sign at the entrance. Furthermore, there's a feature on this site where you can ignore anyones' posts. I encourage anyone to use it as they see fit. The only problem is that when somebody replys to a post from someone who you're ignoring, you can see their posts. I've encouraged Neil to ignore my posts, yet he continues to read them. Pretty much all of them. To me that suggests concerning himself exclusively with little league games doesn't allow him enough of a life.
Post by: NeilT on April 11, 2006, 11:26:03 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I'll be honest and say my title looked like I was making an argument. That was unintentional, and I recognized that I had failed to put a question mark (which I meant to do). I didn't think it would be an issue, so I didn't edit the title at the time.
So I concede your point about the title. But I assure you that I meant it as a question. Yes, I had a prejudice, like we all do on every issue. But it was a question, genuinely put.
If you keep answering him, he'll never stop posting. It's weird, but it's kinda fun in a sick way.
Speaking of sick (and whining), I just managed to catch up on this entire post in one sitting. Who do I sue to get that time back? The only thing worth reading in the entire thread was the link to Jim's article on baserunning. That kind of put the whole thing in some perspective.
Here's tha thing. You don't sue nobody. If you haven't realized by now that you're reading at your own risk, you were standing on apple crates by the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" sign at the entrance. Furthermore, there's a feature on this site where you can ignore anyones' posts. I encourage anyone to use it as they see fit. The only problem is that when somebody replys to a post from someone who you're ignoring, you can see their posts. I've encouraged Neil to ignore my posts, yet he continues to read them. Pretty much all of them. To me that suggests concerning himself exclusively with little league games doesn't allow him enough of a life.
Naw, it's too much fun telling you you're a pompous idiot.
Post by: Zan on April 12, 2006, 12:15:03 am
Quote:
I'm fine with that, as far as it goes. But then you started getting whiny, because, someone was mean to you. And then it became relevant, to me (but not to others, we'll get to that later) whether you were just trying to ask a question. That's how we get into the lack of a question mark, the fact that you had a prejudice against agressive base runners prior to the season and you bring it up 6 games into the season. So now, to me, in future there's going to be some doubt as to whether your question is really a question and not a stalking horse.
Point taken. Thanks.
Post by: VirtualBob on April 12, 2006, 01:52:50 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
The title of your post said "backfiring". There was no question mark. A plain reading of the thing says that you thought that aggressive baserunning is bad. Wiggle all you want, but at least be honest.
I'll be honest and say my title looked like I was making an argument. That was unintentional, and I recognized that I had failed to put a question mark (which I meant to do). I didn't think it would be an issue, so I didn't edit the title at the time.
So I concede your point about the title. But I assure you that I meant it as a question. Yes, I had a prejudice, like we all do on every issue. But it was a question, genuinely put.
If you keep answering him, he'll never stop posting. It's weird, but it's kinda fun in a sick way.
Speaking of sick (and whining), I just managed to catch up on this entire post in one sitting. Who do I sue to get that time back? The only thing worth reading in the entire thread was the link to Jim's article on baserunning. That kind of put the whole thing in some perspective.
Here's tha thing. You don't sue nobody. If you haven't realized by now that you're reading at your own risk, you were standing on apple crates by the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" sign at the entrance. Furthermore, there's a feature on this site where you can ignore anyones' posts. I encourage anyone to use it as they see fit. The only problem is that when somebody replys to a post from someone who you're ignoring, you can see their posts. I've encouraged Neil to ignore my posts, yet he continues to read them. Pretty much all of them. To me that suggests concerning himself exclusively with little league games doesn't allow him enough of a life.
OK. Here's the deal. Smiley faces are frowned on around here (and while I have been known to use them, I too detest their overuse), so how exactly do we signal sarcasm to those who are so embroiled in an arcane argument that they take everything seriously?
Post by: Holly on April 12, 2006, 01:57:18 am
Post by: Limey on April 12, 2006, 11:39:55 am
Quote:
OK. Here's the deal. Smiley faces are frowned on around here (and while I have been known to use them, I too detest their overuse), so how exactly do we signal sarcasm to those who are so embroiled in an arcane argument that they take everything seriously?
I believe the old protocol was to raise one's hand.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on April 12, 2006, 12:26:20 pm
Six games of the season is too little to form any sound judgment on whether the Astros are being too aggressive on the basepaths.
And just to make Pravata happy, I am sitting here piefaced about the Moneyball comment.
Post by: No? in Austin on April 12, 2006, 12:47:06 pm
Quote:
I can't believe a pointless argument this long occurred without my taking part in it.
Six games of the season is too little to form any sound judgment on whether the Astros are being too aggressive on the basepaths.
And just to make Pravata happy, I am sitting here piefaced about the Moneyball comment.
Hmmmmm... pie face.... hmmmmm
Post by: Arky Vaughan on April 12, 2006, 01:13:35 pm
Quote:
Hmmmmm... pie face.... hmmmmm
I prefer coconut meringue.
Post by: Limey on April 12, 2006, 01:38:04 pm
Quote:
I prefer coconut meringue.
Do you eat it or dance it?
Post by: davek on April 12, 2006, 01:47:41 pm
Quote:Quote:
I prefer coconut meringue.
Do you eat it or dance it?
Zipper likes to roll in it...
Or at least he used to, before he was tamed...
Post by: BudGirl on April 12, 2006, 02:03:25 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
I prefer coconut meringue.
Do you eat it or dance it?
Zipper likes to roll in it...
Or at least he used to, before he was tamed...
At first I thought, how does he know that, then I decided I DO NOT want to know how you know that.