Master Index of Archived Threads
FK and Eddie C. (split from Are They Anti-Mets?)
| iramets Jul 27 2007 03:31 AM |
||
|
In your world, FK, and welcome to it, every commentator would model himself on Ed Coleman, who is bar none, hands down, the funniest man in show business. Did you ever hear him being asked for his opinion on anything? He's a riot. "Ed, we understand the Mets are looking into acquiring bullpen help sometime in Omar's lifetime--is there any truth to this?" "Well, fellas, sure. That could happen. Everyone always needs bullpen help. Here's the problem, though. The Mets already have a full bullpen, they've got about seven or eight guys in the pen now, and they've been doing a pretty fair job, so the priority could also be the starting rotation or the bench. Or the starting lineup. Maybe adding a coach or something. It all depends on what Omar's offered, of course. The bullpen could be a place where they look to shore up the team. Not that anything needs shoring up, of course. The team is pretty solid. But a deal could always be brewing, and it might involve getting some fresh arms in the pen. We'll have to wait and see." "Thanks, Eddie, for that insight. We've heard, too, that the--oh, wait, it's just coming in, the Mets have acquired three former closers, Eric Gagne, Brad Lidge, and Mario Rivera in separate deals involving a complex exchange for their entire minor league system plus a million bazillion dollars. Is this a shock or what?" "Not really, no. The handwriting was on the wall--the Mets badly needed bullpen help, as I just said, and this deal looks to be a good one for the Mets, unless they ever need to call up another minor leaguer, ever again. But who knows when that will be? Probably they never will need to call anyone up ever again, though this could hurt if anyone ever gets injured. We'll have to wait and see..."
|
| Frayed Knot Jul 27 2007 12:37 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2007 12:46 PM |
|
|
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Amazing how you got to the heart of what I was saying so quickly.
|
| iramets Jul 27 2007 01:07 PM |
||
|
That's cuz I understand you, and your deep-seated reverence for the great God "I Don't Know." To us atheists, of course, he's a useful little fellow, and plays an amusing but crucial bit in the greatest comedy skit in all of baseball, but you believers speak his name in hallowed tones and insist that we bow down on our knees at the power of "I don't know" as the answer to every question. "Do you, Frayed Knot, know if the Mets should have bunted in the seventh inning last night?" "I don't know, and no one can ever truly know." "Do you, Frayed Knot, know if the rumor reported on page 107 of today's New York Post is accurate?" "I don't know, and no one can ever truly know." "Do you, Frayed Knot, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife..."
|
| Frayed Knot Jul 27 2007 01:42 PM |
|||
|
Once again proving that you don't (or can't) understand shit. My comments were piggybacking on what Greg was saying about analysts commenting on teams they don't always know as well as the locals - so when these "informed opinions" about said team are either incomplete or just plain wrong fans sometimes see that as the pundit being biased or stupid. In those cases, the occasional "I don't know" would serve the public a lot better but since the format these guys are put into (sports or politics) passes them off as all-knowing sages which causes them to pretend to know when they don't. 'Not always right, but never in doubt'.
Yes, because I've so often praised Eddie C around these parts.
You're right, I really should start taking place in strategy discussions about games - maybe even start a thread about it here and there. I'm embarrassed the way I've been avoiding them for all these years.
|
| iramets Jul 27 2007 01:58 PM |
|
|
"Prove"? I've never heard you use that word in a positive sense before. I've spent the last few years heaping evidence on you, and you always manage to wriggle your head out of the heaps, and chirp up, "You haven't proven anything, you can never prove anything, and you can never assert anything." Admit it, you love saying in the face of the most convincing arguments that all-soothing response "Well, okay, but you don't KNOW that, do you? What's your blinding, paralyzing PROOF for that? You got nuttin'." Taking solace in a bottle of cheap epistomology is...well, cheap. No trade is ever foolish, according to you, because it's never in the books, it's always still pending, miracles are always possible, reinterpretations of stats could always still happen...etc. So when someone does assert himself definitively, you're on top of that quickly. What that gets you is...Eddie C., whether you're a member of his Komedy Klub or not. If you take a stand, you run the risk of being wrong, and of enduring criticism. There can never be any criticism of Eddie C. because he never takes a position, other than to assert the obvious. You have a problem with people saying "I don't know" too rarely? I have a problem with people saying nothing but "I don't know."
|
| Frayed Knot Jul 27 2007 02:20 PM |
|
Do you have ANY examples of what you're blabbing on about or is this another one of
|
| iramets Jul 27 2007 03:03 PM |
|
Ah, the old "I want you to root around in the archives for a few weeks, providing evidence that I and everyone else knows is buried there, and revive old arguments so that I can respond with 'More crap from the distant past, Sal' "ploy.
|
| Nymr83 Jul 27 2007 03:10 PM |
|
ira is Mel Rojas right now. god i hated that guy.
|
| iramets Jul 27 2007 03:16 PM |
|
Don't forget about Mel Rojas. You probably hated him, too.
|
| Nymr83 Jul 27 2007 03:32 PM |
|
UMDB's Rojas memories are great, I'd have posted one myself but someone already posted it: Rojas sitting under the bullpen in TOR after getting clocked the previous couple of games.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Jul 27 2007 03:33 PM |
|
|
Ah, the old "make things up and then call it a 'ploy' when you're challenged on your nonsense" ploy. Everyone here knows you're full of shit. I don't know why anyone bothers engaging in these discussions with you. And on that note, I'm pulling out. Say what you will; I won't respond to you.
|
| iramets Jul 27 2007 04:33 PM |
|
I wish your father had.
|
| Kid Carsey Jul 27 2007 04:54 PM |
|
"power wears out men that don't have it" -- Godfather lll
|
| metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2007 04:56 PM |
|
|
I have a game-used, Mel Rojas road batting practice jersey. Really. I'm not saying I wear it a lot....
|
| iramets Jul 27 2007 04:57 PM |
|
You know, you're getting comical in your blatent double-standard. You're a clown. You make me laugh.
|
| Kid Carsey Jul 27 2007 05:09 PM |
|
ira: >>>you dishonorable biased fucking turd<<<
|
| iramets Jul 27 2007 05:22 PM |
|
|
You know, I DID just remember one prominent example of your petulant insistence that I can't ever prove anything: remember when the possibility of trading Glavine for Derek Lowe was raised? You opined that a straight up deal was so awful an idea that the mets should reject it immediately. "Glavine's clearly a better pitcher now, and he'll be a better pitcher next year," I believe, was your phrase (that's from memory--I refuse to go on a chase through the archives, but I carry my own archives around with me. Of course, I may have gotten a crucial apostrophe wrong, so feel free to crow over your triumph and cry to to the heavens to be avenged for my misquoting you on that basis.) As any dope can plainly [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/lowede01.shtml]see,[/url] (since we discussed this) it's questionable if Glavine's ever been a better pitcher than Lowe over the past few years much less clearly better, but when I raised the point that, even if they're comparable pitchers now, Lowe's obviously a better choice because he's six years younger than Glavine, and far less likely to derail on that basis alone. IOW, I think I demonstrated that Lowe was at the very least Glavine's equal as a pitcher, and was so much younger that there was no question but that the trade should have been considered (if it was ever offered--I argued it was so lopsided I didn't think LA would ever entertain the idea). Your response was something like "Oh yeah? Can you PROVE that Lowe is a better pitcher? No? Ha, ha. I ween, I ween!!!" Is that enough crap from the past for you?I can probably remember numerous other discussions we've had where you've been utterly wrong, utterly pig-headed, and utterly gleeful in your insistence that I hadn't proven the unprovable so that makes you utterly corrrect. 1) Who cares, anymore? 2) You misquoted my punctuation. 3) Never happened--prove that it did.--FK's top three choices for rebuttal. The smart money's on number three.
|
| iramets Jul 27 2007 05:31 PM |
|
|
I dont know why either. Maybe it's because when you catch yourself doing something absurdly biased in favor of your fellow admin, who just finished calling me a liar, warning me not to point out that calling someone names and then announcing he was ignoring any of my posts was pretty counter-productive. Why not warn Yancy just not to read my posts if they inspire him to personal abuse? I think everyone but you understands why Yancy didn't get the warning, KC.
|
| Nymr83 Jul 27 2007 05:38 PM |
|
All i did was point out my dislike for Mel Rojas and everyone has to go attack each other...
|
| Kid Carsey Jul 27 2007 05:48 PM |
|
ira: >>>I dont know why either<<<
|
| Frayed Knot Jul 27 2007 08:43 PM |
||
|
Yeah I remember that discussion - which is odd that you bring up since it's a case of me giving a specific opinion on a potential trade (not even a real one) which is what you claim that "everyone knows" I never do. It was in early 2004, the Mets were hovering a game or two out of 1st, and Lowe was pitching horribly up in Boston. Me, not being anxious to cash in the season w/120 or so games to go, didn't want to intentionally make the staff worse (I'm kinda funny that way) giving the reason that I thought Glavine had enough left to not only be better than Lowe that year but the next one as well (oooh, sounds like a definitive opinion!!). Glavine then did indeed go on the have a much better 2004 season than Lowe; [Glavine: ERA+ (adj) = 119, WhiP = 1.29 ... Lowe : ERA+ = 90, WhiP = 1.62] who Boston was on the verge of dropping for the playoffs until their rotation went all to hell in games 1-3 of the Yankee series and he wound up throwing 3 good games in the post-season when pressed into service. It was at this point, IIRC, where you (after ignoring the topic all year) jumped up to scream; "see, I told ya so ... even a retarded gorilla coulda seen this one coming"; as if the preceding 5 months didn't count and those 3 games were easier to foretell than a Lindsey Lohan DWI arrest. The following year, btw, was pretty much a wash; [Glavine = 118 ERA+ (adj); 1.36 WhiP -- vs -- Lowe = 113 ERA+; 1.25 WhiP] meaning that, when combined with the lopsided 2004, the two seasons favored Glavine to at least some degree. But even if it didn't ... so the fuck what?!? Your claim here is that I constantly make weasily statements so as to never make stake out an actual position - and so your proof is to dredge up some 3-1/2 year old argument which all started BECAUSE OF MY DEFINITIVE STATEMENT. So then, in a pathetic attempt to retro-fit this into your point, you tack-on some bullshit about me claiming that this deal - which seems to back MY position even though I recall being in the minority on the board on this topic - couldn't be evaluated even after the fact. Yeah, OK. I could ask you to continue to hunt for examples of where I've actually ducked giving opinions on trades made, FAs signed, in-game strategies deployed, etc., but it's obviously a waste of time. So I'm done with you here as it's clear that you're not even remotely interested in honestly discussing anything and are here merely to spew your contempt for people here. Adios.
Nice talking to you too.
|
| iramets Jul 28 2007 03:33 AM |
||
|
and Bullshit Response #1 takes it down the backstretch!! What a thrilling race, folks! "Who cares, anymore?" pulls it out in the end! But if you'd care to re-visit some of the more glaring misstatements above, bendings of the truth, agenda-driven stats, etc. let us procede: for one thing
neglects to address the fact the part of the season THAT HADN'T ALREADY TAKEN PLACE is the relevant stat, not the entire season, in which (as you note without adjusting for that in your skewed and oh-so-carefully selected stats) Lowe had gotten off to a horrific start and Glavine was decent in his first few games. From the point of our discussion (which is the only relevant timeframe) Lowe actually had better stats, in a far more offense friendly ballpark, than Glavine did--even without taking into account a second (or third) crucial omission from your presentation above: those "three good games" actually count. To just dismiss them as "Oh, yeah, your guy had three pretty fair post-season games, but moving right along..." is to lose sight of something rather critical: those three games (actually, four games, three starts) in which Lowe put up a 1.86 ERA against the Angels, Yankees and Cardinals should at least be counted as statistically significant here in evaluating both pitchers' seasons. And, of course, it is--by everyone other than FK. Taking these factors into account, there's no question but that Lowe out-paced Glavine for the remainder of the 2004 season from the point at which the trade was discussed It's inconceivable to me that a bright fellow like you would persist in dismissing my case (that Lowe and Glavine are comparable pitchers) out of hand at this point. Then the 2005 season occurred, a season which, as you point out was "pretty much a wash" for Glavine and Lowe. Your case, which you seem to have forgotten, is not to demonstrate that the two pitchers are pretty much a wash. You needed to demonstrate that Glavine was easily the better pitcher of the two (that's what you said, remember--not that the two pitchers were anywhere close to even, but that Glavine was better, demonstrably so). Since you conceded a rough equality in 2005, and since you've been shown repeatedly that Glavine had no clear advantage in 2004, I'd say that you had no case at all--yet you persist in "showing" how right you were about the Mets refusing to so much as consider swapping Glavine out for Lowe. But now comes the real winning part of my argument--and WP will support me here, I think: you further contended that since Lowe was a FA in 2005, he could be lost to the Mets-- but that's a bonus, not a setback, because it also means that the Mets would be free from Glavine's onerous, bonerous contract that (almost) everyone in the "Revisionist History" thread agrees was WAY too high for Glavine over the course of his contract. And of course, if they'd wanted to, this would have given the Mets an option to re-sign Lowe over the second half of 2004, or use that money to sign some other FA pitcher as they re-built their club without Glavine (or use that money to acquire other crucial players, all younger and better than Glavine). This deal would either give the Mets a better, younger, cheaper pitcher (if they re-signed Lowe) or free up Glavine's salary to spend elsewhere. Either way, a win-win. My point being that you had a tough case to prove here--that Glavine was much better than Lowe from the point of our discussion in 2004 through the end of the 2005 season-- and you neither came close to proving it nor to conceding that you might have misjudged the situation, and maybe the Mets should have considered the deal when it was offered (if it ever was). The larger epistomological point is that you began by challenging me to show that I somehow KNEW, that I could PROVE Lowe (with his horrific start) would do better than Glavine from that point. This being the future, I conceded that I was unable to predict what their stats would be for the remainder of 2004 and 2005 at that point, but knowing and proving are incorrect terms to apply to a future projection. Your response: "AH HA! So you can't prove a damn thing! HA, ha, Ha!! I win!!! Ignorance triumphs!!" Then, when the dust settled on the 2005 season, I reminded you of the misplaced confidence you'd shown in Glavine, and you gave more of the blindingly misleading diversions above. As of this writing, Lowe is still six years younger than Glavine, at least his equal as a MLB pitcher, and you are still entirely wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong about each of the contentions you so confidently put forth at the time, but mainly for demanding that I provide you with a standard of proof that is, and always has been: unavailable, irrefutable, statistically-based evidence for something that hasn't yet occurred. By holding me up to this impossible standard of proof, and then rejoicing for the crowd about how right you've always been, you show me that you're much happier arguing for a perceived victory than you are in finding ways for the Mets to improve their roster. Each to his own, I guess, but it's kinda sad...
|
| Edgy DC Jul 28 2007 03:36 PM |
|
This is absurd.
|
| Nymr83 Jul 28 2007 11:58 PM |
|
i hope we're not getting back to one of those multiple-week stretches where half the threads in the baseball forum become absurd.
|
| iramets Jul 29 2007 05:25 AM |
|
Ah, so this is where it ended up at last. I should have known, just when I start having a rational discussion which Yancy interrupts to say how full of shit I am, and everyone here knows it, (and nothing else) the thread gets derailed, and I get the blame.
|
| Kid Carsey Jul 29 2007 06:21 AM |
|
You can question the administrator's character flaws,
|
| iramets Jul 29 2007 09:29 AM |
|
|
Question the admins' characters flaws? THE ADMINS WOULD NEED SOME CHARACTER FOR ME TO MENTION THEIR CHARACTER FLAWS. KC, the admins in thats thread (not counting FK, who's maybe an honorary admin) came into the thread to bust my chops about being a habitual liar (and then piss off and leave, without commenting on baseball or anything, just the poor nature of my character, and how aware everyone here is of my poor character and reputation for chronic dishonesty), then another bozo admin (you) came in to warn me about starting shit again (also warning me not to dare defend myself by pointing out how the namecalling and gratuitous insults were coming from others than me, because that won't count--the prolelm is as ever my bad character) and then another admin coming in to comment "This is absurd" without troubling to tell us what he found absurd, and then some other bozo sent the whole shooting match over to here, where it will be read by exactly no one, which suits FK's designs perfectly, as he was lying and misrepresenting and backtracking all over the place. If this website can't survive discussion, it deserves whatever it gets. If what you want is a weakassed forum in which everyone agrees,(or is intimidated into agreeing with such blowhards as FK) you don't have very far to go to achieve your lofty goal, my friend.
|
| Kid Carsey Jul 29 2007 10:12 AM |
|
Once again, you've worn me down to the point I just don't give a shit anymore.
|