Oh for Pete's sake. I'm not "trying to argue with you." It's a fucking baseball discussion. But I like the Grammar Police approach. I forgot a slash mark. The horrors. Neither the eleventh pitcher nor the bench was critical to this series. Or even used. Gaudin didn't get into the game. And to say that we're probably seeing a game four because one of the relievers would have needed to pitch another inning is ridiculous and unknowable. A rested Gaudin is better than a second inning from Aceves? Girardi managed to the pen he had, and we still didn't see the last guy. All that means is that the last guy (hopefully) isn't pitching crucial innings for you. Which goes back to my original point, which is that if you are relying on your worst reliever to pitch critical innings, you're not in a very good spot to begin with. (Having Gaudin pitch the 12th and beyond doesn't leave me feeling very good. How about you?) Maybe they should have carried 13 pitchers, in case the game went 20 innings? And I'll say again what I said in the pm, since you either didn't see it or ignored it: I have zero issue with you. We're talking baseball. It's all good fun. You, apparently, have gotten pissed about it. If that's the case... if it bothers you so much... don't talk about it. But I don't know what your problem is otherwise. So feel free to drop the snark.
Whatever dude. I got your PM. I chose not respond because you're utterly ridiculous. FTR: I don't care. I'll continue my snark because that's what I do. You can continue your high-and-mighty "Well the stats didn't tell me it, so it can't be true" bullshit stance. No one cares about either of our arguments. The difference being, of course, that I don't mind. I post because I want to, not because I feel a need to educate everyone around me. Oh, and it's pretty obvious you were just wrong, but like another member of the board who shall remain nameless, you'll just keep aruing the point until your opponent gives up, and you'll walk away wth your head held high, pretending you've "won" yet another e-slapfight. Congratulations. You were wrong, considering Gaudin was warming up and Hinske never even came close to playing, but I won't spend all day arguing with you, so you "win." Hooray for Cappy! Fortunately the series is over so people won't have to deal with reading this latest chapter in the Cappy's Gotta Be Right saga.
Um, yeah. Okay. I smell a bit of projection there. I don't care about "winning" a fight on the internet. That's just silly. What I DO like is talking baseball. But I guess it's a competition to some people. Dude... dude! If that's what you think, if that's how you're judging "right and wrong" in this case, then you missed the entire point. Given the exact same scenario in a future series, I would again prefer to have an additional pinch runner (not Hinske). This was never about being "right" or "wrong" about who would play. This is a judgment call. You said you'd rather have an extra pitcher because "you can't have enough pitching." Implied in that phrase is, "You can't have enough GOOD pitching." When the extra pitcher you'll have is the worst pitcher in the pen, and you have a short series with enough days off, I'd rather have the bat/legs. That hasn't changed. Why? Because the pinch runner can improve a situation (slow runner on first becomes fast runner on first). The extra pitcher is only going to be a decrease in talent. In the playoffs, in a pinch, I'd rather burn a more talented starter on a throw day than go to a mediocre long man from the pen. Now, you are welcome to disagree with that. But you seem to be basing your entire point on a (slightly misapplied) cliche, as opposed to what situation comes up more frequently. I would rather have Aceves need to pitch an extra inning against a lousy offensive team than to have Posada expected to score from second base. Neither is particularly critical, as we saw in this recent series. But I'd still prefer the extra flexibility with a runner. Seriously, who pissed in your Cheerios, man?
Blah, blah, blah. You're really going to hang your hat on the fact that Gaudin didn't actually get into the game as the reasoning he didn't have an effect? The "good" pitching is implied. That's why I've never bothered to acknowledge it every single time you drone on about it. Gaudin has been just fine in limited action. For a couple innings, he could pitch and do well out of the pen. He's the worst pitcher in the pen only because everyone else is damn good. Girardi was able to hook pitchers more quickly in Friday's game and go after matchups because of the depth in the pen. Yes, we're fortunate to have not needed Gaudin. We're more fortunate that he was there if needed though. As far as the bench, the one time where the bench legs were supposed to help, Gardner was a dipshit. Hinske is more valuable to the bench than another kid who can run. I will admit you turned out right about carrying three catchers though. Everyone is tiring of our back-and-forths. I am too. This is the last I'll acknowledge this topic.
Did I say that? No. But I don't think you can say it was a good or bad effect. Girardi managed to the pen he had. Of course it's implied! That's why I said it! But your reasoning doesn't hold up. Why not carry twelve pitchers then, if quantity is more important than quality? Bruney had been pretty good for them recently and could have given Girardi even more options. Mitre could provide innings, too, in case a game went to extra innings. By your logic, they should have been on the team. Or do you feel there is a cut-off? My guess is, you do. And if you do, then the reasons you've been giving (about pitching winning championships) don't apply, and it must be something else. Gaudin has been fine, but he'd also be the seventh most talented pitcher out of the pen. In a short series with plenty of off days, where it would be nearly impossible to overwork a reliever, why bother? Use the more talented people. Are we? You say this as though the quick hook was necessary or provided an advantage. I don't see this as being the case. In fact, weren't you one of the guys who bitched about Girardi overmanaging during the year? Well that one example certainly proves it's a dumb idea! Promise? Or will you throw out some snide tangential every now and again?
The Cast (in order of appearance.) M= Man looking for an argument R= Receptionist Q= Abuser A= Arguer (John Cleese) C= Complainer (Eric Idle) H= Head Hitter M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please. R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before? M: No, I haven't, this is my first time. R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course? M: Well, what is the cost? R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten. M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes. R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment. Pause R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12. M: Thank you. (Walks down the hall. Opens door.) Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT? M: Well, I was told outside that... Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! M: What? Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!! M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!! Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it. Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor. M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry. Q: Not at all. M: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!! (Walk down the corridor) M: (Knock) A: Come in. M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument? A: I told you once. M: No you haven't. A: Yes I have. M: When? A: Just now. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: You didn't A: I did! M: You didn't! A: I'm telling you I did! M: You did not!! A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour? M: Oh, just the five minutes. A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did. M: You most certainly did not. A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you. M: No you did not. A: Yes I did. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: You didn't. A: Did. M: Oh look, this isn't an argument. A: Yes it is. M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction. A: No it isn't. M: It is! A: It is not. M: Look, you just contradicted me. A: I did not. M: Oh you did!! A: No, no, no. M: You did just then. A: Nonsense! M: Oh, this is futile! A: No it isn't. M: I came here for a good argument. A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument. M: An argument isn't just contradiction. A: It can be. M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. A: No it isn't. M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction. A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' A: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! A: Yes it is! M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. (short pause) A: No it isn't. M: It is. A: Not at all. M: Now look. A: (Rings bell) Good Morning. M: What? A: That's it. Good morning. M: I was just getting interested. A: Sorry, the five minutes is up. M: That was never five minutes! A: I'm afraid it was. M: It wasn't. Pause A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore. M: What?! A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes. M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on! A: (Hums) M: Look, this is ridiculous. A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid! M: Oh, all right. (pays money) A: Thank you. short pause M: Well? A: Well what? M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now. A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid. M: I just paid! A: No you didn't. M: I DID! A: No you didn't. M: Look, I don't want to argue about that. A: Well, you didn't pay. M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you! A: No you haven't. M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid. A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time. M: Oh I've had enough of this. A: No you haven't. M: Oh Shut up. (Walks down the stairs. Opens door.) M: I want to complain. C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through. M: No, I want to complain about... C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother. M: Oh! C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office. (Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.) M: Hello, I want to... Ooooh! H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again. M: uuuwwhh!! H: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there. M: No. H: Now.. M: Waaaaah!!! H: Good, Good! That's it. M: Stop hitting me!! H: What? M: Stop hitting me!! H: Stop hitting you? M: Yes! H: Why did you come in here then? M: I wanted to complain. H: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here. M: What a stupid concept. Hopefully, that helped you finish.
*shrugs* Like I said, it's not a right or wrong thing. It's a judgment call about a non-crucial roster spot. It's talking baseball. However, your reasoning for supporting the strategy of an additional pitcher was inconsistent. Apparently, you don't care to have that questioned. Tell you what... for the rest of the playoffs, you can say whatever wildly inconsistent things you want about what you say the Yanks should or shouldn't do. I won't say a word. In return, you drop the snide comments.
That was hilarious. My coworker introduced me to Life of Brian last year and I've been meaning to get into MP. I love their songs, especially this one: [youtube]04QoA44c23A[/youtube]
A judgement call where it proved out the way I said. But of course that's simply a matter of luck, which we all know doesn't exist because the numbers prove otherwise. You don't talk baseball. You talk data sets with no human element. That's math class. My reasoning for carrying an extra pitcher never changed. Nice try though. All along I said having depth at pitching in the playoffs was critical. The "good" is assumed, and I'd say anyone without the nickname Cappy probably understood that, and therefore I didn't need to say it, nor respond to you when you posted about it over and over in multiple threads. When I'm wrong I just say I'm wrong. Hell, I've even started entire threads just to say I was wrong. I wasn't wrong on this one. Obviously Girardi felt the same way I did before the series started, and it came within a Teixeira blast of being necessary. FTR: I advocated putting Bruney on the roster. I'd have had him with the team before Hinske if I were managing, and I still would. Mitre would never get the ball again wearing pinstripes if I were in charge.
Here's the problem... you keep talking about right or wrong, as though I were making a prediction about what would happen. I wasn't. I was offering my opinion on the best strategy, gave you my reasons for it, and questioning the reasoning that you offered for your strategy. You responded by... well... I don't know. By trying to insult me and simply restating your position without addressing the questions I had. You certainly never addressed any issues with my position. You keep saying that even though it's not true. You also say it as though understanding of statistics is a bad thing. I can (and do) believe in the human element of the game. What I don't believe in is wasting my time trying to definitively say something involving the human element is or is not true. Might as well be an argument over who's a better band, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? It's purely subjective and everyone is equally welcome to their own opinion. Statistics give an objective frame of reference. That's it. The tricky part is getting people to agree to a particular frame of reference. I never said your reasoning changed. I said it was inconsistent. As in, internally inconsistent. It does not follow through or match up to a constant premise. You say you understand that it's implied that it's good pitching that wins championships, but the reason I kept pointing it out is you behaved as though you didn't. Your strategy says you view Chad Frikkin' Gaudin as a worthy holder of a valuable roster spot even though, relatively speaking, he's the least valuable pitcher (i.e. least "good") on that staff. Which is fine if you feel that way. It's just not consistent with the cliche you kept throwing out there as evidence for your support of the strategy. Because if you think it's good pitching that wins championships, then you want Burnett, Robertson, and Aceves to be getting those innings instead of Gaudin, as long as everyone would still be available the next day. (Which they would in this series.) Or, if you feel Gaudin is better, then you want him getting those innings instead of other people. And, again, he managed to his pen. Every manager does that. If he didn't have Gaudin, you have Burnett, Aceves and/or Robertson for more than one inning, or Aceves reserved as the long man. I don't think that's a bad thing when the other option is Chad Gaudin. But you're still missing the point about it not being "right" or "wrong" based on the outcome of one series. The flaw I see isn't with your strategy or your prediction. It's with your stated reasons for supporting the position. They don't add up. It doesn't make sense. So there either have to be other reasons that you support the strategy, or you're just determined to support the strategy come hell or high water, and the reasons are just an afterthought. Okay, so at what point do you have "enough" pitching that is "good"? Obviously you have a cut off in numbers and quality, since you want Bruney, but not Mitre. If that's the case, then just saying, "(Good) pitching wins championships," isn't a reason. There's something beyond that explanation for wanting another pitcher. Why 11 instead of 10? Why 12 instead of 11? Why not 13-14 pitchers? Why is Gaudin good enough, but Bruney or Mitre not? Wouldn't that give Girardi even more options for matchups? Do you see what I'm saying here?
Shit, is this what happens when theres to much time off between series? Fuk that! I'm going back to football for the rest of the week! :jets:
Baseball needs replay. I'm surprised they weren't able to overturn that foul/fair call, it was obviously wrong.
That's a different argument. That's the clutch thing..still he only batted .167 for the series and if it was Arod all you would hear is how much he sucked.
