Your argument: You can’t guarantee that a minor league player will preform any better, so you’re point is moot.

My counter to that: You can’t guarantee any player will play better than those two players, no matter how talented.

Your counter to me: You’re dumb.

Does that about cover how that went?

As for WAR, it is not standardized, true. That, however, does not make it invalid. I used every version and they all said the same thing. That means something. I didn’t even need WAR to tell me that those guys are not very good major league baseball players. Watching them play baseball told me that. I used WAR because it is an objective way to express what I think already.

You never made an argument as to why Reynolds and McLouth are more than replacement level player, either. If you don’t agree you have to provide some type of reason as to why your argument is more valid than mine.

I’ll take your silence to mean that you concede all the points I just made.

Sorry Alex, but I don’t have the patience to teach you how to conduct a text focused discussion.

You’re all over the place, and you have this strange idea that you can introduce new support into your arguments when ever you please. I don’t know what kind of schools you went to, but it just isn’t done that way in the real world, and I don’t want to waste my time making good arguments with someone who is either unwilling or unable to acknowledge them.

I have sufficiently explained why your arguments are irrelevant, and have proved that your statistical support is unreliable to such an extent that an unbiased judge would rule in my favor.

Your counterarguments are inconsequential, and baseless. So if you don’t mind, I’ll pass from now on.

Most likely that is where Rodriguez head was this year in his stock profolio and on the telephone with Buffet.

Man you have some thin skin. Anyone who spends as much time commenting on this nonsense is a pathetic loser. Just like most Yankee fans.

There is no guarantee that any player will perform better or worse than McLouth or Reynolds…what exactly is your point there? The O’s could trade for Joey Votto and Ryan Braun and they could play worse than Reynolds and McLouth. That’s highly unlikely, but possible. Nothing is guaranteed.

So just because a stat is non-standardized it’s worthless? Good to know. It’s not like there is some secret to how each is calculated. They aren’t gospel by any means, but they are very helpful. In this case they all agree, too.

Reynolds
WARP (BP version) – -1 (yes, that is negative)
fWAR – 0.5
rWAR – -0.1 (also negative)

McLouth
WARP (BP version) – 0.9 (This is for only his time in Baltimore. Full season is 0.2)
fWAR – 0.8
rWAR – 0.8

I think it’s a pretty telling story when all three (I never use WARP, but included it just for you on his post) say the same thing. These guys are replacement level players that can easily be replaced. And just so we’re clear I actually mean easy, a simple task, this time. I’ve got three transparent, respected, and independent sources for my argument, what about you?

And, yes, I am the one that should be embarrassed by this exchange. (Read again with heavy sarcasm)

Sorry dude, but you’ve had your 15 minutes, and you wasted it. I think I’ll make an exception for you and mount-up.

Enjoy the silence.

Well, have a look at your comments in “Oct 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM” . And, don’t stop at the first time you wince. Read it all the way through.

“I would just sit on my high horse and look down my nose at them like they were servants.”

Exactly! Hmm, high intellect and bad attitude, are you a comic book villan??

Correction noted.

I’m not a disrespectful SOB. If I didn’t respect the people who responded to my comments, then I wouldn’t respond to them. I would just sit on my high horse and look down my nose at them like they were servants. You respond to me, you deserve a response from me.

I defend myself and my team in the same manner that I, and/or my team is attacked. In other words: I treat kind with kind. You broke my balls a little bit; I broke your balls a little in return. I recognized that you had a sense of humor, and now, apparently you realize that so do I. Isn’t that the way it works in your neighborhood?

As far as trying to win is concerned. During the course of discussion or debate, one has an argument or arguments that they propose and are obligated to defend. Think about it for a minute. If people went around saying things that they don’t care about, or don’t mean, then we’d never have an exchange of useful ideas. Everything would be fluffy subjective opinions that nobody could put any faith in. Therefore, the idea of winning is not as important as making sure that your arguments are not misrepresented, distorted or exaggerated; that they are able to pass a truth test that will sustain their validity.

People have to know that someone is interested enough in this shit to argue if it is true and accurate or not. Whether or not the readers care is up to them, and is of no importance to me. I do what I do, because it matters to me, and to other like-minded people.

Hey, while we’re chatting so nicely, how come you act like such a SOB? Being disrespectful and trying so hard to win. You know, it’s not like any of this shit is important.

You’re a good sport, with thick skin and an excellent sense of humor.

I’ll have a better understanding of your humor the next time.

Johnny hats………..I never heard that one before.

But you’re off by just a little. It ain’t my sister, ya big silly, it’s my mom!!

Now let’s see you find the logical inconsistancy in that!

Hey, you got any Johnny Hats? I don’t want to get my mother pregnant, again. She’s only 12 years older than me.

I hear some good ole’ boys playing Dueling Banjos in the background, and your sister’s got that funny little twinkle in her eye when she looks at you, so why don’t you two kids just walk on over to the barn and do some sparkin’. Maybe she’ll take her teeth out for ya this time.

You wrote: “Petco is very pitcher friendly which means that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there (Alex K.: October 19, 10:16 AM).” You also wrote: “I never once stated that it is an easy task to find quality pitching in Petco – You did (Alex K.: October 20, 10:28 PM)” Can you see the dilemma that you’re proposing?

Sentence 1 clearly states that Petco Park is pitcher friendly, and that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there. In sentence 1 you imply that pitchers can succeed there; therefore, it is not unreasonable to believe that a successful pitcher is also a quality pitcher.

Sentence 2 is an attempt to negate sentence 1. Sentence 1 proves that you did indeed state that it is easy/easier to find quality pitching in Petco. The problem is you are saying one thing, and then you are denying that you said it. What you seem to be forgetting is that everything you wrote is still available for me to search through and cite.

Alex, at 10:16 AM Friday morning to said it was easier to find a pitcher to succeed in Petco Park, and today, at 10:28 PM you are denying that you said it.

Alex, there is no distortion of your argument. I thought I made that clear to you when I defined, by the book, a straw man argument, i.e., the imposition of false scenarios, or distortions, exaggerations or misrepresentations on your arguments. I have done none of these things. Asking questions and setting conditions is an a posteriori process of proving arguments, and is absolutely legitimate.

Up to this point I enjoyed our exchange of ideas, but now it is getting a little tedious, because I find myself repeating the same simple concepts to you, which you either don’t want to accept, don’t understand or fail to address.

I don’t have the need to embarrass anyone, so maybe your idea of not responding any further is a good one. I’ll just assume that you have conceded the point.

The analogy that would be more appropriate in this situation is…It is hard to find good pitching. It is easier to find good pitching in a pitcher friendly ballpark. That is my entire point. I’m simply stating that the difficult task of finding quality pitching is less difficult when Petco is your home ballpark. So it’s not an easy/easier situation it is a difficult/less difficult situation. I never once stated that it is an easy task to find quality pitching in Petco – You did. That is where the straw man questions come from – your distortion of my argument.

This was fun. You’re obviously a very smart and well spoken person who I look forward to hearing from in the future.

Too late now, but why not associate some amount of protection for the team? Honestly, ARod could win a lot of points with NY fans in offering to help fund an offseason free-agent for how he played this year. Getting paid nearly $40m for .272 (approx) is CRAZY. He gives back $10m next year and it pays for a decent outfielder.

Can we say slobbering Tourette outburst from an Internet imbecile? And you’re not my brother. All my siblings are humans and walk up-right.

Cheetah want a banana?

You are exaggerating and distorting my position; you have created a straw man argument to save face.

In your post of October 19, 4:45 PM you write: “Just because it is easier to find pitchers that can succeed in a ballpark doesn’t mean it is easy.” The word easier cannot be defined without using the word easy. The two words are inseparable; their definitions share the same words. Now read this analogy carefully: To catch a fish is easy; to buy a fish is easier. This idea is not a huge leap of logic, i.e., acquiring a fish is not a difficult task.

You claim it is easier to find a pitcher to succeed in Petco Park, and I claim it’s easy, i.e., to find a pitcher to succeed in Petco Park is not a difficult task. Your claim that this is a huge leap of logic is an exaggeration and is therefore, a straw man argument. You can’t keep creating these absurd verbal obstacles and hope that by obfuscation and slight-of-hand that I will give you a free pass.

You wrote: “Petco is very pitcher friendly which means that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there (Alex K.: October 19, 10:16 AM).” Who said “pitcher friendly” first is irrelevant. The undeniable and most important fact here, is that you agreed with me.

I asked you some questions that were directly related to the concepts of easy/easier and “pitcher friendly.” None of these question were false scenarios, or distortions, exaggerations or misrepresentations of your position, which are the only criteria that constitute a straw man argument. These questions were, as you have already conceded, conditions.

I asked you to deal with reasonable conditions that you should have met handily to sustain your argument, but you couldn’t, thus you have failed to prove your point. Satisfying conditions is the a posteriori process of proving your arguments during the course of discussion; it is not a process of distortion, exaggeration, false scenarios or misrepresentation. Clearly, you do not apprehend the definition of a straw man argument.

Please refer to the second sentence of your comments of October 19, 10:16 AM. In this statement you agree that Petco is a pitcher friendly ball park. That is your argument, and it is the argument that I’ve been addressing all along.

It is time for you to stop playing these silly, childish games and act like a man, concede the point and get on with your life.

You also stated, “Petco is a very large ballpark, i.e., a pitcher friendly park.” (10/19/12 @ 9:45 am)before I even used the words pitcher friendly, so you obviously agree that Petco helps fly ball pitchers.

According to you, if Cashman will figure out when the opportunity cost is too high, then shouldn’t you leave it to Cashman, a professional, to determine if it already is too high; as opposed to you, a fan, claiming that it isn’t?

Mr. October was Reggie Jackson. Mr. November is Derek Jeter. Mr. May is Dave Winfield. The titles are not transferable.

Is there anything else I can help you with? he said facetiously.