You're a hypothetical GM

[Willets Point]

KC wrote: Alright, I admit that I voted vet just because I thought that Bret was agenda mongering again.

You mean he isn't?

[seawolf17]

I just do what KC implores me to do.

[metsmarathon]

"Bear in mind, please, the terms of my hypothetical: your own staff (and your own self) concludes that this season Reg Rook will outhit Vic Vet by a small but not insignificant margin."

see, now, you never explicitly said this. yeah, yeah, i could infer it if i wanted to, but "downside" sound more sketchy than claiming to know.

if i know in my heart of hearts that the kid will outhit the vet, and my staff agrees with me, then i prolly play him. i mean, he's better right? if you're breaking even, then you consider playing the vet. if the kid will lose you games by comparison, then, of course, he sits.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: Alright, I admit that I voted vet just because I thought that Bret was agenda mongering again.

Or because you wanted to screw me up but some mysterious force just wouldn't allow you to hit the "rookie" button?

My agenda was, if anything, to show how perniciously hard it is to let go of the line of crap clubs (not just the Mets) try to support their CYA policies with. I was surprised that the voting was as strong as it was in that direction. More than that, I guessed that this might be a tough call for some (not me nor Chuck nor JD) that got much easier once I introduced some of the personal (but perfectly irrelevant) ego and turf issues of who was responsible for Vic Vet's contract, you (the GM) or Arnie Asshole, your predessessor and mortal enemy as ex-GM.

But I wasn't trying to show anything specific at all about Kaz/Kepp, Piazza/Wilson-Phillips, Cameron/Diaz or Ashburn/Hickman.

You may, of course, continue to treat my posts with suspicion and contempt and respond to them with all appropriate hostility that an agenda-bearing maniac deserves.

I wish once in a while you'd tell me what my agenda is, though. It's hard to know what's on your mind sometimes.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

="metsmarathon"]"Bear in mind, please, the terms of my hypothetical: your own staff (and your own self) concludes that this season Reg Rook will outhit Vic Vet by a small but not insignificant margin." see, now, you never explicitly said this. yeah, yeah, i could infer it if i wanted to, but "downside" sound more sketchy than claiming to know. if i know in my heart of hearts that the kid will outhit the vet, and my staff agrees with me, then i prolly play him. i mean, he's better right? if you're breaking even, then you consider playing the vet. if the kid will lose you games by comparison, then, of course, he sits.

I suppose I could have drawn you a picture, but I really can't make it much plainer, mm than

"he's hit a fairly steady .280 for you over the first three years of the deal, averaged 20 HRs per year, like that. Let's say he throws lefthanded, and that your CFer, RFer, and IBman (the three positions a lefthanded outfielder might be moved to) are all signed up longterm, and you're perfectly happy with them, so changing his position is out of the question.

Last season you brought up a kid to be your 4th outfielder, and while he didn't have quite the arm for RF or the range for CF you'd like to see (if you even had a spot for this kid in RF or CF) he's at least as good defensively as Mr.. 280/20. Your talent-evaluators (and your eyes) tell you that this kid's DOWNSIDE offensively is something like .280/20. His upside is batting champ/HR leader, and the most likely scenario has him putting up annual numbers like 25 HRs/.300 average.

In other words, not only is this kid far cheaper than your incumbent LFer, he's probably a better player."

I can't tell you that it's a lock that the kid will outhit the vet, because that's never the case. I can tell you, and I did, the exact consistent level of performance this veteran has given you for the past three years. If you want to claim that it's a giant leap of faith for you to conclude that those numbers represent his true level of performance, I'd classify that as "your problem."

Do you think I'm being very subtle when I then give you numbers that express clearly that the vet's level of performance are the downside (in CAPS, mind you) of his projected year, and give you numbers that represent his probable performance that are several integers higher? I don't how you could possibly claim I was less than clear that the kid was a better hitter. Since I specified that the vet had no defensive advantages, "he's probably a better player" all but spells it out for you.

But if you refuse to see what's in front of you, I guess that's part of my point here.

[Guest KC]

>>>It's hard to know what's on your mind sometimes<<<

Right back at ya.

[metsmarathon]

well, ya said the kid's downside was the vets expected performance. i interpreted that as the kids downside for his career, not for the upcoming season. as in, "ultimately, the worst this kid can do is what the vet is giving you right now," not, "the worst this kid can do for you next year is what you'd already be getting from the vet." it makes a difference to me.

sorry. i'm in the middle of spec-hell over here, and am getting myself hung up on little words and exceptions to such. sue me.

also, i once heard that if the reader misunderstnads what the writer writes, the onus is not on the reader to get inside the head of the writer, rather for the writer to more clearly state his position. but i'm just being a pain in the ass on this one point.

i stated my initial position, and given clearer set of information, i've revised my position. i think my reasoning is consistent given each set of information.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

That's usually my position, too: if I write something, and you haven't understood my point, then I did something wrong.

In this case, where I was striving to risk over-explaining the ground situation because I knew that I could be accused of withholding crucial information, I will take a "Bite Me" exception.

[Zvon]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: "I know I've got a bad reputation, And it isn't just talk, talk, talk..." --T.S. Eliot

Bret,
Your sig....
is that really TS Eliot?
Or a line from Freedy Johnsons "Bad Reputaion".
Or both?

(Sheesh,-----------the things that Zvon wonders about.......)

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Zvon wrote: Your sig.... is that really TS Eliot? Or a line from Freedy Johnsons "Bad Reputaion"

Nah, that's just my sense of humor there. It's Freedy, of course. (Many CPFers are FJ fans, and would recognize it.) Prolly time to change the sig already, anyway.