Who Will DH?

[Ceetar]

you forgot 5. Small Sample Size as a caveat to the OBP point that represented a likely improvement.

[Edgy MD]

Boobird's Failsafe: "If a player is booed, and then fails, the ire of fans is shown to be justified. If the player is booed, and then excels, then the ire of fans is again shown to have been justified, because the ire and the fear of ire is what motivates him." You don't find anything self-serving in Vic's post? His tone seems to suggest he's fully aware of the absurdity of in the reasoning. He knowingly leaves himself wide open and seems to take joy in it.

I don't call anybody "clueless," but I do disagree with it. And I do and did disagree that Curtis Granderson sucks. And that Michael Cuddyer sucks. I'm not sure we need or needed to return to Granderson, though.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't think that Vic was saying that he and CF booed Granderson into being a better player. I think he was just playfully saying that they did something of a reverse jinx.

Vic Sage wrote: i'm with CF... as long as he and i consistently declare that "Cuddyer Sucks" as often as we did Granderson, we're bound to get something useful out of him.

[Edgy MD]

Yes I tried to suggest as much.

You don't find anything self-serving in Vic's post? His tone seems to suggest he's fully aware of the absurdity of in the reasoning. He knowingly leaves himself wide open and seems to take joy in it.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't call anybody "clueless," but I do disagree with it. And I do and did disagree that Curtis Granderson sucks. And that Michael Cuddyer sucks. I'm not sure we need or needed to return to Granderson, though.

Cuddyer has a bad WS and I'll be starting the Cuddyer Sucks
thread faster than Ripken on asshole eatin'...

[Centerfield]

Boobird's Failsafe: "If a player is booed, and then fails, the ire of fans is shown to be justified. If the player is booed, and then excels, then the ire of fans is again shown to have been justified, because the ire and the fear of ire is what motivates him." You don't find anything self-serving in Vic's post? His tone seems to suggest he's fully aware of the absurdity of in the reasoning. He knowingly leaves himself wide open and seems to take joy in it. I don't call anybody "clueless," but I do disagree with it. And I do and did disagree that Curtis Granderson sucks. And that Michael Cuddyer sucks. I'm not sure we need or needed to return to Granderson, though.

Let's start with the distinction between booing and criticizing. Booing a player, who is trying his best, at the game where he can hear it, is different than being critical of a player on a fan forum, designed with the intent to discuss said player (and his teammates).

There is also a difference between a fan who is critical of a player, then acknowledges and praises that the player when he turns it around, and the fan that boos a player, then takes credit when the player turns it around.

Your post is an attempt to lump me in with self-serving boobirds. That that is my objection.

I think it is fairly clear that both Vic and I are joking on the Cuddyer "absolutely no chance to do well" stuff.

[Edgy MD]

Well, for someone who is joking, you take defending your position dead seriously.

"Boobird" = not a particularly serious appellation itself. But whether you are booing a guy directly or ripping him online, the logic is the same. You cannot be proven wrong no matter how the evidence breaks. That sort of logic doesn't sit well with me, and I try and respond to it when it is presented, and respond in the same vein: lightly if it's delivered lightly, seriously if it's delivered seriously.

But as you go from joking to serious, depending on how vulnerable your arguments are, it's hard to gauge. Here you are defending your position point-by-intricate point but then saying it's not serious. I'm not sure then how to respond at all. I'll just say I disagree.

[Centerfield]

Allow me to clarify then.

Where I am joking:

When I say Michael Cuddyer has zero chance at doing anything well in the World Series. This is an attempt to play off the "Curtis Granderson Sucks" thread and hope that Cuddyer gets a big hit in the Series.

Where I am being serious:

Everything else.

Back to your points:

You cannot be proven wrong no matter how the evidence breaks. That sort of logic doesn't sit well with me, and I try and respond to it when it is presented, and respond in the same vein: lightly if it's delivered lightly, seriously if it's delivered seriously.

I don't know why you continue to think that my statement can be proven right or wrong depending on how things break from there. I have tried to illustrate this to you many times. I didn't say whether or not he would continue to suck. I pointed out that for a year plus, Curtis Granderson had sucked.

The point you think I made (aka "BooBird's FailSafe)

Curtis Granderson sucks! He's not going to get better unless we boo his ass and motivate him!"

The point I actually made:

Curtis Granderson sucks. No one calls him on it. Discuss

But whether you are booing a guy directly or ripping him online, the logic is the same.

This is an interesting statement. I don't agree with it, but it's very illustrative of your thinking. You're on record as saying booing a player is wrong. If "the logic is the same", then one can only conclude that ripping a player online is wrong. If that's the case, one can't have an objective discussion with you about baseball. Sometimes players suck. Sometimes criticism is warranted. If it's the same as booing, and booing is wrong, and lends itself to the BooBirds' Failsafe, you are effectively saying no one can have an honest online discussion.

[Edgy MD]

I don't know why we're talking about Curtis Granderson. You were joking. Or you weren't. There's nothing clear about it. You say now you're serious, but you shifted earlier. Very clever of you. Very impossible to refute by anybody. I guess I won't try.

I don't know why you're pissed at me. Lunchbucket said your assessment of how the Mets built the team was bullshit.

[Edgy MD]

I don't know why we're talking about Curtis Granderson. You were joking. Or you weren't. There's nothing clear about it. You say now you're serious, but you shifted earlier. Very clever of you. Very impossible to refute by anybody. I guess I won't try.

I don't know why you're pissed at me. Lunchbucket said your assessment of how the Mets built the team was bullshit.

Centerfield wrote: If "the logic is the same", then one can only conclude that ripping a player online is wrong.

No, the logic of

If the player is booed, and then excels, then the ire of fans is again shown to have been justified, because the ire and the fear of ire is what motivates him.

is the same. Rip all you want.

Take it easy.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Dudes!! Game One, 2015 World Series! Mets! Let's Go, and all that jazz!!

[Centerfield]

Edgy,

We're talking about Granderson because you made reference to the "BooBird's Failsafe". The same comment you made in the Granderson thread.

I understand what you are saying about the BooBird's logic. How it's grounded in fallacy. I am trying to get you to see that this was not my point. It really wasn't. I researched Granderson's numbers before posting it. I thought it was a well-thought out point for discussion.

I'm not pissed at all. I didn't mean for it to come out that way. I'm reacting to an allegation that my post is grounded in self-serving logic. I don't think it is. I'm sorry to have upset you.

Any way, let's forget it. Game 1. Happy time.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Lunchbucket said your assessment of how the Mets built the team was bullshit.

And I disagree with that. But I'm not mad at him. I don't think he's mad at me.

[Edgy MD]

I'm glad for this.

Let's wallop some American League arses.

[Lefty Specialist]

First pitch can't come soon enough.

[Frayed Knot]

We should just forget all about these boo birds you speak of and instead embrace the boo bees.
I think we can all agree that we like boo bees, right? So embrace the boo bees as often as possible.
I recall that we even had a thread on this topic once.

[Vic Sage]

I think it is fairly clear that both Vic and I are joking on the Cuddyer "absolutely no chance to do well" stuff.

i guess it was only clear to us.

lets go mets.

[Vic Sage]

Conforto, with Lagares in CF, for the rest of the series. Enough of this shit.