Do you want his other #s in postseason besides RBI? Do you want his RBI chances? It's not just RBI, that illustrates how awful he was but the entire story is alot worse than that 1 RBI in 16 postseason games FACT,
No need. I am aware of his other stats. As I have said multiple times, no one is saying he has performed well in the postseason. Stop right there and please reread the previous sentence. Now read it again. Make sure you understand it. Got it? Okay? Okay. You may continue. Here's the point: We're talking about your inability to recognize good/bad analysis. You used RBI as part of your evidence. That is a poor choice. If you are trying to make a point, you have plenty of other stats to choose from. You use one that poorly supports your case, and insist that it illustrates how awful he was. Conclusion: You have no idea what you're talking about. And, of course, you can't refute #2 and #3, so you ignore them. You crack me up, man. Honest question: Do you even believe the stuff you type?
You are capable of missing the point with alarming skill. No one is arguing that his postseason stats have been good recently.
Why do you keep responding then? I haven't changed the topic, we have been talking about ARod in October. You complained I couldn't use RBI as a reason why he has sucked, I said name the stat and now you are trying to change the subject.
A fantastic question. Possibly because I am amazed by the level of either willful stubbornness you are showing or the density of your skull. Either way, it's fascinating, sort of like how a train wreck is fascinating. No. I said you use shitty analysis in a number of areas (you keep ignoring the others). Yes, A-Rod has sucked in October. No one denies that. You go beyond that. You say he is a choker. Not that he has choked. But that choking is what he does. It is an inherent quality of his. To back this up, you have offered a few arguments, all poorly formed. One mistake was using RBI as though they are meaningful. They're not, really. You seem to want to harp on this, but that's only a small example of how you are botching this. A second mistake is using 16 games as a valid sample size. Sixteen games can tell you how a player has done in 16 games, and not much more. It's too small of a sample, regardless of the stat you choose, to have any predictive quality. In other words, the phrase "past performance is not indicative of future results" is even more true when you're talking about small sample size. The third is admitting that A-Rod doesn't have the "good will" built up, so that's why people judge him more harshly. That is bias.... bias you have freely admitted you hold. (Hint: You should try to keep bias out of analysis.) The fourth is when you said he sucked, except for those times he was good. That's poor analysis, as well. This isn't changing the topic. The topic is A-Rod in October. If you want to say he has been awful lately, go ahead. No one will disagree with you. If you want to say that A-Rod is a choker, though... well... that's silly. I will now sit back and wait for you to say something about how he's sucked for sixteen games and how I can pick any stat I want.
It's like arguing w/ a 5 year old. Forget it, ARod is the greatest baseball player we have ever seen and man is he clutch!
Yes. Yes, that is exactly what it's like. If you have to resort to distortions like that in your response, it does not bode well for your position. When that is all you can offer, it typically means that you have no real ground to stand on, or that you are incapable (or unwilling) to understand the argument of the other side. I don't know how many times I can say it, but maybe the sixth time's the charm: No one is saying A-Rod has played well in October! This much is obvious. Perhaps more importantly, no one is saying he is clutch. In fact, the point of this conversation (if talking to a brick wall can be considered a conversation) is that you should not make ANY assumption about what a player "is" from such a small sample size. Or, to be more accurate, you can... but it's shitty analysis.
Stop trying to make up new arguments and stick to what we were discussing and by insulting me every post it doesn't help your aguments- neither does the deflecting.
New arguments? :lol: Actually... I apologize. I'll bite. What discussion was it, in your mind, that we should be sticking to? This should be good. ETA: I gather that this is what you do. When you are shown to be wrong, you distort/deny/change the subject. You're like a little Barry Bonds.
You haven't shown anything! You are deflecting b/c you came off looking like a fool questioning me for questioning ARods postseasons. All you do is hurl insutls, thats what happens when you are losing arguments.
For the umpteenth time, dude, get this through your head: You can think A-Rod sucked in the postseason all you want. No one will question this! He has sucked. Horribly. Do you understand that we all agree with you here? Where you run into trouble is the extra step you take with this. Instead of just observing that he has sucked, you say he's a choker. You don't just say he hasn't gotten it done when it counts. You say that he can't get it done. You make assessments about some inherent quality of A-Rod, the ballplayer. "Typical A-Rod, choking in the clutch." This is why I have a problem with the things you say. You might be right. A-Rod might be a choker. He might not be able to get it done when it counts (consistently). But you need more than sixteen games to figure that out. And you don't judge current performance based on how much good will a player has built up in the past. I have a very difficult time believing that you don't understand this. This is not complex material here.
SO WHY ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT IT???????????????????????? YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up. This is alla joke, right? you cannot be serious?
Junc v. Cappy in an internet death march to get the last word. I hope theres a spare billion or two in the stimulus package for studying ways to harness this limitless resource.
Can I just get a show of hands here? Does anyone else have issues comprehending what I'm saying? I don't want the last word... I just want some sense that junc is capable of understanding what should be a fairly simple idea. I find his resistance to consider or even acknowledge (never mind directly reply to) what someone else says to be fascinating. (And, admittedly, not unamusing.) I'll take a billion, though.
I just wish we could have an adult, intelligent discussion on baseball instead of somebody just hurling insult after insult.
Junc, while my sarcastic side might show through here (if only due to mild frustration that it seems you purposefully miss the forest for the trees), my intent is not to personally insult you. It seems clear to me, though, that we are dealing with two possible choices in this conversation: You are either being willfully obtuse, or you are incapable of understanding what I am saying. We are not talking about complex math here. It should be easily understood. Sixteen games is not a valid sample size by which to judge a player's inherent value. This is not really disputable. While the second option (that you lack the capacity to understand this) might be viewed as an insult, I am not saying I believe that of you. I strongly believe it's the first choice. However, since you seem unwilling to address the specifics of the topic more directly, I have to leave the second choice available as possibly true. I guess there is also a third option, which is that you are capable of understanding what I am saying, but I am not being clear enough. Again, though, since you won't address my point directly, I can't figure out where the misunderstanding lies, though not for lack of trying. If you can think of additional options, I would love to hear them. If you would like to have intelligent, adult conversation about baseball, I would ask that you address my points. Let's discuss why you think A-Rod is a choker. I will refute your points where I disagree, and you'll have a chance to respond to them. If I make a claim, you can point out where you disagree, and I'll respond to that. I should add, though, simply repeating your point is not a productive response... it just makes the conversation go around in circles. The premise being debated can not be used as evidence of itself. So, junc... you want to talk baseball? What would you like to discuss?
