If you're playing 5-Card Stud and you have two aces in your hand, you already have a potential winner. We have two Aces.
That "1-game roll of the dice" is a bit better than that for us.
If we get the Angels....well, I think we're 7-5 against them at this point.
We're 7-6 vs. the Orcs, if I counted correctly.
Again, if I counted right, we're 5-1 when starting Felix against those two teams. The one team loss was when Felis went 7 innings with 2 hits and 1 unearned run.
We're 1-1 when starting Kuma. The loss was when he went 7 innings with 5 hits and 2 ER's.
So if I counted correctly, we're 6-2 vs. the Halos and Orcs--the very teams we would likely play in a 1 game playoff--when strting Felix or Kuma.
Playing for just one game? I think not.
moe
.
This idea comes up constantly, probably because one notable Fangraphs dude flatly stated that --- > the M's are playing only for "a 1-game playoff, on the road, against a better squad." Clearly implying that it is unintelligent to set such a goal.
.......
There was a very similar argument on Field Gulls last week, "demonstrating" that a 14-team NFL playoff was "incorrect." We kid you not, the words "Correct" and "Incorrect" were used many, many times. The logic was:
- P1: With 12 teams, the best team wins the Super Bowl X percent of the time
- P2: With 14 or 10 teams, the best team wins the SB [X-1] percent of the time
- C: Ergo, 12 teams are correct
The logic is valid -- the conclusion follows from the premises -- but did you catch the untrue premise?
Who said that it is the league's job to make sure the champion becomes the champion? Perhaps it is the champion's job to make sure it wins the championship, and the league's job to make sure everybody has a good time.
I know that from a chess tournament organizer's point of view, this is in fact true. The TO doesn't care who wins. He cares that every participant enjoy himself. If Dr. D wants the championship, it's his job to impose his will -- whether or not the format is a shade the better, or a shade the worse, for him.
Why would it be the TO's job to help Dr. D avoid "accidents" along the way to 1st place? In real life, would the TO sit up nights, trying to figure the format that most favors Dr. D? Of course not.
The TO is not focused on one person. And he shouldn't be.
If the NFL expands the playoffs, that will create more fun for certain cities, and less fun for others. It will create less fun for Seattle. If the NFL cares only about that, then....
........
Back to MLB: is that all the M's get, if they make a big trade and roar to life? They only get a 1-game playoff?
How about baseball fun in August and September? Are you saying the games in August and September do not matter?
They did in 1995. Why wouldn't it be just as valid, to set the "intelligent" goal as "Making 2014 a Pennant Race Season"?
That's not just Dr. D's shtick. Real-life GM's agree with Dr. D's goal, not with Fangraphs' and Baseball Prospectus'. In part GM's agree, because of the "corporate brand." In part because of what it does for the fan base. In part because they just have their heads on straight. :- )
.........
By the way, I'll take a 1-game playoff with this team. And Felix, or Iwakuma, and 6 lockdown relievers, available. Seattle the one team nobody wants in that situation.
.........
Let's forget logic and syllogisms. Let's talk real life.
I don't have to see the Spurs hit the very last shot, in order to enjoy the preceding 47.9 minutes of the basketball game.
In practical terms, Dr. D rejects their definition, in fact resents it. Winning is not everything. Making the effort to win is everything.
Remember 1995? How about the samurai? How many courageous losses have brought tears to your eyes, just because of the human courage involved? We admire human virtue, not mercenary paychecks.
If you have read this, you should never again parrot the idea that "Toronto is only playing for a 1-game playoff." That is not the case.
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
Your posts continue to smoke, bro' ... rock on ...
And you know what blows my mind?
The season is six months long.
And there are more than two months to go.
In a way the trade deadline seems like the end of everything.
Two months of pennant race to go!
I am, i fact, extremely tired of this old view from Mariner bloggers that you should only go for a ring when you're "in the best possible position" (that's a quote from Cameron), because the post-season is too random and you shouldn't squander resources you might need later for that randomy shot at glory.
That...is the coward's way out.
. . . you'll recall the city was electric. Soccer moms huddled over Starbucks take-away ventes on the muddied field of Queen Anne were talking about last night's game. No kidding.The moms were chewing it over. The dads were trying to find tickets for tonight. My nine-year-old suddenly sprouted Edgar's bat how high stance. She's getting married in two weeks and the Yankee series is one of the great memories of both our lives. This is exactly why we have professional sports; the only reason - to provide a common bond to civic life.
Would Safeco exist without 95? No.
Would the Seahawks have won the Super Bowl? Probably not. If not for Safeco, there is no football stadium. Without the stadium, no 12th man. Without the 12th man . . . .
In pure, cold-hearted logic, of course you shouldn't spend precious respources on such a silly, probably unattainabe goal. But that's the point - pro sports aren't about logic, they're about fun. Let's have some.
This is tangential to the topic of the post, but I feel like baseball would be so much better off with an expanded postseason structure. As it stands currently, 10 out of 30 teams make it, but really it's only 8 of 30 since 2 teams are eliminated after the 1-game playoff. But, adding the 1-game wildcard playoff definitely gives more fans hope, so that's good. But, why not open it up even further and make it the top 8 teams in each league? You could take the first and second place finishers in each division and then two more wildcards to make 8. Then you have a tournament. And oh, by the way, you get rid of some regular season games in September as well, so you don't have quite as many games where bad teams play in empty stadiums.
I don't think anyone is unaware that professional leagues and their respective fans don't have interests that necessarily align, especially if we're talking about the business side of the sport. That being side, I find this example in support of of your point (a point i would agree with-BTW) beyond cynical and rather disingenuous. Sure, he NFL owners would love another round of playoffs *and* a 20 game schedule given their druthers. Heck, the NFL would turn their game into baseball or worse the NBA given the chance. Because they can do this and because it might be their "right"... It doesn't make it *correct* by any definition that includes honor or really anything of value beyond cash. You know full well when fan's frame this as "correct" and "incorrect" they're speaking of things integrity of the game, quality of play and the legitimacy of the eventual champion. (That last part is paramount no matter what the "Best fans in baseball" [sic] ...residing in flyover country may say.) Thing is, I believe you know this, so this justification is really confounding to me. AndI know for a fact you'd side with sports idealist and their silly usage of correct/incorrect over the moneyed parasites that are the George Argyros of the world. How does that square?
1a. On the Field Gulls pieces we held up as examples of the problem, "correctness" was the entire idea, both in spirit and letter.
I suggest going over and reading the articles. The title is, "NFL Expansion Is Objectively Wrong." It's not semantics. The author's point is that the NFL is considering doing something wrong.
1b. It might easily be that the current NFL playoffs are preferable. What I object to, is the representation of opinion (or a questionable conclusion) as fact -- which that author most certainly did.
...........
2a. Yes, it's true that sometimes semantics get in the way.
2b. But it is also obvious that many 'net writers are full of intellectual contempt for opposing ideas.
.........
3a. As to my being "disingenuous," I meant my criticism of the Field Gulls articles from the bottom of my heart. Thanks for asking.
3b. If you're going to jump into the community and start a conversation by calling people liars, don't be surprised at the reaction. Do be aware that the problem started with you.
I've got tons and tons of character problems. Insincerity ain't one of 'em. For you to lead off with that is just strange. I wonder what would cause a person to assume that others' problems are grounded in lying.
- Jeff
Steen, just so you know I'm reading amigo :- ) ... this particular accusation,
++ And I know for a fact you'd side with sports idealist and their silly usage of correct/incorrect over the moneyed parasites that are the George Argyros of the world. How does that square? ++
1. How can you predict my opinions for a fact?
.........
2a. Here, you "knew a fact" that was not the case.
For example, I don't indiscriminately hate rich white people. I tend to admire self-made zillionaires like Argyros. My whole F-500 thing is, in a way, attempt to create "sympathy for the devil." In a liberal city that automatically resents super-successful "moneyed parasites."
2b. Sometimes I side with Rich, White, and Male; sometimes I don't. I take it on a case-by-case basis.
2c. In my experience, many liberals side with whoever is NOT richer, or whiter, or more male, and do so automatically. I find "automatic" loyalty, whether in Kansas or New York, a sad thing.
.........
Regulars will wonder why Dr. D is engaging this apparent attempt to troll. To me, these issues -- academic self-superiority (such as at Field Gulls and Fangraphs), class hatred and warfare ("moneyed parasites", etc -- are fascinating in themselves.
Dr. D tries hard to avoid politics, but sometimes he can't resist. :- )
Though, it is a nice example of why I think I can guess your opinion. Doc, You have a pretty consistent penchant for interspersing your worldview with sports commentary, or is it vice versa? If you're sincerely wondering why i could be so bold to assume your opinion...it's because *you* tend to share it. A lot. At the risk of taking the wind out of your sails, I'm neither trolling you nor am I some pinko liberal. Sorry. Actually, I'm a little disappointed that you so eagerly went down this path, because it means your hearing things i'm not saying. I didn't mean to touch a nerve, I get that you're a bit of a minority up here but you're tilting at windmills on this one. The moneyed parasite line was only in reference to Argyros running the team on a shoestring budget. A guy who when he wasn't threatening to move the team was shaking down the city for more money...money that never went back into the team. By all accounts he was a miserly puke whatever his political affiliation may have been. My automatic loyalty was simply to the team and the city. Getting back to your line about "correctness", I didn't say it was disingenuous because you didn't agree with me, I said it because the argument didn't agree with *you*. You've spent a good portion of this year making an argument (and gustily chiding Cameron's band of sycophant Eeyores, which I love!) for going for the 1-game playoff if need be, the value of winning and the honor in even the attempt. If you love the sports how could watering down the quality of play or the quality of the eventual champion be a good or correct thing? Why not play a 40 game schedule if "correct" is such a empty idea? No, I'll happily stay on the side that doesn't have profit and avarice shading things and just desires good football and a title holder decided by skill not luck. P.S.-You ever notice how the phrase "class warfare" only gets bandied about when the rich think they might not get their typical share? Hopefully me noticing that obvious peculiarity doesn't get me put on a your secret list of Fellow Travelers. I know how hard you try to avoid politics. ; ) Cheers.
Since you signed off with "Cheers," I'll give you the last word. Appreciate your response.
- Jeff
The water looks warm. I'm in.
Hey Steen,
1. We do get pretty "tongue-in-cheeky" around here, I will admit. But unless that tone has been set, referring to somebody as a "moneyed parasite" generally indicates particular view about that individual in general. It may also indicate a general worldview. That would be a safe interpretation, I believe. But since we have no previous indication of how you see the world, I will avoid that interpretation for now (see below).
2. I believe the Field Gull article referred to playoff expansion as "objectively" wrong. How can it be "objectively" wrong.? How can it be demonstrably wrong, without inserting some personal bias. No can do, I think.
3. The author of that article states that the current playoff situation "can not" be improved (with the current divisional set up). Then he whips out a ton of numbers that are merely means of interpreting the the NFL. Hey, WAR is a way of interpreting MLB players, but it is only that. It isn't A squared + B squared = C squared. It is a subjective evaluation, not objective. If an expanded playoff generates $X million more for the league how is that "objectively" wrong. Not from the league's perspective. Wait......they are all moneyed parasites, aren't they. OK, you didn't really say that. I get it.
4. As for a guy running his business on a "shoestring budget," well...it is his business. Is Lew Wolff, who is co-owner of the Oakland A's, a "moneyed parasite," too? Being a spendthrift makes his a parasite? Is that an objective or subjective truth? And by the way, I believe your post was the first to use "class warfare" around here. You are the only one bandying it about. You also used "profit" and "avarice" in a way that seems to link the two. But alas, my reading much into all of that would be somewhat subjective. I will refrain. I will point out that you did say of Doc that he had a "a pretty consistent penchant for interspersing (his) worldview with sports commentary" and that you "could be so bold to assume (his) opinion... because (*he*) tend(s) to share it." Should we suppose you are not "interpersing" your world view with your sports commentary? If so, can we assume your opinion?
5. You say that you will gladly stay on the "side" that desires a football championship decided by skill and not "luck." Are you advocating no divisional playoffs? Or even a 4-team playoff? The fewer teams in the playoffs the less that one bounce of the ball, "luck", decides winners and losers. Or are you advocating a longer season, one that generates even more profit for the "parasitical" owners? A longer season would indeed reduce the impact of "luck." In for a penny, in for a pound, right?
6. The 1-game playoff exists in baseball. That is objective. It is here. How is a team's pursuing that with some passion (or a fan pushing for it) somehow "watering down" the quality of play. A team's interest, given the opportunity, should be to maximize its playoff opportunity this year without severely damaging its playoff opportunity next year. Or something like that. Almost everybody here at SSI has argued for the M's to do that. We've offered a variety of opinions (certainly subjective) on just who we should trade for (or not) to accomplish that goal. But avoiding the focused pursuit of that WC spot, as some writers have seemed to suggest, seems weird considering the likelihood that we get to throw Felix or Kuma in that one game. Isn't that one of the points of sporting competition, the "one-game for it all" test?
7. I believe that Doc did not suggest "correct" was an empty idea. My read is that he did suggest that in the context of the NFL playoffs it is a subjective idea. The author of the Field Gull article argued that it was demonstrably objective.
Just sayin'
Glad to see you here at SSI.
Will welcome your commentary, Steen.
Power to the people! Down with the man!
moe
The other side's argument is so manifestly ridiculous, especially for ignoring the 2 months of relevant baseball, that only a sycophantic follower could possibly give it any credence.
I've been told by the site that my submission has triggered the spam filter. If this gets through, any idea why.
(Late night on the mobile.)
Just to be to clear.
A couple things:
2. Whether something is objectively wrong or not, his argument is a pretty extreme outlier compared to the last decade (That made me feel old) of Jeff's writing. I was parroting him. I get the feeling because i was reflexively pigeonholed as a PC liberal / smelly communist the values I was touting were overlooked. That was crux of my critique, how out of character this stance sounds.
4. Look again, I wasn't the one that brought up, "class hatred and warfare".
6. i don't know what your rebutting here, I never said anything about not competing for the WC.
Thanks, but the man is listening.
Steen, you can't fire loaded words and then deny that you had aggressive intent.
Direct quotes from your initial post, with no other comment from me than that to appearance you are referring them to Doc's article...
"Semantics and Silly Words"
"cynical and disingenuous"
Since you've been a regular reader for such a long time and know all about Doc's views and this site, we treat with respect those who express their opinions with respect and treat others the same way. To borrow from your language, "I believe you know this."
I'm sure you'll find that if you express the same opinions you did but do it with a more respectful posture, you too will be treated with respect.
Respectfully,
DaddyO
My first impression was that his argument compared to his very well documented world view and values was cynical and disingenuous. I wasn't saying it for effect or to offend, I used those words because there aren't a slew of good alternatives that don't involve dancing around the actual meaning. There's polite and there's treating your treating your reader like a child, I didn't want to do the latter. I felt that would be more likely to offend, and Doc takes a skeptical view of PC'ness and effete liberals, i figured he and to a lesser extent his audience could handle the directness.
"Semantics and Silly Words" was a just something to put in the title and more a comment on the subject of my post not his. What looks like malice is just OCD for alliteration.
I gotta say for a site that leans away from the delicate liberal worldview it seems odd to see my words finely parsed so as to find things to get offended about. Next thing I know someone is going to start hating on old rich, white guys. ; )
Cheers
Steen, putting on my moderator's hat, please watch your use of the loaded terms DaddyO referred to. As DaddyO says, the audience here does not want to be sidetracked by the loaded terms, the "moneyed parasite", "cynic", "disingenuous", etc tone. That derails the idea exchange, which is normally frictionless at SSI.
That's not me taking personal offense. That's the site moderator asking you to simply match the community tone as expressed in the comment threads and Shout Box. This happens so seldom at SSI that most people *forget* there is a moderator here. :- )
Say anything you want, but say it in a manner consistent with the site's tone, please. The goal is baseball / philosophy discussion without being at each others' throats.
Cheers,
Moderator
If anybody is interested in my replying to the substance of Steen's last two posts, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll let Steen have more last words, or let him debate with y'all, or whatever.
Earlier we said "we'll give you the last word" but the discussion has continued (which is fine). I'll say that Steen misunderstands me about "a great many things" (Sidious), and leave it at that.
One thing: I've got nothing against "pinko liberals" in principle. I won this job with an essay praising Barack Obama. That was Klat's #2 most-read post of its first three years, I think. Liberal thought, as such, is often praiseworthy in my eyes. My favorite politician of the 20th century was Sam Nunn. I voted for Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan.
Of the top 40-50 political issues in America in 2014 A.D., I'm "liberal" on 15-20 of them.
..........
Jesus Christ was regarded a liberal by His contemporaries.
..........
Many of these "sidetracks" come from very-occasional posters who presume that I hate liberals, reflexively react with anger towards them, etc. That is not the case.
My best understanding is that if you post "as a guest," even filling in the "name" data line, that your post will require a moderator to approve. That's a Klat convention - at SSI, we approve all such posts without reading them.
No idea why your post got through. If you run into further issues, please let me know.
- Jeff
2. I didn't sense that Doc was out of character.
4. "Moneyed parasites" is a fairly loaded phrase, you will admit. And I didn't indicate you mentioned "class warfare." You did seem to mention "profit" and "avarice" as a pretty tight relationship, however.
6. My bad. With sincere apologies. Reading between the lines (badly), I felt you were indicating Doc's stance on the 1-game playoff was in error (or inconsistent) and that you disagreed with him.
Glad to have 'ya.
I hate it when the man listens to me. Wait...I am the man. Now I'm confused. Quoting Rosanne Rosanna-Danna: "Never mind!"
moe
Even on a few days of slow news, trolling comments meant to upset and challenge Doc are most unwelcome. Why? First, we don't pay him anything to entertain us. After years of slaving away to entertain us, Doc can at least get a pat on the back now and again. When a person reads SSI for years, and is happy, and then one article upsets him, he ought to treat the one article as he did the other 2000 articles. Don't quit lurking just to complain. That's wrong.
Second, SSI has better and more interesting subject matter to discuss than whether Doc lies and rich people are bad. During the time frame of this little dust up, controversial and interesting things have happened:
Bat 571 says that Ackley has tightened his swing and quit turning his head and may be fixed. Everyone else say not fixed. Ackley has hit the other way and had big results for the last week or so. This strikes me as a big deal.
Moe says that Souza is worth Franklin+. Whoa! Who is this Souza character and how come only Moe is talking about him?
Matt says that Rusney Castillo is holding private Mariners workouts. What about Castillo changing shoes between fielding and hitting, and having two grown men fan him with palm fronds while he works out? Have we discussed whether Castillo is a bad fit for the Mariners on princess grounds?
I'm interested and have been following the @MoneyLynch strike, but I can't even get someone to take a bet on a bag of skittles.
Spectator says that Matt Kemp doesn't hit the ball very hard.
Shannon Drayer contradicts Zduriencik and says trading for an ace pitcher is dumb.
Have we discussed whether Zduriencik is drawing ire like Scott Boras does because he is single handedly holding the trade market up because his prospects are better than everyone elses?
Paxton is coming back Saturday!
Doc probably would have discussed more of these eminently readable subjects if he wasn't busy debating the intention of the word "parasitic" with Steen. Can we take a moment of silence for the shtick that could have been, never was, and never will be?
Trolling is not a victimless crime.
The Line of the Day Award goes to Mo for "Disruption in the Shtick". Please, no more shtick disruptions, the universe will become unbalanced.
"Don't quit lurking, just to complain. That's wrong." I think that will be the tag line in the new overhead banner ... :- )
That is what is an (unfortunately) emotional issue for me, when a guy elbows in at the lunch table, and opens up with something disruptive. As opposed to a well-placed debate, or refutation even, or rebuke even, coming from somebody who is part of the conversation.
But I never put my finger on it, 'till Mojo's bumper sticker.
........
Thanks for that amigos, and Mojo ... the "wit" factor in your wit and wisdom has become unbalanced. What I want to know is, do juries respond well to levity?
Mojo - I'm the one blowing the Souza horn ! (hopefully this helps restore balance in the Shtick) I get so wrapped up in it !
Meanwhile, Souza, from Everett, is 25 years old, RH, and is at AAA Syracuse in the Nationals system. Had some bumps along the way, including a PED suspension a few years back.
This year = .353/.431/.596/1.027 in 86 G/371 PA/317 AB (not a small sample). Has 22 2B, 2 3B, 17 HR with 22 SB (7 CS), 12% BB and 17% K. OPS vL = .922, vR = 1.039
Can play CF, has arm for RF (originally a 3B), but can play LF if Ackley doesn't sustain.
MLBTR said Nats interested in top-flight IF depth and specifically mentioned Souza and C Sandy Leon as the chips. I've been intrigued since.
To clarify, I would do Franklin straight up, or Noriega + CSmith (since the Nats are also interested in BP depth for September) without any remorse. More would depend. But in July, he's hitting .356/.410/.667/1.076 . The M's could use it.
Mariners have what, five of those?
This trade seems too easy not to do. What about this 27 percent K rate? is that too bad, or is it okay with a big home run hitter? Also, how does the 25 year old thing match up with Spec's age arcs?
Juries are a mixed bag as a rule. Some jurors like a laugh, but it makes some of the frowny ones frown more. I avoid smiling in Court, and make all my clients save their smiling for the stairwells. Also, juries don't like it when they think you are trying to get them to like you. Something that is universal for jurors, is that they don't like it when you waste their time, or don't give them a sense of how long you are going to take for any particular subject. If you told them that a particular ramble was going to take 20 minutes, they would feel much better about things. Jurors also like for you to tell them the truth. Jurors also prefer a criminal defendant to testify, prefer a defendant to wear nice clothes and be clean cut, greatly prefer a defendant to look sorry, and prefer certain types of cases. Juries are more willing to acquit for a self defense case than they are for any other other defense.
My best jury trick, is I look up each juror's criminal record, and try to get as many people with a rap sheet as possible on the jury. I find that my arguments sound better to them. Another trick, is when the jurors walk in, I wait to see which side of the court room they sit on, the prosecutor's side or the defendants'. If you are really into stalking jurors, their Facebook profiles are always a good read.
I wrote that last comment with tone in mind, evidently I'm going to need specifics, I don't know what to fix?
Just say what you think and don't tell other people their opinions are worse than yours or that their posts are dumb. If you disagree with something, state what is true rather than what is not. For everything negative you post say something positive as well. Think twice before you use the words: silly, laughable, archaic, disingenuous, pander, parasitic and the like unless you are talking about Oakland or something. Do not engage in racial prejudice or stereotyping. Do not swear. Do not post pornography. Have some fun. Post what you are excited about. Do what you can to make SSI an interesting Web site to read.
Thanks for sharing this, very interesting! Gotta love this "sports" blog where we get inside legal dish :)
...and ya just called me a troll. I feel like this might make some of the advice that follows less credible. Also, didn't the mod just mention tone? Cheers.
I believe the age 25 thing is the reservation most analysts have - late developing (drafted in 2007) after a PED bust in 2010.
Not sure about where the 27% K rate comes from - it's at 17% this year after being 23-24% in previous years. 16-24% is a decent range for a hitter with some power. Stanton and others that are truly power hitters are often higher.
Souza has been listed by Fangraphs as one of the 5 most compelling fringe prospects - that about says it all. He's a suddenly-blossoming fringe prospect that the Nats think they can get some value out of in the form of a top MIF prospect in case they can't re-sign Ian Desmond. They don't need OFs, but find themselves short of near-ready IFs.
I think the Nats would be happy to trade Souza for Nick, but so far, JackZ has been trying to package Nick to get more. Totally understandable. But if Souza could be had for Noriega + or Marte + and if, as reported, the Nats are worried about bullpen depth, I think there's another possible deal there.
EDIT TO ADD: It has now been announced that Ryan Zimmerman has a grade 3 hamstring strain - nearly a complete tear. The Nats are stepping up pursuit of a ready or nearly-ready MIF who can play 2nd or 3rd so that Rendon can play the other - and they'd still like one who can play SS as well. Sounds like Noriega to me!
Wouldn't let me post here on this thread again after posting on the other thread--through my mobile--nor would it let me log in (I use the same password everywhere except my e-mail, so as far as I know, I didn't forget it; just the dang mobile thing, I guess. Here now on a real computer after getting the "reset password" link, etc.
Thanks again!
On one of my other writing gigs. I'm kind of half kidding.
.........
One of those things was delightfully paradoxical: Juries like defendants who appear to be sorry? I believe it, but...
When my Dad wanted to know, "Who ate my ice cream?" You didn't want to be the kid who appeared sorry. DEFIANT or SCARED was far more likely to get you off the hook.
Are you saying that, on a subconscious level, the jury starts the trial knowing the defendant is guilty and --- > is looking for good reasons to cut him a break, to find reasonable doubt?
Do you see anybody else here who is having problems grasping the ideas?
This rhetorical device, "I just honestly don't know what you mean by recreational drugs," is very effective. Towards certain ends -- such as, yes, trolling.
Whether or not YOU are a troll, this is in fact basic trolling:
The hectoring about simple definitions
The focus on the other commenters' fairness/erudition/sincerity, rather than on the baseball subject matter
The claim to be unaware of what "Is" is, when everybody else knows
The determined effort to see your opponent admit an error ...
... while NEVER conceding points fairly made (such as the Field Gulls articles being dogmatic)
The attempt to keep the conversation active, but leading nowhere
etc.
It's practically a definition of trolling. What is the ideal outcome here? There isn't one.
.........
You just don't get it, how to get along at SSI? Really? There are a couple of easy solutions.
I recommend just re-booting, starting from here, and being friendly. Everybody else is.
So I assumed I said the magic words in there, I'm not being obtuse, I was asking because I sincerely wanted to know.
I often get login failures on my mobile device, and I think the problem is I have the site open elsewhere on my browser. When I go through and close them (What, I have SSI open 4 times? Yes, I do!), the problem seems to go away.
mojican, are you sure you are a lawyer and not a stand-up comedian? You, sir, are on a ROLL!"
Here's my Souza interest:
!e have beaucoup MIF's and nobody immediately ready to play COF. Washington needs one and we need theother.
Souza is playing in a pitcher'sleague and is the best AAA hitter right now, including the PCL. He's the kind of guy who you would move up immediately if he were in Tacoma.
Having Franklin right now doesus no good, unless we actually do trade him. Getting Souza does not eat up salary space, which allows us to get a COF over the winter, if we wish.
He's no worse than a 4th OF and may be better. He plays all three positions. Doesn't have Split issues.
And he (repeating myself) answers a huge need!
Get him.
Be happy.
If we could get Rios for Smoak, would that be any better, really? Well it probably would, but the odds arent that much beter that Rios hits for 50 games than Souza does. And Rios is a pure rent-a-bat situation. Hes gone after the year.
Is Souza worse than Willingham or Viciedo? Don't know. He could be better right now.
But we should have made the move 25 games ago.