PDA

View Full Version : way to go, Royce


cheeses_h_rice
09-05-2001, 12:33 AM
Not much to say, except that I was at the 2nd game of the double-dip tonight, and was *very* impressed with Royce's overall performance -- nice hitting, great D, not much else to ask for from a guy who's really come back from an early, Albert Belle-esque piss-poor start. I know, I know, Royce is not the favorite guy on this team from certain quarters (hello Mr. Bova), but you have to admit that he *has* been contributing to the Sox victories of late. And hey, who wouldn't like to see such a nice fielder hitting .260 -- I'll take it.

Flame away, flame away -- I think Royce will do just fine in '02.

FarWestChicago
09-05-2001, 12:43 AM
I think Royce will do just fine in '02.

What do you think should be done with the heart and soul of the team?

cheeses_h_rice
09-05-2001, 12:50 AM
If you mean Manos, I think the Sox need to sh*t or get off the pot re: Ray Durham. If Manos is even half the defensive 2B that Ray is, I think he should be put there, and Ray dealt.

With Royce, I honestly think it was a case of a guy just trying to get comfortable in his position and perhaps in this squad. But I tell you this: I no longer dread routine (or even hard-hit) grounders to short, or the 6-4-3 DP combo, whereas I am always on egg shells if it's Jose out there...and I LOVE Jose -- he's my favorite Sox player this year along with Buehrle.

FarWestChicago
09-05-2001, 01:08 AM
If you mean Manos, I think the Sox need to sh*t or get off the pot re: Ray Durham. If Manos is even half the defensive 2B that Ray is, I think he should be put there, and Ray dealt.

Of course I mean Manos. Threre are a few of us who would like to see a second baseman with more range than a fire hydrant who plays flat out all the time. Jose's gun may be more accurate from second, too.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2001, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I know, I know, Royce is not the favorite guy on this team from certain quarters (hello Mr. Bova), but you have to admit that he *has* been contributing to the Sox victories of late. And hey, who wouldn't like to see such a nice fielder hitting .260 -- I'll take it.

Flame away, flame away -- I think Royce will do just fine in '02.


If you've been following the lengthy thread "Royce's average still climbing.." you know my dislike for Clayton is based on some cold facts rather than personality. The subject of Clayton's attitude hasn't been raised even once. He's simply an inferior ballplayer, end of story.

And for the record I agree with your assessment about Clayton last night and his improved play of late. Does it make up for a season's worth of starts at shortstop given him by Jerry Manuel? No way.

And yes, there are more important reasons why the Sox will miss the playoffs than Royce Clayton. Clayton's contribution to the mess was simply the easiest to avoid.

I feel strongly about this subject because I've read some stuff here that simply isn't based in reality. Some Clayton supporters seem to think the rest of us hate him for displacing another ballplayer. Others honestly think he's worth more at shortstop than Valentin. That's not how I feel. I've been making reasoned arguments countering both these views.

Flaming sucks. Countering someone else's viewpoint with a reasoned set of arguments makes this a fun place to hang out. That's all it should be.

Soxboyrob
09-05-2001, 01:01 PM
Calling Royce an inferior ballplayer is a little harsh, I'd say. If you truly feel that Royce is inferior to Valentin on defense, please lay out the numbers and explanation thereof. We're all well aware of what Jose can do w/ the bat, so you needn't explain that to me. I just feel like there is an ongoing attempt to discredit the man by fans angry about his play during the first two months. This is a very subjective area....far more subjective than offensive analysis. There is something to be said for a guy that makes every play he's supposed to make as opposed to a guy that misses many of them, regardless of the range, arm, etc of Valentin. I can't help but repeat that Val is my favorite player and IS the heart and soul of the club, but I think the gap between Clayton's and Valentin's fielding ability is far smaller than you admit.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2001, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Calling Royce an inferior ballplayer is a little harsh, I'd say. If you truly feel that Royce is inferior to Valentin on defense, please lay out the numbers and explanation thereof.

Here you go, Soxboy. Read 'em and weep.

Clayton has 937.1 innings so far at shortstop this season while Valentin had 1212.1 all of 2000. Thus I've adjusted up Clayton's numbers to reflect a full 1212.0 innings for straight comparison.

Here's how our shortstop stacks up this year vs. last. It's damning evidence to the Royce defenders out there.

Total Chances: 619 TY vs. 720 LY. DECLINED 101, -14 percent.
Putouts: 210 TY vs. 229 LY. DECLINED 19, - 8 percent.
Assists: 400 TY vs. 455 LY. DECLINED 55, - 12 percent.
Errors: 9 TY vs. 36 LY. IMPROVED 27, + 75 percent.
Double-plays: 74 TY vs. 117 LY. DECLINED 17, - 15 percent.

You want to talk about the relative value of run production versus the costs of errors, ask Kilroy for assistance. He's tried very hard to make the case to equate improvement in errors with the value of run production. (See "Clayton's average still rising" thread). I'm still waiting for his latest charge into my "killing zone" on that point.

So tell me, why is it harsh to say Clayton is an inferior ballplayer? He's got nothing but errors on his side--and that's the most subjective statistic of them all!

You know who has the team record for best fielding average all-time amongst Sox shortstops? Not Luis Aparicio. Not Chico Carrasquel. Not even Ozzie Guillen. You can forget about Luke Appling, too.

It's Ron Hansen. Remember him? Didn't think so. *****!

Using errors to measure defensive ability is a joke.

voodoochile
09-05-2001, 01:55 PM
Double-plays: 74 TY vs. 117 LY. DECLINED 17, - 15 percent.

Time for a new calculator George...

That should read

Double-plays: 74 TY vs. 117 LY. DECLINED 44, - 38 percent.

Otherwise, great stats...

BTW, that extra 74 assists and putouts is almost 3 times as many extra outs as were given up by the extra 27 errors...

Buh-Bye, Royce... buh-bye...

Soxboyrob
09-05-2001, 02:11 PM
I'm in full agreement that Errors are only a small part of the equation, as are range, arm strength, this rating, that rating, etc....I also very much appreciate your numerical breakdown analysis of Val vs. Clay for the past two years. I think they give an excellent snapshot of the points you've been trying to make all along, only without the benefit of the numbers presented.

From a subjectivity standpoint, yes, it's still all very subjective. The numbers you've presented are all still very much dependent upon the number of playable groundballs given up by our current pitching staff, as opposed to last year's. Of course, I feel fairly confident that the difference can't simply be explained by saying "this year's pitching staff doesn't give up as many grounders as last year's" but it might certainly have had an effect. Same goes for double plays. I feel like I've noticed a marked decrease in actual playable "double play balls." Certainly, Valentin makes a few of them playable w/ his increased range, but to what extent? Have you actually noticed with your own eyes a great number of balls that shoulda, coulda or woulda been double plays w/ Val in there as opposed to Clayton? I really haven't, and have watched maybe 85-90% of all innings played this year.

Overall, you make a very solid case in point. Valentin, on paper, makes a better SS. There is still more to analyzing a player's defensive value than what the stats say. All I know is when a ball is hit on the ground in the general direction of the SS, I feel fairly confident that Clayton will make the play and fairly uncertain the Valentin will. Thanks for the time it took you to find all of those numbers.

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Calling Royce an inferior ballplayer is a little harsh, I'd say. If you truly feel that Royce is inferior to Valentin on defense, please lay out the numbers and explanation thereof. We're all well aware of what Jose can do w/ the bat, so you needn't explain that to me. I just feel like there is an ongoing attempt to discredit the man by fans angry about his play during the first two months. This is a very subjective area....far more subjective than offensive analysis. There is something to be said for a guy that makes every play he's supposed to make as opposed to a guy that misses many of them, regardless of the range, arm, etc of Valentin. I can't help but repeat that Val is my favorite player and IS the heart and soul of the club, but I think the gap between Clayton's and Valentin's fielding ability is far smaller than you admit.

anyone who calls royce inferior to jose defensively, doesnt know the game of baseball very well.....

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Here you go, Soxboy. Read 'em and weep.

Clayton has 937.1 innings so far at shortstop this season while Valentin had 1212.1 all of 2000. Thus I've adjusted up Clayton's numbers to reflect a full 1212.0 innings for straight comparison.

Here's how our shortstop stacks up this year vs. last. It's damning evidence to the Royce defenders out there.

Total Chances: 619 TY vs. 720 LY. DECLINED 101, -14 percent.
Putouts: 210 TY vs. 229 LY. DECLINED 19, - 8 percent.
Assists: 400 TY vs. 455 LY. DECLINED 55, - 12 percent.
Errors: 9 TY vs. 36 LY. IMPROVED 27, + 75 percent.
Double-plays: 74 TY vs. 117 LY. DECLINED 17, - 15 percent.

You want to talk about the relative value of run production versus the costs of errors, ask Kilroy for assistance. He's tried very hard to make the case to equate improvement in errors with the value of run production. (See "Clayton's average still rising" thread). I'm still waiting for his latest charge into my "killing zone" on that point.

So tell me, why is it harsh to say Clayton is an inferior ballplayer? He's got nothing but errors on his side--and that's the most subjective statistic of them all!

You know who has the team record for best fielding average all-time amongst Sox shortstops? Not Luis Aparicio. Not Chico Carrasquel. Not even Ozzie Guillen. You can forget about Luke Appling, too.

It's Ron Hansen. Remember him? Didn't think so. *****!

Using errors to measure defensive ability is a joke.

Using numbers to measure defensive ability is the REAL JOKE

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
I'm in full agreement that Errors are only a small part of the equation, as are range, arm strength, this rating, that rating, etc....I also very much appreciate your numerical breakdown analysis of Val vs. Clay for the past two years. I think they give an excellent snapshot of the points you've been trying to make all along, only without the benefit of the numbers presented.

From a subjectivity standpoint, yes, it's still all very subjective. The numbers you've presented are all still very much dependent upon the number of playable groundballs given up by our current pitching staff, as opposed to last year's. Of course, I feel fairly confident that the difference can't simply be explained by saying "this year's pitching staff doesn't give up as many grounders as last year's" but it might certainly have had an effect. Same goes for double plays. I feel like I've noticed a marked decrease in actual playable "double play balls." Certainly, Valentin makes a few of them playable w/ his increased range, but to what extent? Have you actually noticed with your own eyes a great number of balls that shoulda, coulda or woulda been double plays w/ Val in there as opposed to Clayton? I really haven't, and have watched maybe 85-90% of all innings played this year.

Overall, you make a very solid case in point. Valentin, on paper, makes a better SS. There is still more to analyzing a player's defensive value than what the stats say. All I know is when a ball is hit on the ground in the general direction of the SS, I feel fairly confident that Clayton will make the play and fairly uncertain the Valentin will. Thanks for the time it took you to find all of those numbers.


anyone at anytime, can present "numbers" to back their "opinion, however slanted and emotional that opinion happens to be. IF you just sit there and watch a baseball game, you know jose isnt even close to royce defensively.....

voodoochile
09-05-2001, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



anyone at anytime, can present "numbers" to back their "opinion, however slanted and emotional that opinion happens to be. IF you just sit there and watch a baseball game, you know jose isnt even close to royce defensively.....

Can you then find numbers other than errors/FP that back up the claim that Royce is a better SS?

Soxboyrob
09-05-2001, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31

anyone at anytime, can present "numbers" to back their "opinion, however slanted and emotional that opinion happens to be. IF you just sit there and watch a baseball game, you know jose isnt even close to royce defensively.....

...and that has mostly been my point. I watch a lot of the Sox and prefer Clayton at SS, despite the numbers. I admit I might very well be wrong. Hell, some might watch Royce and prefer his hitting over Valentin's, however, one look at the stats would very clearly tell you that if you like Clayton over Valentin as a hitter, then you're an idiot. Some stats have to be applied to to the defensive equation, but I still maintain that with the game on the line and a grounder hit to shortstop, please don't let Valentin be the one waiting for the ball!

Iwritecode
09-05-2001, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Have you actually noticed with your own eyes a great number of balls that shoulda, coulda or woulda been double plays w/ Val in there as opposed to Clayton? I really haven't, and have watched maybe 85-90% of all innings played this year.


I haven't been able to watch too many games this season and I can remember at least three off the top of my head. One was were the runner flat out beat Clayton's throw to first. The other two were when they were trying to turn a DP. One was the runner beat Clayton's throw from second and the other was that Clayton didn't get the ball to Durham in time.

That's one thing nobody has mentioned yet. Jose can get to the ball and get rid of it FAST. Both on the throw to second and the throw to first in DP's. Plus him and Durham seem to work together well. If it ain't broke...

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Can you then find numbers other than errors/FP that back up the claim that Royce is a better SS?

What do i need numbers for? ive watched enough baseball games in my lifetime to evaluate talent, havent you?

Randar68
09-05-2001, 02:33 PM
What do i need numbers for? ive watched enough baseball games in my lifetime to evaluate talent, havent you?

Bmr, I thought we were going to work on these types of statements....

BTW, the biggest thing I have seen in Valentin that I believe separates him, error-wise from other SS's is:

He flips the ball from his glove to his hand. he never reaches all the way into his glove to grab the ball. That's why he's so quick getting off the throw, but I'd guess at least 1/3 to 1/2 of his errors come on the transfer of the ball and bad throws due to not getting a grip on it due to this flip....just an observation....

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Bmr, I thought we were going to work on these types of statements....

BTW, the biggest thing I have seen in Valentin that I believe separates him, error-wise from other SS's is:

He flips the ball from his glove to his hand. he never reaches all the way into his glove to grab the ball. That's why he's so quick getting off the throw, but I'd guess at least 1/3 to 1/2 of his errors come on the transfer of the ball and bad throws due to not getting a grip on it due to this flip....just an observation....

nothing wrong with what i said. I just dont see why people cant look at the players themselves, instead of depending on numbers....

voodoochile
09-05-2001, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


I haven't been able to watch too many games this season and I can remember at least three off the top of my head. One was were the runner flat out beat Clayton's throw to first. The other two were when they were trying to turn a DP. One was the runner beat Clayton's throw from second and the other was that Clayton didn't get the ball to Durham in time.

That's one thing nobody has mentioned yet. Jose can get to the ball and get rid of it FAST. Both on the throw to second and the throw to first in DP's. Plus him and Durham seem to work together well. If it ain't broke...

Manos also stands in way better than royce who always looks like he has one foot in the dugout when he makes the turn. In addition, when I watch the games (and I have also seen most of them) I can clearly see that Jose gets to more balls than Royce. Royce's defense is clearly a case of better postioning (IMO) and not the raw athletecism that Jose regularly displays. This speaks well of Royce's defensive awareness, but does discount his chances. With practice and patience, there is no reason to believe that Jose too can better learn how to set up defensively, at which point his chances should go up even more. Wasn't last year his first in the AL? If so, doesn't that mean he will get better at knowing the hitters as time goes by and thus develop better field awareness and placement? Besides, with a stronger defensive 3B on the way in Crede, Jose will be able to play more up the middle and then his athletecism and arm strength will be an even bigger asset. Royce just doesn't have enough arm strength to make that throw on a regular basis...

voodoochile
09-05-2001, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


nothing wrong with what i said. I just dont see why people cant look at the players themselves, instead of depending on numbers....

Sometimes our eyes can deceive us. Numbers are a way of backing up what we see and believe. Can't you see that Valentin gets to almost an extra chance per game that Royce doesn't? The numbers show that clearly.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2001, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob


quoting Bmr31

anyone who calls royce inferior to jose defensively, doesnt know the game of baseball very well.....

...and that has mostly been my point. I watch a lot of the Sox and prefer Clayton at SS, despite the numbers. I admit I might very well be wrong. Hell, some might watch Royce and prefer his hitting over Valentin's, however, one look at the stats would very clearly tell you that if you like Clayton over Valentin as a hitter, then you're an idiot. Some stats have to be applied to to the defensive equation, but I still maintain that with the game on the line and a grounder hit to shortstop, please don't let Valentin be the one waiting for the ball!

Oh, brother! You two guys are willing to accept statistics right up until they no longer support your position! *****!!!

So basically everyone here is suppose to believe 36 errors is significant but no other statistics are. We wouldn't be arguing Clayton vs. Valentin over anything else.

You guys are both rank hypocrites.

Especially you, Bmr. The trolling act is growing old.

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


...and that has mostly been my point. I watch a lot of the Sox and prefer Clayton at SS, despite the numbers. I admit I might very well be wrong. Hell, some might watch Royce and prefer his hitting over Valentin's, however, one look at the stats would very clearly tell you that if you like Clayton over Valentin as a hitter, then you're an idiot. Some stats have to be applied to to the defensive equation, but I still maintain that with the game on the line and a grounder hit to shortstop, please don't let Valentin be the one waiting for the ball!

Oh, brother! You two guys are willing to accept statistics right up until they no longer support your position! *****!!!

So basically everyone here is suppose to believe 36 errors is significant but no other statistics are. We wouldn't be arguing Clayton vs. Valentin over anything else.

You guys are both rank hypocrites.

Especially you, Bmr. The trolling act is growing old. [/B]

Ive never depended on statistic and if you knew anything about me, youd know that. Im personally offened that you are calling me a troll because my opinion differs from you opinion, which is obviously based on emotion.

Randar68
09-05-2001, 02:54 PM
Ive never depended on statistic and if you knew anything about me, youd know that. Im personally offened that you are calling me a troll because my opinion differs from you opinion, which is obviously based on emotion.

Come on now, bmr, I don't want to get into it with you, but this is something you've become infamous for.....

OK, I'm not posting anything else in this thread for fear of FWC getting that "itch"....LOL!

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Come on now, bmr, I don't want to get into it with you, but this is something you've become infamous for.....

OK, I'm not posting anything else in this thread for fear of FWC getting that "itch"....LOL!

I dont call people names randar. If i have, its in the very distant past.

Randar68
09-05-2001, 03:02 PM
I dont call people names randar. If i have, its in the very distant past

OK, I'll give you that. As with our recent constructive criticism, I think the way that what you say comes off is very stand-off-ish, and appears as though you're placing what you've observed well above what anyone else could possibly have observed....

It's quite futile, this discussion, as defensive abilities can be supported or negated by stats in this case, the general arguement is based on each person's ideas of a good defensive player, combining range, arm, consistency, positioning, and weighing it against offensive production....

If it's a difference of opinion, it's just that, and no amount of arguing is going to change anybody's mind....

LongDistanceFan
09-05-2001, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


OK, I'll give you that. As with our recent constructive criticism, I think the way that what you say comes off is very stand-off-ish, and appears as though you're placing what you've observed well above what anyone else could possibly have observed....

It's quite futile, this discussion, as defensive abilities can be supported or negated by stats in this case, the general arguement is based on each person's ideas of a good defensive player, combining range, arm, consistency, positioning, and weighing it against offensive production....

If it's a difference of opinion, it's just that, and no amount of arguing is going to change anybody's mind.... I am glad you guys will stop this arguing, i have a handover and my head is killing me. This is a moot piont when jason d comes in and take over at SS.

Soxboyrob
09-05-2001, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Oh, brother! You two guys are willing to accept statistics right up until they no longer support your position! *****!!!

So basically everyone here is suppose to believe 36 errors is significant but no other statistics are. We wouldn't be arguing Clayton vs. Valentin over anything else.

You guys are both rank hypocrites.

Especially you, Bmr. The trolling act is growing old.

Now Now, George. It's not that serious. I accept your stats and their worth to a fair degree. I can't help it that my gut instinct wishes for Clayton to be playing SS when a very important grounder is hit there. I admit that my gut instinct might be wrong. I can't help it. My eyes bely what the stats say, whether right or wrong. Calling me a hypocrite is a little silly, but if you must....

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2001, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Ive never depended on statistic and if you knew anything about me, youd know that. Im personally offened that you are calling me a troll because my opinion differs from you opinion, which is obviously based on emotion.

No Bmr, you're not a troll. You're a baiter. You don't offer any support to your opinion, even when it's specifically requested of you. The mere fact you have a differing opinion is apparently support enough in your own mind. It's a condescending attitude towards others that you won't even grace them with a discussion of the merits of their viewpoint on equal terms.

It's offensive behavior and I'm surprised you don't understand that better.

My viewpoint is different than yours. I'm on the record with lots of reasoned arguments supporting my viewpoints. Everyone here is welcomed to find holes in my logic and submit countering views. Many of them already have.

You of course, aren't. Not unless you expect credit for simply contradicting and belittling others' views without support. Everyone here is capable of spouting unsubstantiated opinions. But this isn't a kindergarten, is it?

What do you have to say for yourself?

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


No Bmr, you're not a troll. You're a baiter. You don't offer any support to your opinion, even when it's specifically requested of you. The mere fact you have a differing opinion is apparently support enough in your own mind. It's a condescending attitude towards others that you won't even grace them with a discussion of the merits of their viewpoint on equal terms.

It's offensive behavior and I'm surprised you don't understand that better.

My viewpoint is different than yours. I'm on the record with lots of reasoned arguments supporting my viewpoints. Everyone here is welcomed to find holes in my logic and submit countering views. Many of them already have.

You of course, aren't. Not unless you expect credit for simply contradicting and belittling others' views without support. Everyone here is capable of spouting unsubstantiated opinions. But this isn't a kindergarten, is it?

What do you have to say for yourself?


I dont offer your so called "evidence" because i dont believe in stats. and dont think because this is your board, you can display the same behavior as you accuse me of, and it will go unoticed. You state your opinions as if youre all knowing.

Iwritecode
09-05-2001, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31

You state your opinions as if youre all knowing.

Irony, it's so ironic huh?

Pot... Kettle... Black...

Randar68
09-05-2001, 03:25 PM
Come on now George, hypocrites is a strong word. However, one must add something to support their view if they are going to stand there and keep arguing. Substantiate it with an observation or justify the subjective points with particular observations other that, "because I watch baseball"....most people in this thread have done such....


You state your opinions as if youre all knowing.

Bmr, the problem people have with you is this very thing, including myself at times. Let's stop all this foolishness. If you want to debate a topic, it's going to require a more detailed support of your arguement than just a "because I watch baseball on TV, if you can't see it, you know nothing of baseball".

When we have been able to get you to explain your point in a concise and supportive way, you have a lot to add to the discussion, but the way it goes, most of the time, is not constructive....

But, what the Hell do I know???

Bmr31
09-05-2001, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Come on now George, hypocrites is a strong word. However, one must add something to support their view if they are going to stand there and keep arguing. Substantiate it with an observation or justify the subjective points with particular observations other that, "because I watch baseball"....most people in this thread have done such....




Bmr, the problem people have with you is this very thing, including myself at times. Let's stop all this foolishness. If you want to debate a topic, it's going to require a more detailed support of your arguement than just a "because I watch baseball on TV, if you can't see it, you know nothing of baseball".

When we have been able to get you to explain your point in a concise and supportive way, you have a lot to add to the discussion, but the way it goes, most of the time, is not constructive....

But, what the Hell do I know???

Hey, i know how i am. A big part of it is because i do feel as if i know more about baseball than almost anyone else. Another part of it is ego. Ive admitted that im that way. Personally, i dont care to change that. Im never like that in the real world. This is a freakin bulletin board. My problem with others, like phg and voodoo, is the display the exact same behavior the accuse me of, and think its ok. Talk about hypocritical. Its a joke. Lets point out the faults in others but never face our own. Wow thats mature. anyways, im done rambling and im done dealing with this crap. Randar you got your wish........later

Randar68
09-05-2001, 03:51 PM
Randar you got your wish........later

My wish has never really been for you to leave, but for you to act more like what you say you are in real life. You're amongst fellow Sox fans that share that bond with you. The least we ask for is that we act civil to eachother. Nobody here is any better than anybody else. Some more know than others, but heresy is heresy, and unsupported and unpopular views take more explaining than others...something you seem to have always been reluctant or unwilling to do.

If you don't wish to change and care to be nothing but difficult to converse with, then you are correct, I won't miss that much...but you do have insight and opinions to offer, but there's a way to do so without being confrontational 99% of the time....

voodoochile
09-05-2001, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Hey, i know how i am. A big part of it is because i do feel as if i know more about baseball than almost anyone else. Another part of it is ego. Ive admitted that im that way. Personally, i dont care to change that. Im never like that in the real world. This is a freakin bulletin board. My problem with others, like phg and voodoo, is the display the exact same behavior the accuse me of, and think its ok. Talk about hypocritical. Its a joke. Lets point out the faults in others but never face our own. Wow thats mature. anyways, im done rambling and im done dealing with this crap. Randar you got your wish........later

Wow, I didn't realize we had an issue... All I want is what Randar said. I want some discussion for the topic. If I tend to be overbearing, then I apologize. i try to leave room for other opinions, but get tired of the same old "I saw it, it's a fact" crap. We all are subjective in our viewpoints. I watch the Sox all the time and get most of my opinions about them from that medium, but when I want to prove a point, I go find the stats and see whether they show me to be right or wrong. When I produce stats that support my argument and then get told, "Stats lie" then I become upset. Yes,you can use stats to back up any point of view, and half of them are wrong (by definition), but when the stats aren't ridiculous lies and do show both sides of the equation, then they can be an amazing tool.

All I ever wanted from you was to have a discussion. When you say things like, "I know more about baseball than everyone else, and what I am saying is the truth" it ends the discussion and adds nothing to it, other than your opinion. Everyone has an opinion. If you would explain what you see better, I would have less issue with your posts and would be glad to discuss baseball with you.

Finally... there are a lot of pretty smart baseball people on these boards. I am not one of them. I only follow the Sox and really don't give a crap about the rest of the league. However, I feel I know the Sox pretty well and can discuss the team on many levels with a variety of posters. For me this is a more real medium than it is for you because of my hearing loss. This medium has replaced my outlet in the real world for sports discussion to a large extent, because going to a sports bar is just plain noisy.. You defend your actions by saying, "It's a message board". Well... for me this is as real an environment as any other. That is why I try to keep it real as much as possible, Yeah, on the ESPN board, I will trash talk with the trolls, but I try not to start it and even when I do troll, I try to come from a well thought out stance, and not just "you suck we rule." Maybe that is why we do clash, because you tend to view this as meaningless throw away internet garbage, and I don't...

FarWestChicago
09-05-2001, 04:08 PM
You defend your actions by saying, "It's a message board". Well... for me this is as real an environment as any other. That is why I try to keep it real as much as possible, Yeah, on the ESPN board, I will trash talk with the trolls, but I try not to start it and even when I do troll, I try to come from a well thought out stance, and not just "you suck we rule." Maybe that is why we do clash, because you tend to view this as meaningless throw away internet garbage, and I don't...

I couldn't agree with you more, VC. As somebody who has spent more than a year trying to keep various incarnations of Sox Clubhouse civilized, I obviously disagree with the "it's just a message board" so I'll act however I want opinion. In fact, since I have put a lot of money and an incredible amount of work into this message board so we could have a decent meeting place here, I am offended by that opinion.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2001, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Bmr, the problem people have with you is this very thing, including myself at times. Let's stop all this foolishness. If you want to debate a topic, it's going to require a more detailed support of your arguement than just a "because I watch baseball on TV, if you can't see it, you know nothing of baseball".

When we have been able to get you to explain your point in a concise and supportive way, you have a lot to add to the discussion, but the way it goes, most of the time, is not constructive....

But, what the Hell do I know???

Thank you! I couldn't have stated this any better. This entire forum is meant for the exchange of ideas about the Sox.. It would be a pretty boring place if everyone simply agreed on everything. I'm GLAD we have differences of opinion.

However, there is nothing constructive about expressing a countering viewpoint that leaves all of the other person's supporting facts unchallenged except to say "I've watched lots of ballgames." What's the point of that?

If suggesting the other person doesn't know what they're talking about WITHOUT offering specifics, do everyone a favor and keep it to yourself. Not every viewpoint has to be expressed in here. If you aren't willing to substantiate your viewpoint when challenged, don't waste the time of the rest of us.

Does that make things any clearer? Not for Bmr of course. I guess for him this really was a kindergarten. Took his ball and went home.

Dadawg_77
09-05-2001, 09:35 PM
Honestly this looks like a feud between the flat earthers and statheads that spun out of control.


Sorry just read the user docs for this board and figured I needed to use the new term I learned so I wouldn't lose them. :)