Around Baseball 2015

[Boxcar]

one of the sides, or the argument as a whole?

 

I think he means your argument to sign Alvarez

[BTS]

one of the sides, or the argument as a whole?

 

The entire thing, but moreso the fact that you've had to spend two pages defending your post because you happen to own Alvarez in a league.

[Boxcar]

The entire thing, but moreso the fact that you've had to spend two pages defending your post because you happen to own Alvarez in a league.

 

You don't "happen" to own players. You own players because you think they are useful, otherwise you'd just trade them away.

[KingKat]

same response from KK and yourself. Admit it's lazy. Assert it's true. How about pointing out where my alleged bias has affected my suggestion that Alvarez could be an upgrade given the right deal.

 

nah, pointing out a potential bias is enough.

 

No of course it's not enough. No one said that. We even acknowledge it's inherent lazyness but it is nonetheless relevant. That you don't even seen to want to acknowledge the possibility is making you look incredibly foolish and destroying your credibility.

 

At most there is maybe a weak argument in to be made in favour of Alvarez and it's argument that you as an Alvarez owner in fantasy are the most likely to make because you've already made that argument to yourself in deciding to keep rostering him in the hopes what he will give you value. This is all pretty reasonable stuff. I've yet to see anyone react so poorly to having it pointed out.

[King]

Can we get an Around Baseball 2016 thread

[z3r0s]

No of course it's not enough. No one said that. We even acknowledge it's inherent lazyness but it is nonetheless relevant. That you don't even seen to want to acknowledge the possibility is making you look incredibly foolish and destroying your credibility.

 

At most there is maybe a weak argument in to be made in favour of Alvarez and it's argument that you as an Alvarez owner in fantasy are the most likely to make because you've already made that argument to yourself in deciding to keep rostering him in the hopes what he will give you value. This is all pretty reasonable stuff. I've yet to see anyone react so poorly to having it pointed out.

 

The reason I've been arguing for the last two pages doesn't even have that much to do with Alvarez, but more about the two of you making using terrible reasons to justify ignore the Alvarez suggestion. If you have a conversation about the merits of the player, we probably would have just agreed to disagree by now. But no, you just label me as unable to account for my bias. You keep saying that I don't even acknowledge it as a possibility. I f***ing addressed it specifically in a post!

 

Now there are b2b posts about how I have convinced myself he is useful enough to roster in LOD, so I think he must just be great IRL. Its a 30 team dynasty league, its hard NOT to be rosterable. He is MORE valuable in fantasy than IRL. Its really not hard to compartmentalize my ownership of him when discussing real life possibilities. If you think it is, maybe you have a harder time with this than I do.

 

Just to reiterate, I'm arguing not because I'm outraged that you don't want Pedro, there are legit reasons to not. But you guys aren't using those reasons (at least posting them), but rather just calling me disingenuous in my suggestion that he might help the RL team.

[Boxcar]

Name one other poster who thinks signing Alvarez is a good idea and we can talk.

[z3r0s]

Name one other poster who thinks signing Alvarez is a good idea and we can talk.

 

You're so generous.

 

Good argument.

[HERPDERP]

Clemens throws shade at Halladay

 

http://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/930252

[Boxcar]

You're so generous.

 

Good argument.

 

It's not an argument. The logic usually follows that if there's an interesting name, people usually jump on that. Like when I said Steve Pearce or Chris Davis. No one is jumping on Alvarez. Why is that?

[z3r0s]

How about NJH (who absolutely did not suggest he agrees). He actually compared the 3 options for our 1B platoon and noted some areas where Pedro would be better, and some where he would be worse.

 

I really don't expect (or really want to at this point) to have a long discussion about the merits and pitfalls of Pedro (we all know where the others stand). But that's what I was looking for when I first brought it up. Just a little discussion. But it turned into me being biased and therefore there was no need to discuss.

[Boxcar]

How about NJH (who absolutely did not suggest he agrees). He actually compared the 3 options for our 1B platoon and noted some areas where Pedro would be better, and some where he would be worse.

 

I really don't expect (or really want to at this point) to have a long discussion about the merits and pitfalls of Pedro (we all know where the others stand). But that's what I was looking for when I first brought it up. Just a little discussion. But it turned into me being biased and therefore there was no need to discuss.

 

Exactly. Glad we are finally on the same page.

[KingKat]

As concerns Alvarez himself, I really think NJH has already said all there is to say on the matter. It just doesn't really seem worth exploring. A potentially expensive lateral move.

 

Steamer600

 

Cola - 108 wRC+; 1.1 fWAR

Pedro - 112 wRC+; 1.1 fWAR

Smoak - 96 wRC+; 0.6 fWAR

Pearce - 110 wRC_; 2.0 fWAR

 

Pedro is a career 118 vs. RHP while Smoak is a 101.

Colabello is a 113 vs. RHP but contrary to what Grant thinks, that split has little meaning.

 

Pedro would improve the team's offense vs. RHP but is it worth the drop in defense from Smoak, and is it worth (presumably) the increased payroll? He was projected for I think $8M in arbitration so he'll look to approach that figure.

 

You would lose roster flexibility by replacing a switch hitter with someone who can't hit lefties. You would gain some by adding an emergency 3B, though.

 

Edit: Just read Z3R0S post above.

[z3r0s]

As concerns Alvarez himself, I really think NJH has already said all there is to say on the matter. It just doesn't really seem worth exploring. A potentially expensive lateral move.

 

I was just about to write a post about the plus's and neg's I see in the 3 players, but than I realized it would just be a metal excessive for myself rather than an actual discussion. It has been decided that I am just bias.

[KingKat]

I was just about to write a post about the plus's and neg's I see in the 3 players, but than I realized it would just be a metal excessive for myself rather than an actual discussion. It has been decided that I am just bias.

 

No you're not "just biased". You're merely "biased" and you're the one who decided to turn that into a big deal rather than acknowledging as much and moving on.

[HERPDERP]

but than I realized it would just be a metal excessive for myself rather than an actual discussion.

 

now you realize why I decided to start trolling many many years ago

[burlingtonbandit]

Signing Smoak so early in the process is a headscratcher. Much like the Chavez trade looks like waiting it out would of got the club much better value.

[Boxcar]

So basically saying "Alvarez sucks, no way we should sign him" equates one to being an interested party.

 

Ok

[z3r0s]

now you realize why I decided to start trolling many many years ago

 

damn, quoted before I could change 'excessive' to 'exercise'

[z3r0s]

So basically saying "Alvarez sucks, no way we should sign him" equates one to being an interested party.

 

Ok

 

pretty sure I explicitly stated he didn't agree we should sign him. pretty sure the whole point of that post was praising that he actually looked at the players instead of just saying 'z3r0s owns him in LOD so that's the only reason he could possibly find Alvarez interesting'

[z3r0s]

No you're not "just biased". You're merely "biased" and you're the one who decided to turn that into a big deal rather than acknowledging as much and moving on.

 

You keep f***ing saying this KK. I made a post with a whole paragraph saying;

 

1- There is a bias

2- I believe that bias is quite small and easy to compartmentalize away

3- Any remaining bias due to not adjusting enough for it in my analysis, would be incredibly small

[Boxcar]

You keep f***ing saying this KK. I made a post with a whole paragraph saying;

 

1- There is a bias

2- I believe that bias is quite small and easy to compartmentalize away

3- Any remaining bias due to not adjusting enough for it in my analysis, would be incredibly small

 

You explicitly said you had no bias, lol? You can't change things that happened by just stating something contradictory

[z3r0s]

Signing Smoak so early in the process is a headscratcher. Much like the Chavez trade looks like waiting it out would of got the club much better value.

 

This is probably the biggest impediment to considering Alvarez as an option. Unless you could ditch Smoaks money it probably doesn't make much sense. I really don't get that contract.

[z3r0s]

You explicitly said you had no bias, lol? You can't change things that happened by just stating something contradictory

 

Where is this quote? The one saying 'I have no bias', or strongly imply it? Either I'm just missing it, or you're full of s*** with that statement.

[GD]

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[RealAccountant]

Signing Smoak so early in the process is a headscratcher. Much like the Chavez trade looks like waiting it out would of got the club much better value.

 

We also have three left fielders

[Boxcar]

Where is this quote? The one saying 'I have no bias', or strongly imply it? Either I'm just missing it, or you're full of s*** with that statement.

 

You said it basically doesn't exist. That's what this whole kerfuffle is about.

[z3r0s]

You said it basically doesn't exist. That's what this whole kerfuffle is about.

 

Basically eh. We'll I specifically said it was very small to the point that it shouldn't be used as a reason to not discuss.

[z3r0s]

You said it basically doesn't exist. That's what this whole kerfuffle is about.

 

And I agree, this is basically what this whole kerfuffle is about (not even that much to do with Pedro).

 

I understand biases exist. In this instance, I feel pretty f***ing confident that I can control for it, and that it didn't really play much into me bringing up the suggestion in the first place (other than me being more acutely aware that he hasn't signed than I would have otherwise).

 

You guys seem stuck with the idea that because a bias exists, its somehow automatically a very important in my suggestion. That I couldn't possibly largely separate my fantasy interests from real life.

[Orgfiller]

Zero sum game. You can improve your team scoring more runs, or allowing less runs.

 

Yes, but you can only give up 0 runs or fewer, whereas on offense you can just keep scoring on and on.