Interesting List

I think a re-build had to take place and it was probably overdue to some extent. I think the second wave of trades were worse than the initial ones. I would have made the Heyward deal bigger to try to get his replacement in that deal (to avoid the Markakis signing), but other than that, it was quantity over quality and I can see the reasoning behind that. Whether one agrees with that overall strategy or the players we received is another question. One deal no one talks about is the Banuelos deal, which pretty much everyone here loved when it was made. Three years later, Chasen Shreve is still pitching fairly well and Banuelos has a 1.6 WHIP in Salt Lake City. Not earth-shattering by any stretch, but the little deals haven't worked out that well either.
 
Enscheff said:
LOL all this guy does is argue semantics. He doesn't actually contribute any thoughts. He is literally the kid in class pointing out mistakes on the whiteboard.
Click to expand...

That only appears to be true if you don't understand the argument being put forward. If an argument is put forward based on analysis, it is absolutely relevant to point out where that analysis might be error. This is definitely NOT an argument about semantics. It is a discussion about how to analyze data, and there is certainly room for reasonable disagreement in such a discussion. In fact, I suspect we were agreeing much more than we were disagreeing; for instance, we both acknowledge the slippery slope of making exceptions, and it is the nature of slippery slopes that it is hard to know when you have gone too far.

With regard to your metaphor (I am most certainly not "literally the kid in class pointing out mistakes on the whiteboard" - there is no classroom, there is no whiteboard, and I am not a kid.), that kid pointing out a mistake on the whiteboard is often the one that is responsible for finding the correct solution. And yes, my pointing to your incorrect usage of the word "literally" is a matter of semantics, but the way words are used matters. Semantics matter. (And, I suppose if I'm being honest about it, it is petty of me to do so.)
 
I have an example of what I am talking about; stats people have made the argument that there is no such thing as a "hot-hand" in basketball, it's called the "Hot-Hand Fallacy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-hand_fallacy

It's interesting because there are all these people claiming there is no such thing as a "hot-hand", but it seems like everybody who has played a lot of basketball believes in the hot-hand. I believe in the hot-hand; I've had it myself, and I've seen others have it. I believed to my very toes that it was real despite the stats argument. So, recently there has been a counterargument made, and when that approach is applied to the original data proving there is no hot-hand, voila, the hot-hand appears.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/08/how-researchers-discovered-the-basketball-hot-hand.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top