Griffey

Yeah, I've pretty much given up hope on it and it has become a pipe dream for Jr to move.. I believe it when I see it..

I guess if you look at this and the PECOTA diary, I'd really be interested in seeing Denorfia there most of the spring.

Why put Jr. there in the spring anyway? Does he really need the reps? He takes monthly hiatus' there a couple times a year. Ok, now I am just being negative.

Is A hall of FAMER.  YOU can't ask him TO move.

Just kidding.  I just wanted to see what effect random capitalization of various words in a post would have on the meaning of the post.

I'd say it's a sample size in center.  I don't know if you noticed the scale on  those graphs, but they max at 1 out on three of them and 4 on the other.  I don't think any metric is going to tell you anything useful based on how much defense Denorfia played last year (he had 118.1 innings in RF, 85.1 in CF, and 27 in LF).

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Bruce projects as a RF. Stubbs is a stud defender in CF, but I'm pessimistic about his chances to hit in the bigs.

...Griffey is not Freel's age any more.  

If you had a young Griffey, of course you would play him.  But you're going to wait a long time for another player like Griffey.  Players like him don't grow on trees.  Griffey could be patrolling CF with a walker if you insist on waiting until you find a player as good as he was in his youth.

may have something to do with their respective Hall chances.  It's too bad that you can't root for speedy, hustle players like Freel and feel the need to belittle those that do as drunks, losers, racists, etc.  

For the record, I am not a redneck, white trash, or a Klan member, and I like Freel.  (And really, it's pretty sh*tty of you to make fun of someone's alcohol problem.) People like hustle.  They should - it shows a good work ethic.  In a country of couch potatoes, that sure is a rare quality.

Of course he plays out of position at times because no, he's not an All-Star.  However, he really does make some great plays.  That ball that Pujols hit was all out hustle, not out of position.  His range NOW is better than Griffey's is NOW, regardless of his reads on balls.  (Not was, and no one ever said that.  Is now.  We're comparing apples here.) Did you watch a game at all last season?   Griffey let so many balls just drop in front of him, maybe he needs to get his eyes checked.  

Freel's not an everyday player, we all know that, but he's good for 120 games.  He makes things happen on the basepaths, too.  Ask any Major League manager and they'll tell you he's a pest.

The Straw Man Argument
"To identify a Straw Man Argument, you must be familiar enough with the topic in question to recognize when someone is setting up a caricature. Understanding when someone is using this deceptive tactic is the best way to call attention to the weakness of the straw man position.

A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes if they want to more easily attack an opposing position.

Let's take the following position: "Evolution has been the main engine of speciation throughout natural history."

A person using a Straw Man against that position will intentionally make a ridiculous caricature of evolution, one that only the most ignorant might believe. These are the steps they might use to try to "disprove evolution".

Steps used in creating and using a straw man argument:
Step 1: Build the Straw Man: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant!?"

Step 2: Knock down the Straw Man by any means necessary: "How could a mouse evolve into an elephant? There would have to be billions of changes for that to occur, and nobody has ever seen speciation anyway!"

Step 3: Connect the original position to the Straw Man:"So it's silly...who has ever seen a mouse evolve into an elephant? Nobody!!"

Step 4: Claim to negate the opposing position by the connection in 3. "Therefore, evolution must be false!"

It's easy for the perpetrator to knock down their own Straw Man because they can make the Straw Man themselves. It's a tailor-made position for the person using it. Usually, the person using the argument will knock down the unrealistic caricature in Step 2 as quickly as possible, and then proclaim that the opposing position has been demolished because they were so cleverly able to knock down their own manufactured Straw Man.

They pretend that the Straw Man is the real argument, not the ridiculous caricature they created with deliberate ignorance and made-up facts. A real counter-position could cite facts to support their position. You can point out to them that they just knocked down their own caricature of evolution. Not the facts that support evolution. Straw men are ineffectual in that they leave the facts untouched.

Unfortunately, this tactic fools a lot of people because it can be subtle. In the case of evolution, an anti-evolutionist can take a slightly ridiculous point of view that seems born out of ignorance of science or fact. They then refuse to listen to rational facts, and escalate the ignorance until it's a full-blown Straw Man. This is a related tactic called deliberate ignorance. It will also include attempts to generate numbers out of the air to defend a Straw Man position.

This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics, since the person using the Straw Man has so little confidence in their own position that they cannot even address the real position of their opponent! At the heart of the Straw Man Argument is deception.

When people use Straw Man arguments, ask for facts. Straw Man arguments are rarely based on undistorted fact."

I would like to see the facts on:
a) why only rednecks would value hustle and/or get DUI's
b) what Griffey's prime compared to Freel's present has anything to do with this discussion.
c) what gives you the audacity to think that insulting RR patrons by insinuating that we may be members on the KKK.

Class dismissed.
 

I remember one Yankee game where the outfielders weren't looking at the dugout.  One of the coaches grabbed a towel and stood on the top step, waving it back and forth over his head, to get their attention.  

Still, some outfielders do have a talent for reading the ball off the bat and taking good routes in the outfield.  They say that can't be taught.  And they study scouting reports before the game, so it's not all the coach's doing.