RagahRagah

My thoughts are more directed to whoever is managing. As far as Hahn goes, we needed starting pitching desperately and there were a lot of good arms available that we either didn't get or try to get, and most of his FA signings have been terrible. Simply saying we have a lot of talent doesn't make up for bad mistakes. I'd rather be more like the Yankees than the Twins, if you understand what I mean. I called you dense at one point, because you were. Other than that I don't believe I insulted you. If you perceive explanation of things as condescension that is your issue.

It's also because things change (the game itself has changed greatly) and TLR is a dinosaur.

Yes. What you just said about poker is mostly true. Coin flips are definitely involved but they do not dictate every play. Making bad decisions will generally result in you not having good results. Without adhering to this logic, there's no way to even explain how pros make consistent money. The relation to baseball is by saying is that if you make decisions where the odds are in your favor than vice-versa, the overall outcomes will be better. Just like in poker. Just like in life in general. It's extremely simple. And no, a decision is not a good decision simply because the result is bad. Consistently bad decisions lead to consistently bad results. Again, you don't commend a broken clock for being right twice a day; you fix the damn clock. As far as what you said about the Sox... no. That was a total utter strawman. The relation is to the manager actually using data and metrics to make the best probable decisions. The analogy is parallel.

It's not funny, it's a bona fide fucking fact. I could tell you about David Sklansky just for starters. How do you think poker pros consistently stay at the top? You think it's total luck? Yes, constant use of numbers and statistics is how you consistently win at poker. Any pro in history of the sport will tell you the same thing. The more you play the odds in your favor, the more successful you will be. You don't even need to understand statistics for this, it's just common sense. Have you ever even read a book on poker? Or... math? I keep explaining my positions and you keep getting passive aggressive. If you had any actual interest in learning anything, you would have poor me to explain myself more rather than just dismiss what I'm saying. Just as time and time again people have pointed out here, you're purely and simply wrong.

The fact you keep responding with these childish smartass responses instead of actually implore me to explain what I'm talking about tells us everything we need to know. You're not actually trying to learn anything, you're just being a troll.

This is exactly how a childish person who has lost an argument acts. I mean... what was the point of this post actually? (Fluff :p) Sorry that my analogy failed to make you understand my point because you don't know poker. I could explain further if you like, but I figure you're not exactly trying to learn anything here.

When a spade is a spade, you call it a spade. But you don't call it a "weenie" because that serves no purpose (self-awareness might hit you yet).

It is not our burden to prove your position wrong, it is your burden to prove it RIGHT. You have failed to do that time after time. You said you didn't want to waste your time. After all these posts later you could have done all the research you possibly needed.

To be fair I don't even know why I'm bothering to try so hard over a discussion of such a bad player.

Clearly you're a person who has never actually played poker at anything other than a home game level so obviously I'm not going to get anywhere with you here; saying there are "52 outcomes" where it pertains to card playing is about the biggest oversimplification I've ever witnessed someone use; to the point if absurdity. Using statistics is how you consistently win at poker, just like pretty much anything else in life. Your arguments were invalidated for the most part and just like the other poster I sparred with you consistently failed to address the counter points and instead just go off on, as I said, fluff rantings. It's not going too far to simply point out a fact. You're way in over your head and don't even grasp what you are talking about.

I was in support of Dallas from the beginning and I'm glad we got him. That said, you're lying to yourself if you're going to tell me you didn't realize that we needed more than just that. Granted on wheeler but you have to understand the obviously there's a problem with this franchise that needs to be fixed (we're on the right path at least) when we actually do offer the most money to someone and they still don't sign here. You don't think that's a reflection on Hahn at all? LOL.

A lot of things improved. Starting pitching is was not overall one of them. Wheeler was a big need. I don't know why you are trying to convince yourself of something we all know is true.

My grammar is simply due to typing on my phone before leaving work, so my apologies for that. But yet again here we have an instance of someone laying everything out and the person who is opposing him essentially throwing it all out and not providing much of any counterpoint. It's weird how you claim I'm using "big words" (I'm actually not, you attempting to insult me for being comprehensive shows insecurity) and claim don't know what they mean yet you failed to counter a single point or explain what they actually mean. You thinking card playing is "random" (poker is a highly statistical game of skill, not just luck) is a perfect example of you being in an argument you have no business being in in the first place. The more good decisions you make, the more good results you will have. The more bad decisions you make, the more bed results you will have. A broken clock is a broken clock, you don't commend for being correct twice a day. Making a bad decision doesn't cease to be a bad decision because you lucked out and got a good result. It becomes tiresome when people constantly make claims that they then fail 100% to support with literally anything and just reply with fluff rants.

Bottom line? So basically you completely ignore every single point in the argument thrown your way and just make an absolute statement disregarding all of that. Not to mention they're still numerous things you glossed over and never addressed. You asked what logical fallacies you committed and I told you. Funny how you now have nothing to say. The argument is clearly over and you lost.

Yes, the process is what matters, not the results. That's how you judge situations. That's how works. If you make a bad play in a poker game and put all your money on for chances of making a good hand and get lucky and make your hands, does that mean you made a good decision? Because you one? No, it was a bad decision and the more bad decisions you make the more bad results you will end up with / good ones. Would you call nonsensical and noncoherent is just logic 101.

It means you're taking numerous long paragraphs to complete a thought that takes far less effort than that. The answer was simplistic because the question had a simple answer. And you merely contradicted what I said. You were called out for essentially saying that the difference between a stat guy and a non stat guy doesn't show itself on the field. That alone shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and that you probably don't actually pay attention to any actual statistics. Whataboutism (you still have failed to acknowledge the fact that you called someone a weenie, which is serving no purpose, whereas I use the word dense, which actually does mean something), moving the goalposts, anecdotal evidence, and the entire reason you're in the hot water you've been in this topic was because you started with burden of proof. Virtually all your arguments are wrapped in logical fallacies. Your inability to stay focused on one thing and jumping from topic to topic as soon as you get called out for something is very telling.

You're taking three and a half hours to watch 60 minutes here with this take. You keep asking questions that have incredibly simplistic answers and then respond by saying you "don't think so." Yet you fail to provide your own take of what is, rather than what isn't. But when you are quoted earlier as saying that it sure as hell doesn't manifest itself on the field you frankly showed that you don't have a clue what you're talking about in any regard of this discussion. You also say you don't like insults after you used one yourself. Telling someone that they're dense actually means something. Telling someone they are a weenie does not. And in your never-ending string of logical fallacies, here you are talking about who you "talk to." If you don't think any managers use sabermetrics or that some of them don't use any statistics at all, you're just plainly and simply wrong as others have pointed out here multiple times.

Yeah, that pretty much confirms lack of comprehension.

It may be insulting, but it is a technical term that is true. It's not like I'm calling you a weenie. Stat guys will regularly look at actual stats and adjust accordingly. That "This guy is batting .125 vs lefties but my gut says go with him" type of stuff is much less likely to occur. Sabermetrics are things these guys don't even care about. You want me to explain stuff that is entirely self explanatory. Ok.

No. And you haven't been right about much yet at all.

Let's not and say we didn't.

You do realize that a lot of managers don't take stats at all into account, right? If you really don't think there's guys who aren't stat guys and that there's no difference between a stat guy and a non-stat guy then you are as dense as anybody I've ever seen post on this site.

The right money is the most money. That was the only thing that was going to sign him, logically. But yet we still offered the most and didn't get him, which shows you things need to change drastically for this franchise. And who says the rest of it doesn't happen? The spending was still somewhat relatively low outside of Grandal. Our biggest need is pitching. Our starting rotation is in shambles right now. We needed to sign at least one big free-agent picture, Dallas Keuchel aside.

"I'm so right that I even have the statistics to prove it! But I'm not going to waste my time posting them, but I'll continue wasting my time bloviating for post after post."

I love it when people make claims, can't back them up and then push their burden of proof fallacies while puffing their chests out so they can pretend they have done anything except lose an argument in embarrassing fashion. Not to mention claiming their time is being "wasted" yet they respond continuously regardless with empty paragraph after empty paragraph of meaningless rants. If you can't even pull data you claim you have access to, you need to stop asking other people to "prove" stuff. Anyone smart sees right through this egotisistical shtick.