RagahRagah
-
Posts
1,989 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by RagahRagah
-
-
11 minutes ago, ChiSox1917 said:
Serious question, do you actually watch the games?
He had already stated he watched none this year.
-
44 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
what are you even talking about?
Go cry somewhere else. We were discussing a manager in a manager thread. Its not a tony la russa news only thread. If it were your posts in it are worthless as well.
This post and the post you yourself quoted from Orlando are TWO excellent examples of the childish behavior you won't see me partaking in.
I'm looking for cohesive arguments from adults. Luckily there is a lot of that on this forum. Unfortunately there are always exceptions.
-
14 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:
Guys I think we can declare this "agree to disagree" and move on
Eh, my problem is I don't do that "agree to disagree" stuff when I'm presenting factual information. It just usually ends with the the other person refusing to answer a basic question and then disappearing (it's already happened multiple times).
-
49 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
Dude I answered the question twice. I'm not going to repeat myself just to carry on a never ending discussion.
No, you did not. You never stated that you understood my explanation.
If you had, you wouldn't still be posting in ire against me because we'd be in agreement and that would indicate original position was incorrect (which it was).
-
2 hours ago, default said:
You invent strawman arguments to disprove and did it again TWICE in this post.
You are correct that whataboutisim is a logical fallacy could involve not answering a question. But justifying someone else not being able to answer a question is not whataboutisim.
LOL please explain where the straw man arguments are because I didn't even talk about arguments from anybody else, I simply explained the process of making good decisions versus bad ones. I'm thinking you might not know what a strawman actually is.
I asked a legitimate question to another poster and you turned it around on me. Instead of just let it be and have him answer the question I was asking him. That's a form of whataboutism.
-
6 minutes ago, default said:
I love when someone thinks they're arguing intelligently but can only "prove" arguments using unproveable subjective claims, and can only "disprove" arguments using logical fallacies.
Ok, which fallacy did I commit?
You responding before you could have possibly read the entire post and absorbed it is a little telling, too.
Not to mention justifying someone else not being able to answer a question.
Whataboutism. Guess what? That's a logical fallacy, bud. Nothing like committing a fallacy while accusing someone else of doing so.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, default said:
Those are both subjective claims. Since there are no generally accepted standards or methods that would prove a subjective claim conclusively true or false, this means, even though the claims may involve facts, they are not provable.
Your argument ("the losses are on him") is supported by subjective (non provable) claims and therefore cannot be proven as true.
No, they are not. It's very simple, statistics aren't even necessary.
You make bad decisions consistently, you will have bad results. You make good decisions consistently, you will have good results. A good result after a bad decision is fortunate but not commendable. A bad result after a good decision is of no fault.
Renteria made abysmal decision after abysmal decision, game after game. As a result, we lost the division and 6 spots in seeding in a week. It is absolutely reasonable to pin that on Renteria because win or lose, he made constant bad decisions and therefore is to blame.
By your rationale the manager is never at fault
It's really very simple. This is 100% objective.
-
1
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
It's FRIDAY SS2k, and I'm taking a 3 day weekend after finishing up the midterms of my masters, and completing my first week with the new job! It's going to be soxtalk troll city today!!!!!!!! Get your popcorn ready!
All jokes aside, please no La Russa.
BOCHY! BOCHY! BOCHY!
I love when someone attempts a soft landing and subsequent disappearance after failing to answer a simple, direct question.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
Guy, I don't have a son. I was just messin' around. Lighten up, Francis.
I presented my point multiple times; if you haven't grasped it yet, that's on you. Have a great weekend my man.
And I invalidated that point easily and you've had no follow-up.
Third time I will ask you this:
A manager is at fault if he doesn't put his team in the best position to win and they lose. If he puts them in the best position and they lose, it's not his fault.
Do you understand?
Not answering a question would indicate you don't have the answer or have to much pride to have to admit you missed it.
So far the few people that have really come at me lecture me about things that they fail to explain. You can't say someone doesn't grasp something then fail to explain it. Little Dunning-Kruger effect there.
-
4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:
To spare the rest of us, He's mocking you.
Either way he's conceding defeat without saying it. I'm not exactly seeing solid analysis.
-
1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
My goodness, some things just go right over peoples heads.
What tantrum?
You completely ignored my points and merely played victim, and did nothing else with the post. The comment about your son to make me look like a bad guy was silly. And shows you can't handle the argument.
-
1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
For sure. In 10 years, if my son needs baseball lessons, I'll be sure to give you a call. Wouldn't want him learning from an uneducated, unathletic dork like myself.
Your lashing out in tantrums rather than attempting to understand is telling.
To literally admit you know nothing of metrics or managing impact while professing an uneducated opinion about those things is absurd. How can you profess opinions on things you admit you don't understand?
-
8 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
It's not a simple equation.
Show me the equation bud. Show me what impact he had on the expected run rate and the expected win rate by going with one pitcher instead of the other down the stretch. Show me how many runs that would equal and what one run equals to your expected W/L over the course of a season.
I love that you believe in your heart of hearts that you know, without a doubt, what the best statistical move is and that deviating from your view makes it wrong without a shadow of a doubt.
You clearly don't grasp statistics while telling everyone how concrete your evidence is. Sequencing in baseball is entirely uncontrollable and 100% luck; this means that Renteria could make bad decisions and the sequencing could work in his favor, while he could make brilliant decisions and it could work against him.
You didn't read what I said at all.
There's no way for me to extrapolate what would have happened had Renteria not made bad decisions. Telling me I don't understand statistics because I can't extrapolate them from thin air is laughable to say the very least.
The point was that putting your team in the best position to win is what dictates fault or not. If you put your team in a good position and they lose, it's not your fault. Again I ASK: do you understand this?
If you seriously want to ask me for exact examples of Renteria failing to do that then we can be here all day.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
To learn from brilliant minds like yourself.
It doesn't take brilliance, just common sense.
If you don't understand how simple decisions managers make or don't make affect the game then you probably don't process any information when actually watching a baseball game.
-
1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
Yes, I don't understand them enough.
I don't understand the impact a manager can have on a baseball team, and I don't understand the managers role.
I also don't understand analytics or statistics.
Both of those things are entirely foreign to me; never played baseball through college, and I don't work in analytics now. High Five!
Please help to educate me on what I'm missing. You should buy a baseball team, because you've found an edge so significant and no one else in the game has seen it; MANAGERS are underpaid and much more important to wins and losses than anyone in the game thinks. Get your bids in!
Then why do you even post.
-
40 minutes ago, Dominikk85 said:
That is a bad Argumentation. I do believe Ricky was probably not the right guy but it is absurd to not give him credit for the wins but only blame him for the losses. It is true the Sox underperformed the last two weeks but they also played way above their heads the first 45 games unless you believe the Sox were like a 105 win team after being projected for 85 wins.
You can't just say the first 45 games were the Sox new level and any deviation from that is on the manager.
That being said of course it is always possible to get better.
I guess we will see next year who is correct. If the Sox win more than 95 games than you can say that is their true talent level and Ricky was just holding them back.
I stated why he's at fault for the losses and it's a simple equation.
Can you tell me why he deserves credit for wind? Simply because they won? Not even all those games are won because the manager made good decisions.
In that mindset, any team over .500 has a good manager.
The bad argumentation is only your own.
-
25 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
And ill add, if you think a manager is worth 3-4 wins in a 60 game season, then managers are the most underpaid people in the game. That would mean managers could be worth 8-10 fWAR over a season.
Also, I dont think you understand my point. Im saying you take the good with the bad, and in reneterias case that was probably a net gain/loss of wins of ZERO if you account for his in game gaffes.
Your "point" is a gross simplification of numerous facets of the topic because you don't understand them enough to be analytical in even a rudimentary sense.
-
1 hour ago, default said:
How can it be fair that absolute, exactly to the tee, concrete examples are required to prove the argument, but it can be disproved by a subjective interpretation of watching a 4-game Cleveland series?
It is if you understand how logic works.
There's no guarantee the Sox hang on to win those games, true. But they were commanding each and Renteria fucked them up, period. The losses are on him because he didn't put his team in the best position to win. If he DOES do that and they lose, he's not at fault. The process is what dictates fault, not the outcome. There is literally nothing subjective about that. Do you understand now?
Now please explain YOUR position.
-
6 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
No, what's absurd is you thinking a team outperforming expectations has nothing to do with the manager at all and the ONLY impact a manager has on a teams success are the "negative" decisions you think he makes in a couple games; decisions that are at worst marginally worse, meaning sometimes they might even work out over the other one.
This is where every single person making the same argument you've made lose there point.
You want to give the players all the credit for their performance and record. The thing holding back this well oiled underrated monster is the coach... its illogical. The reason some of these guys prospered, developed and succeeded may have been due to the support and personality renteria had; the patience. The majority of a managerial impact is made off the field, before games, in the clubhouse, watching film.. it's not made in the 7th inning with a bullpen move. This is where the argument loses itself. Renteria was obviously a part of the reason the team performed well and developed. His shortcoming was when the stage got big, it became too big for him. He wasn't prepared for situations and he over managed. Bad combination. What he didn't do is cost the White Sox 3 or 4 wins, as so many here want to argue. Everything counts, not just the stuff that makes you irrationally angry as a couch coach. So yes, I've been called a defender for merely being rational. Renteria wasn't the right guy for the job. He also didn't cost them 3-4 wins.
If it's absurd, then please explain exactly to the tee what Renteria contributed. Because if my position is absurd, you will absolutely be able to give concrete examples. For all we know, Renteria lost the faith and admiration of all the players in the last couple weeks.
Your logic seems to be that the manager absolutely must be credited with numerous wins but must not be blamed for numerous losses.
You saying Renteria didn't cost them three to four losses is absolutely absurd because it's very clear that he cost them much more than that many.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. Again, that Cleveland series is all anyone needs to disprove your ridiculousness. But there's far more examples than just those.
I'm not sure if blind loyalty in delusion is your problem or just a lack of comprehension but you're way off base to say the very least.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
I'm arguing the Sox won more games than most thought, so saying they should have won even more just isn't logical. Down the stretch, Renteria choked - but most so in game 3. He overmanaged and he's not a great in-game manager so over managing is suicidal. That said, again... the players lost the games. Just as the players took them on a pace that was ahead of all projections.
This fallacy that other managers always make this optimal decision that every fan would agree with is just dumb too. Ricky wasn't Bevington. He just clearly handled and managed pressure poorly. He was pacing and had his hands on his knees like he was getting ready to keel over every time they showed him in the dugout in the playoffs. I'm sure that really made everyone around him feel great... jeeeeesus
Another person talking about "logic" who clearly doesn't understand it.
You're suggesting our mindset should be to stay with the expectations on paper before the beginning of the season and ignore how things have actually been going accordingly?
That's one of the most obtuse things I've ever heard in my life. So once they win some arbitrary amount of games we might have expected before the season we should just stop expecting wins and stop TRYING to win?
Please don't talk about logic and fallacies because this post is such a bizarre violation of common sense it's staggering.
We actually were in line to win the division. Our manager arguably cost us that, as well as good seeding. Who gives a fuck what people expected at the beginning of the season?
Good Lord...-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, hi8is said:
Age? Injury concerns?
You can at least go for 2 years.
-
39 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
If you had the White Sox as a 94-95 win team over 162 to start this season I commend you. If you thought they were a 96-99 win team over 162 then I commend you even more.
Our manager literally might have cost us the division and we went from seed 1 to seed 7 in a week largely attributed to abysmal managing. I don't know what you're trying to say.
I've seen your unfailing optimism and I appreciate it, but there's a time for realism. Realism is, managers make a big difference and ours cost us big time. You make way too many excuses and your narrative that managing isn't important is a blatant disregard of common knowledge.
-
3
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:
I said in another thread, but I'd hire Bochy first and Bochy only if he was interested in the job.
Then probably Cora; Hinch would be fine, I just don't like Hinch dating back to his Diamondbacks days either. That said, he was so young then and he's fine now I'm sure.
The hilarious thing is I don't think Managers mean much, but I think LaRussa would be an absolute disaster.
They mean much. If this past season for the Sox hasn't shown you that I don't know what the hell will.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:
i THINK I would rather have Joc on a 2 year deal or something than Brantley on 1. Honestly his defenses scares the bajesus out of me.. I'd hate to have another bad OF in the corner.
Well, sure. But why would we be aiming for a 1 year deal?
Tony La Russa
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
Sorry I hold people to what they say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you don't, it kinda defeats the point of an argument.
Everyone wants to express their thoughts but no one wants to be wrong. The lack of answers to my questions and subsequent disappearances says everything; your empty, pithy response falls in the same line.
I care about making points, not quips for the sake of amusement or admiration.
Someone might call this "pedantic" but again, if you can't call someone out for obvious falsehoods then what's the point of arguing in a forum in the first place?