HiAndTight

We're to the point now I think we've got several guys capable in the system of filling that role. I've always been a big fan of Rivas in the middle of a rotation and think he could hold his own after Rogers in case of injury. Peralta would obviously be high on the list. I don't think having a proven guy to fill that role is that big of a deal this year. When you're trying to patch together a rotation with a 2nd year Yo as your #1 and Wolf as your #2 a guy who can eat up innings is obviously a higher priority. Too bad. Cappy's a guy everyone roots for, and still will(unless Duncan gets his hands on him and he wins the Cy Young this year). Obviously this is subject to change. I can't imagine there are a lot of contenders out there with a promised rotation spot waiting for Cappy.

Below is what I wrote. Did you read that? Well, I just cut and pasted into my last post, so yes, I did read it. And yes, it does directly contradict what you just said. Just looking for clarification. People in other threads have explicitly made the argument. The post I was referencing seemed to suggest it, so I tried to head it off when talking about the overall argument when discussing the benefits of Gamel vs McGehee. I think you're taking a lot of liberties here, making assumptions about what people are talking about. You said that people have made this argument,(using Gamel's big league numbers in SUPPORT of Gamel) but not on this thread. Then you continued to bring up Spencer and whomever else and use his major league numbers against him...which several people have done in this thread almost directly prior to your post. So why then not the attempt to "head off" the small sample size argument when it's being used against Gamel, and only bring it up when you assume someone is possibly, maybe alluding to his major league numbers in support of Gamel? I thought you didn't like it when people twist the facts for their own agenda?

I believe I have. It's perfectly acceptable to talk about a player's shortcomings with perspective. If you can find an example where I have said anything different, please let me know. Huh....could have swore you were just called it "pathetic" to mention a players shortcomings when arguing for another player. Of course I have little doubt this too will devolve into an argument about semantics, but here you go; I feel it's best to be fair and honest, and I think trying to put someone else down to support my own argument is pathetic. That seems like an inelegant way of making that point, so I didn't read it that way. I suppose this is where "context" comes into play. Although I believe you just said that people have made that argument about Gamel, but not on this thread. So which is it?

Sure, failure is common. Pointing out a player's failures is certainly what we should do when talking about their value to the team. That doesn't mean there is any benefit from exaggerating one player's weakness in order to try to bolster the argument we have for our personal favorites. I think trying to put someone else down to support my own argument is pathetic. Perhaps if you let me know when it WAS acceptable to mention a players shortcomings in conjunction with my beliefs about their future performance, we wouldn't run into all these problems and contradictions within your own set of rules. You should read post 67, where someone says "If you want to chastise posters for embellishment in attempts to diminish what players have done why not look at posters saying Gamel has done nothing at the MLB level." I can only read this as saying that what Gamel has done at the MLB level is worth considering. I provided examples of why the number of at bats that Gamel has in the majors isn't significant. You can "only" read it that way? You can't read it as "He hasn't had a chance or the plate apperances to prove one way or another?" I think you can only read it that way because despite your Ghandi like seeking of truth and wisdom, it must fit into your argument for it to be considered "truth." If you didn't care, you wouldn't bring it up. I could have sworn you brought it up. Huh. Anyway....

Are you really unaware that this has happened? Not specifically in this thread, but by posters here? Then-what-is-your-point? I really don't have the time, nor the inclination to catalog every single thread that's been on here. In THIS thread the only argument made for his big league service time I've seen is an argument AGAINST Gamel. But either way, why throw that back out there when you even readily admit nobody's arguing that here? How does that advance this argument? You just letting us know you don't put much weight on his small sampling of big league stats when nobody else is saying they do on this side of the argument? The only thing that has bothered me is someone choosing the exaggerate the deficiency of McGehee's minor league stats. I feel it's best to be fair and honest, and I think trying to put someone else down to support my own argument is pathetic. It doesn't bother me to that some people prefer Gamel over Casey, but it often involves flawed logic. No, I think you feel it's best to nitpick the hell outta every conversation which is "pathetic", much like you did with the "Yo being overtaxed" in the BP argument. You felt the need to seriously distinguish between "very poor" and "poor" and then continue to expand on that argument. Get over it. I don't care if you think a .741 OPS for a corner IF'er with extended minor league at bats is "poor" or "very poor" the point is that this is a large part of the reason some of us don't expect Mcgehee to continue to have the success he's had and why we DO think Gamel will have success. But for god sakes, I'm done with the "poor" v "very poor" argument. You want the last word on that one, it's all yours. As for how "pathetic" it is to "put a player down," that's an awfully high pulpit you're preaching from, especially on a board in which we talk about a profession in which failure is exceedingly common. I don't think I have to go too far out onto that limb to guess you'd probably had less than complimentary statements about players from time to time.

Once again, I just want to point out that the vast majority...(really, I think everyone, but I'd have to go back and look) who are using this tiny sample of Gamel's big league stats are using them against Gamel, not for. I also don't think the players who are established are going to suddenly become fearful of looking over their shoulders if Mat Gamel were to start at 3rd base. I think they'd most likely understand the Brewers believed he was better than McGehee. But I certainly don't see some mass exodus by our star players because the Brewers replace McGehee for Gamel. And the bolded part is really, truly just absurd. Gamel certainly hasn't "proven" to be the better player. Nobody would argue that. Those who want him to start are talking on faith. A belief in his swing, his athletic ability, etc..etc...but he also most certainly hasn't "proven" to be the inferior player. Those arguing that he's "proven" anything at the big league level.....I'm just not sure what you're looking at. The sporadic time in which he posted average numbers? Well, if that sample size somehow works, lets just take the games he started at 3rd? Those are quite a bit better than McGehee's line(.278/.340/.522/.862). Of course I don't think anyone's putting much stock into 100 AB's, but a previous poster went through a lot of work to tell the "Pro-Gamel" contingent that his big league numbers are irrelevant...something I agree with. So now arguing that those have somehow "proven" him to be inferior is....flawed.

I don't know what his point is. If the point was just to say that Gamel had a much better minor league career, that's an easy point to make. I don't know what the point of calling McGehee's career in the minors very poor is, but I have a suspicion. I don't typically ask rhetorical questions, if I ask one, I'm trying to gain understanding. That's too bad as I frankly don't know how to possibly break it down any simpler for you. The point WASN'T just to say that Gamel had a better minor league career(which kinda shoots a hole in the "no facts" argument being made here) it was also to point out that McGehee was not a good minor league player. Now if you really want to bog down the rest of this conversation by carrying on several posts arguing about the difference between "very poor" and "poor" you win. But please don't pretend you don't know what point I'm making. I'm not being subtle and I've made it several times. If I try to find significance in the 94 PA that Gamel had as a 3B in 2009, that opens the door to thinking that is a significant number of PA to base projections on. I mean, Counsell has a 967 OPS in his career with the bases loaded in 123 PA, but I doubt many people would prefer him over other hitters in that situation. Shane Spencer once had a 1.321 OPS in 73 PA. It's too small a sample to have much meaning. And we're off veering again. Who's using his very brief big league stint as an argument FOR him? We're simply saying it shouldn't be used against him. You're going off on a tangent about others who've put up big numbers in 100 or so at bats. What point are YOU trying to make here? I don't see people running around actually citing Gamel's big league performance OTHER than to point to it and argue that he was bad in his brief big league stint. The opposing argument is "no, he was actually fine....in a small sample size." So you wasted your time to look to Shane Spencer's OPS in his 73 PA's as that's utterly besides the point here. I don't really think Gamel's better ZIPS projections makes up for his defensive questions. So why does it bother you so much that some disagree? That some, in particular given the title of this thread, simply think that Mat Gamel would be a better option to play 3rd base and hit 2nd in our lineup this year? By the way, I've been told arguing "I think" doesn't really work in a rationale discussionhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

No, but a great signing for them. I'd guess it'd be for 1 year 3 million or so with incentives. You had a contender last year and traded away Agon, might as well take a shot and hope Hawpe, who won't kill you at 1st can bounce back. I was stunned Col cut him in a race last year(I know few else on here were).

What player HAS performed well at the major league level prior to being given an opportunity to do so? That's maybe the most confounding strawman that you regularly here on when talking to baseball fans. Gamel got a handful of AB's at 3rd, not a worthy sampling, but if you do in fact chose to use it, he was league average as a rookie, and he was exceptional when he was starting at 3rd base. Again, a statistically irrelevant number, but it does shoot down the "done absolutely nothing on the MLB level" unless the simple argument is just that he hasn't done anything because of a lack of AB's....which brings us back to the first sentence of this paragraph.

As I said, this discussion really has no further course, especially if we're devolving into arguing semantics. Really? Poor vs very poor is the basis of your question? Fine, it was only "poor.'' And it's not denigrating McGehee. It's baffling how you can run your head into the wall. The question was posed in a manner to suggest there's no "logical" reason to want Gamel to play over Mcgehee or expect more of Gamel. Wasn't the issue a lack of "facts?" So now providing the "facts" about McGehee is some how denigrating him? Look at the topic of the thread. That's a big part of it. Another is my belief in Gamel's ability. A third is my reluctance to believe McGehee can continue to perform at such a level. A big part of that reason is his pedigree among others. His build, complete lack of range and a lack of athletic ability is also concerning.

Well, for starters I'd say .865 is good. I'd say for a corner IF'er, .741 after playing at AAA for 3 years can best be described as average and closer to poor.

No, it does, it just doesn't answer the question the way YOU like, hence the "opinion" aspect of this that you somehow view as being invalid as it's apparently "fact" that McGehee will continue to perform at his previous level, and that Gamel is not capable of doing so. But since this is the first time you've asked this question in this context, how about lose weight, cover more ground, and hit left handed? He's been a wonderful surprise. However given the Brewers current lineup, I'd prefer to see Gamel in there hitting 2nd and playing 3rd than McGehee. Now if you think it's "fact" I'm wrong, there really isn't any other direction for this conversation to go. I realize the major league performance is on the side of McGehee(obviously) as it always is with incumbents.

That's an awfully arrogant statement. Claiming his opinion that Gamel over McGehee would be an improvement to our lineup in your mighty opinion doesn't "follow any sort of reasonable logic?" I think it does, and I think he laid it out. I think McGehee's played over his head, I think Gamel's going to be the better offensive player, and McGehee is a terrible defender as well, so not much concern there. And it's not exactly irreversible. I for one will take Gamel as well.....though I must be void of any reasonable logic. Not to drag this down a semantics corridor, but a whole bunch of "I thinks" are pure subjective opinion, not logic. You also have not provided a logical argument beyond pure conjecture. You think Gamel is a better player that Casey. Fine - he very well may be, but without any sort of argument beyond "because I said so" IS lacking reasonable logic. It just is. And "not exactly irreversible" means that it IS reversible. So are you saying that Casey can get better at defense or he can't? Now I'm confused... Yes, because "thinking" about something is an awful way to go about coming to any sort of rational conclusion. I'm simply proceeding under the assumption that most people on here are well informed on both. McGehee came up out of nowhere having a very poor minor league career. He's overweight, had knee injuries, has terrible range already, and has about a year and a half that he's played far better than the 8 years prior would have ever suggested he would have. Gamel's younger, far, far more athletic, has better OB skills, or has shown to in the minors. I also don't think you're confused about anything, even if something was a bit poorly worded. By the way, I'm curious, what do the first two "I think's" have to do with eithers ability? Looks to me though they're completely irrelevant to your point, other than you just wanted to oversell it. Congrats. But I'll tell you what, once there is a formula in which we can without doubt quantify future performance, then we'll say it's "fact" and not opinion that the younger less proven player won't perform as well or better than the older more proven player.

Wow, this is exactly the article I was referring to, and you posted it a minute later. Guess we're on the same wave length.And when he went through some struggles last year he made an adjustment to stand higher so he could see the ball better. Hitters make a LOT of adjustments, funny you only hear about the ones when a guy gets hot after. It's not unreasonable to expect McGehee to see a large decline. I understand all those who think it's be insane to bench him for Gamel. It won't happen, but I don't think it's as ridiculous as some seem to think.

That's an awfully arrogant statement. Claiming his opinion that Gamel over McGehee would be an improvement to our lineup in your mighty opinion doesn't "follow any sort of reasonable logic?" I think it does, and I think he laid it out. I think McGehee's played over his head, I think Gamel's going to be the better offensive player, and McGehee is a terrible defender as well, so not much concern there. And it's not exactly irreversible. I for one will take Gamel as well.....though I must be void of any reasonable logic.

There's a real problem here with twisting around words. Nobody said he deserved anyone's sympathy. Just that pure evil and eternal hell for a 24 year old selfish moron who killed 3 people by driving drunk might be a little over the top. That's all I'm going to say on it though. I'm not going to put myself in the position of defending the guy who ended 3 young lives and ruined a 4th, just think a touch of context is needed here. So again lets not pretend that I'm asking you to "garner sympathy" in order to show how tough you are on such topics. I'm in agreement. He deserves none. There's also the matter of putting things in context however.

I think the punishment is appropriate and have many of the same feelings, but I reserve the term "pure evil" from those who intentionally inflict pain, rapist, molesters, etc..etc.... This is a kid who did an awful thing and ruined families, but I can't place him in the "eternal hell" category. Again, that's reserved for the sociopaths who enjoy the torture and murder of women, children...

Because the two situations aren't-even-similar. Stallworth was buzzed and a guy jumped out in front of him. Hell, the Police speculated that the alcohol had no influence. Worthy of prison time, absolutely. Now a guy who's constantly blasted just blasting through into a bunch of kids and killing 3 of them? Cmon....

Yeah the backend was a major concern last year, but Axford's still a worrisome player for me at the moment. I'm just too worried he's going to have his command struggles flare up. Luckily I think we've got some depth out there to cover him, namely Braddock, but not much.

There is a very similar version of one Mr. Lorenzo Cain who, like Cain offers very solid defense, can run, hit for some average AND power, and like Cain may have had his big league start delayed by a year due to injury. Schafer may be a TOUCH behind where Cain was at this time last year, and it's a lot to expect a rookie in an actual race to come in and do what Cain did, but I've always been of the opinion that in order for almost every team to win it, they've got to have some unexpected player contribute in a big way. At least one. Perhaps come this July, we may have another LH'ed option in CF.

Yeah, agreed, I don't care who you pitched for, this transcends baseball. Losing a child........I can't comprehends it what that could possibly be like. My sympathies and thoughts go out to Cordero's family.

You should look into the issue the Yankees and Pavano had when Pavano pitched through injuries because he was putting so much pressure on himself to live up to his contract and ended up hurting himself worse. I don't know him as a person, but that right there, a stupid thing to do, but it tells me he's not TRYING to stay off the mound...just the opposite rather. I believe it was some rib injury that ended up putting him out for the rest of one of the years. Happened while he was rehabbing. The pressure of playing in NY and getting hurt may well have caused him to press and cause other injuries as a result.

I don't think the trade was Hart for Greinke straight up.

Why wouldn't they want McGehee? 4 years left....

I've been arguing the same case...the same case that was seemingly the sentiment of the board as whole PRIOR to this trade. Now we make this trade and our perfection of reality changes somehow?