strawbossisevil

There are fans who are going to defend whatever player is putting on their team's uniforms, no matter what. I don't have a problem with it, but it's not always going to lead to a completely rational discussion about things like who should be getting playing time, or 'we need to upgrade X position' type discussions.The problem is that some here over-exaggerate how bad some of our players are. If some one points out the over-exaggeration, they suddenly are labeled as a player's "defenders", and the claim is made that the won't listen to reason. Yet it is the "over-exaggerators" who are the ones failing to listen to reason. There are some who over-exaggerate in the other direction as well. Such as those in this thread claiming that Kotsay is the same player as he's been throughout his career (he is below-average in the field at this point). Their is a lack of rationality among both groups that over-exaggerate a player's strengths/weaknesses. Also, in this post you talk about "needing to upgrade X position". Once again, a person can say that, but if there are no legitimate alternatives at a certain position then repeating said "need for upgrade" over and over is itself not logical, but merely is a case of whining. I'll agree that Kotsay and Nieves can and should be replaced (or at the very least that Kotsay should be used primarily as a pinch hitter). Some other positions, however, where no immediate capable replacements available, we'll need to sit tight until replacements become available.

My argument has nothing to do with quality, and it has everything to do with taste/price. Here are two axioms to consider: 1) Higher price is not equal to higher quality. (It can be, but in many cases it can also have a lot to do with various other economic factors, supply/demand, name recognition, price gouging etc.)2) Higher price is not equal to better taste. Point is, quality/taste is not dependent on cost. There are high quality/good tasting cheap wines, and low quality/poor tasting cheap wines. Just as there are high quality/good tasting expensive wines and low quality/poor tasting expensive wines. Studies have shown that for the overwhelming majority of people (including self-proclaimed wine experts) you are as likely to find a wine that is as good tasting among the cheap wines as you are among the expensive wines. However, the visual and mental stimuli and expectations of a more expensive wine can give even the most expert wine drinkers the perception that a wine is better than it actually is. This was illustrated by the wine experts rating highly the wine in the expensive looking bottles, while rating as poor the wine in the cheap looking bottles - despite the fact that the wine used in the experiment was exactly the same. It is the placebo effect, only applied to expensive fermented grape juice. The Beer Wars illustration proved this as well. Each person went into the discussion claiming that they had a favorite American style lager and could pick it from the others. Yet, in the experiment itself, only about a third could do so. They believe that their favorite beer was better than the others and it was completely based on a preconceived impression based on visual marketing and expectations. Yet, once the visual stimuli was taken away, they couldn't recognize the difference in taste between what they claimed was best and the other two (because in all actuality there was no difference in taste). So essentially what made their chosen beer the "better" beer was solely a matter of perception rather than fact. I don't think that wine is incredibly different...take a wine of equal taste and flavor, and our minds will tell us that the more expensive one must be better, and so we believe it to be better and it impacts how we experience the wine. But, take away the visual stimuli and anticipation, and the difference between the good tasting cheap bottle and the good tasting expensive bottle is minimized if not negated entirely. That is how our human brain works, and it is fascinating how it can be deceived by marketing and other external stimuli. Once you know how that the brain works this way, a person can realize that often spending a larger amount of money may simply be paying for a perception of quality, and a perception of taste, rather than actual quality or taste.

Part of the point is that price is not necessarily equal to quality. Price can be dependent on a variety of things 1) supply 2) reputation 3) marketing 4)location of the grapes used 5) or just plain price gouging. Just because a bottle is expensive, doesn't mean the wine is any good. And just because a wine is cheap, doesn't necessarily mean it is bad. It wasn't all that long ago that Consumer Reports (if I remember correctly) voted Yellow Tail as one of its top wines (and I would call them experts as well). In addition, there may have been a day when the quality of cheap wine and expensive wine was vastly different. But with modern day development within the wine industry much of the difference has been minimized and will continue to be even more minimized as the wine industry progresses. Finally, part of the reason I even brought it up is because this is exactly what behavioral scientists are finding (who are "experts" in their own rite). Whether a wine be cheap or expensive, the average person, or even a wine expert may not be able to tell the difference. My argument isn't at all misplaced, I merely trust one group of experts (the social scientists) more than another group of experts (professional wine tasters), you apparently trust the later more. I won't disrespect your opinion by calling it misplaced. It is possible that the objective truth may be somewhere in the middle. So, point being, if you are on a budget or have limited funds and enjoy wine. Don't feel like you have to go expensive if you want good wine. The scientists claim you will be just as likely to find a wine that you enjoy amongst the cheap wines as you will among the expensive wines.

Well, unless we make an epic comeback here, we're looking at a 5 game skid. Tough to stomach two long losing streaks this early in the season.

You mean like after our 0-4 start to the season?

It would certainly seem fair to attempt to discuss how defense might have factored into Yo's meltdown inning. This response was helpful and fair: However, the message continued with this unnecessary scolding, which led to 10 posts being hidden in an attempt to bring this topic on track: A message above states, "Good morning class, welcome to 'Problems with Gallardo 101'." I'm sure that was meant to lead to humorous responses or no responses at all rather than to be taken seriously.

Right, some pointed out that Gallardo was negatively effected by Yuni's play his last time out. I watched the tape and suggested I didn't see the same on the alleged play, and that I believed that Gallardo was responsible. I am not going to be bullied into refraining from posting in a thread if what I am posting relates to the topic of the thread. Even if in doing so means bringing up Yuni B. in a thread outside of the 27 pager.

It would be fair to make this point if it were possible to talk about one player without ever referencing another. Trouble is, that isn't at all possible or practical. When talking about Gallardo, and the question is asked whether his previous poor outing came about as a result of poor pitching or poor defense (Prince/Betancourt etc), I think it is fair to address whether Prince or Betancourt negatively effected the production of Gallardo. That isn't turning this into a Betancourt or a Prince thread, it simply is centered around why Gallardo had the results he did. Since baseball is a team game, it is impossible to have a thread about one player that is completely absent of discussion of other players present on the team. To expect that kind of uniformity in posting is ridiculous IMO.

A wine magazine did a similar study with professional wine tasters and they came up with the same results. I'll have to see if I can find the link for that... Edit: This isn't it, but this article includes a study done with professional taste testers http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/02/24/fine-wine/ Essentially the professional taste testers were offered the same cheap wine in a bottle that looked cheap, and a bottle that looked expensive. And they rated the expensive looking one as the far better of the two. Even professional taste testers are deceived by the visual stimuli to the point where they are incapable of making objective evaluations of the quality of the wine. Basically, with wine, if you drink Pinot Grigio, very few if any can tell the difference between a $5 bottle from Trader Joes and the $30 bottle. The fun with wine is trying the different varieties, Pinot Grigio, Reisling, Syrah, Merlot...etc. But, when in doubt, unless you are confident that you have an ability that surpasses what the various studies have found (even among professional wine tasters), find a kind of wine that you like and buy the cheaper bottle.

He sure seems to be snakebitten. Hopefully he can overcome this and look like the guy we saw at the end of last season in Milwaukee.

I realize it is a Gallardo thread, but is no one allowed to address what AdvantageSchneider said in his post? He brought up BetAncourt, not I. And I just spent the last 15 minutes watching the play over and over to see if there was any truth to his claim. There wasn't. This point remains. The single, along with the rest of last night's results are on Gallardo's shoulders.

I went back to the tape and watched this play about a dozen times. Betancourt was shaded toward second for the double play and actually got a decent jump on this one. The best we could have hoped for from any shortstop there was for them to knock it down and keep it in the infield, but the result would have been the same as Chipper wasn't going to third in either case. This is exactly what some of us have been pointing out in the Yuni discussion thread. People are showing absolutely no objectivity in bagging on him. The difference between him and an average SS is maybe a ball or two a week, if that. Yet, so many see his defense costing us runs one or twice every night. It just shows that most have no concept of what average defense at SS looks like.

Basically, no one should ever spend more money on wine...if professional wine tasters can't tell the difference, I doubt anyone here can... http://www.huffingtonpost...sive-wines_n_849198.html

He had no right to be upset with Lucroy there. Lucroy set up outside, and Narveson's pitch ended up on the inside corner.

I won't say anything else. It just pisses me off when people say that he's a good SS when he's proven he isn't. Including Bill and Craig.Very few people have ever called him a good SS. All some have stated is that he is not as bad as some are making him out to be.

I watched it multiple times. He would have been there.

What a play by Betancourt! Wow.

Betancourt was there to make that play last night, if you don't believe me watch it again. Weeks cut in front of him. That play happened not as a result of bad range on Yuni's part, but because of Rickie's decision to cut in front of Yuni to try and make the play himself. I'm still not sure if Yuni would have got the runner at first as the runner got down the line fast and Yuni had come a long way to get it, but he had a better chance there than Rickie did. Rickie got to it first because he wasn't playing nearly as deep in the hole as Yuni. It was as simple as that. It had nothing to do with this idea that he had to somehow make an amazing play because Yuni wouldn't be there.

No, he's been bad/below average. Just not as bad as was expected at this point. It is true that some go overboard with their criticism, but at the same time there are a few here that are playing down his weak traits as if they don't exist at all. COBrewerfan, don't make the mistake of going overboard in the opposite direction when trying to point out how many are going too far with their criticism. TooLive, there have been very few people in this thread who are stating that "he's not bad". That hasn't been the "constant complaint". The argument mainly has been that many are being overly critical and lacking objectivity with Yuni, and that there were no other better options available to start at SS. The argument isn't that Yuni is a good player, or even an average player. He simply isn't.

Heck of a play by Betancourt to get an out there.

Ah...Carlos. Can't give up the third out going to third. I wonder if Sedar waved him over, or if that was all on Gomez. Once you hesitate, trying to advance is not smart.

That was the entire point of my post, they don't tell you how he has played. It tells you the results of his balls put in play, those two things are not the same.

1) You are assuming the bench guy will be better/capable of starting full time. A lot of teams have backup SS who are older ala Counsel. For most, there is a reason they are bench players. 2) At what cost? 3) If you are so sure of a better option being a bench SS for another team, perhaps you could list some names... Marco Scutaro might be available later in the season, and he wouldn't be a bad option. I can't imagine Boston being up for trading him right now though. I think they want to bring on Lowry slowly.