Bucky Rules
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
News
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Bucky Rules
-
3rd best record in the NL....
Bucky Rules replied to DHarris34Phan's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
We won't finish behind St Louis - unless they make some dramatic roster moves. I'm pretty comfortable in predicting that. Of course, I'm not going to say that somebody else couldn't come up and bite us. -
How do we get the most from Rickie Weeks?
Bucky Rules replied to futurebrewerfather's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
Of the guys on the roster, I think Rickie is the best leadoff hitter we have. And I don't think moving him in the order would do much of anything to help him. It wouldn't hurt him to get a little better luck than he's gotten so far this year. His BABIP is about 50 points lower than his career avg. -
I agree with that. If that's what Ned means by being "more than a situational lefty," then I'm fine with it. But, if he starts using him in close games with no lefties due up (except for emergencies, of course), I'd have a problem with that. Here again, though... I'd be more concerned with what he does, rather than what he says. He is almost always going to err on the side of being positive to protect/pump up his players in his comments to the media.
-
It's also aggravating to have someone call an argument a "straw-man" argument in such a condescending fashion that he feels the need to supply the definition of "straw-man" as if I (or others) am so stupid that I don't know what it is. But apparently condescension is allowed on these boards -- absolutism (no matter how inconsequential it is to an argument) is not. And trust me... if anyone hadn't heard of your new pet phrase prior to you providing a definition, we could easily look it up on the wonderful world wide interweb. It's a wonderful toy that - by definition - everyone who reads your condescension has access to.
-
HS Pitcher/Catcher throw at an umpire during the game
Bucky Rules replied to Tedaldtada's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
I saw this story earlier in the week. It's unbelievable. Well... maybe not unbelievable. It's probably happened before. But, this crew didn't do a very good job of disguising it. -
Hehe... that's a very nice two-step around that issue. I like it. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif And seriously... it didn't bother me. What did bother me was the selective policing that was going on. I agree with you on Ned's decisions in this game. I'm sure there will be some that wanted to hit Branyan instead of Hall. The post-game shows were loaded with those people. And I saw some complaints in the vent-thread, but it is just a vent-thread, so maybe its more emotion than a core belief. I'm not sure how anyone that complained about hitting Mench in a similar situation last season could possible have a problem with this move. But, I'm sure those people exist. And it is further evidence that Ned's in-game management is changing, which should please many of his critics.
-
What, did you learn a new phrase this week, and you're tyring to let everyone know? Can we please stop this. Does the fact that he said "all" Yost haters would respond really make that big of a deal. I think we're all (oops another absolutism) smart enough to figure out the greater point he was trying to make. So... my vent this week is towards the forum posting police. Especially those that seemingly choose to only police one side of an argument.
-
That's strange because you policed my comments in #1563 (with your post #1564). Yet my comments were directed in no way, shape or form at you. The were directed squarely at sheethead, and the fervor with which he was defending his point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see post #1529 (starting with the condescending "um") or post #1546 (with the "can't take you seriously" comment) -- even though on the top of the very next page you were quick to police my comments. Of course, like I said, it's entirely possible that you didn't read that dialogue. However, since that time, I've referenced the comments on at least a couple of occasions, and asked you directly about them, and yet you're strangely mum on the subject. Now, if you're sitting in my seat, what would you think? Would you see a double standard? So, I ask you... are you truly trying to make sure that the board maintains a civil dialogue? Or are you just attempting to make the people that you don't agree with look "uncivil" - to borrow your term.
-
I don't want to belabor this, and I realize the discussion is getting old. But you neglected to answer the second part of my post. The part about condescension and the "can't take someone seriously" question. Because I didn't notice you coming to our defense when those comments were made. IMO, those were clearly worse than the comments that buc made that offended you so. Keep in mind... I really wasn't overly offended being on the receiving end of the "taking seriously" comment. I just use it as an example of what I interpret as hypocrisy involved in the seemingly selective policing... allegedly. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
-
I intended nothing of the sort. So, either I was really bad at trying to make my point, or you misinterpreted what I was saying. I can live with accepting either explanation. I said/intended to say that there is a bias in judging his decisions, and some people start left of center when making those judgments. I stand by that. I believe that. Maybe you think that every judgment is made solely on each of his decision's individual merits. If so, we'll just have to disagree on that one.
-
See above comment: "I'm just trying to encourage people to be cordial, and to avoid the kind of personal attacks that infect other discussion boards." Seriously now -- About how many of your 1260 posts would you say have been spent in a forum policing function? And of those, what % do you think were in response to the posts of people that were arguing a point that you agreed with? I'm just curious. For all I know, you're a Ned Yost supporter, and some of us have just crossed a line for you. One more thing... does condescension and telling people that maybe they shouldn't be taken seriously because of their opinion cross the line for you? Or is that simply not as bad as anticipating disagreement, like buc did. I just want to get your version of the forum rules straight so I don't offend.
-
Amen and Allelulia!
-
Just because you inferred that, doesn't mean that that's what was implied. So,
-
Because you're presuming to speak for me, and in a clearly negative way. It's inappropriate, and I would appreciate it if you'd refrain from doing it in the future. I really object to the inference, which is, essentially: "You're so close-minded that I will never be able to persuade you. You'll just reflexively disagree." There's no need for that. Can we lose the feigned indignance? And if it isn't feigned, then maybe some of us need to take ourselves a bit less seriously. My God, he made the comment with a little winking smiley face attached. It's a gentle rib at worst. Get over it.
-
Thanks! So my eyes failed me while reading this thread. But, they worked while watching Vlad. I can live with that. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif
-
That's true, but I tend to doubt that he did.
-
Do you have some statistical evidence to support that Vlad swings at few pitches outside the zone? I'm not trying to be smart in asking that, I'm seriously curious. Because I've seen Vlad play a fair share, and he is without a doubt one of the best bad-ball hitters I've ever witnessed. The guy hits balls nowhere near the strikezone, and punishes them. My opinion is solely based on what I see when watching Vlad (and not much within the last couple of years of his career). But, I think he's just a freak of nature.
-
Sort of like somehow turning my use of the word every when describing the bias against Yost into a "straw-man" argument? When a bias exists, it prejudices every judgment they make. That's what a bias is. It doesn't necessarily go so far as to make them believe that a particular Yost decision is wrong, but it certainly will move people off the starting position of giving him the benefit of the doubt. The bias causes people to start from a position of skepticism (in some cases cynicism) instead of the position of the benefit of the doubt. Apparently, I was a little more clumsy in my positioning that argument the first time around. But, I really think the "straw-man" comment was a bit over the top. And I think anyone who isn't acting as the semantics police would recognize the point that was being made.
-
Closer controversy: Torres vs. Gagne
Bucky Rules replied to adambr2's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
I don't see any reason to believe that he doesn't mean it. I haven't seen much from Gagne in his short time here to suggest that he's not a realist. And I don't see him being a guy that will cause problems because he feels entitled to the closer role. All in all, it looks to me that he's a pretty good teammate. Hopefully he does get it figured out in a hurry, though. We sure could use another quality option out of the pen. -
I think avoiding calling Yost his moves or the opinions of other posters ridiculous, stupid, idiotic etc. would also be a good idea. All stuff like that does is put the other person on the defensive. I went back a few pages and saw very little of this so I must be remembering stuff from the "Vent Thread" and that is not really a discussion thread. Does "I'm not sure I can take anyone who defends the Tavarez in the 12th decision seriously" qualify? That's a not so thinly veiled attempt to call someone ridiculous, stupid, or idiotic. Or how about starting a response with the ever-condescending --- "umm"? Now, I can be as condescending as anyone, but I'll attempt to leave the condescension at home unless somebody else plays that card first.
-
Russell "3TO" Branyan called up Gwynn sent down!
Bucky Rules replied to Kurt's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
This is just silly. I admit it. When Branyan was called up, I said -- ehh. I wasn't opposed to it since Billy had absolutely sucked against RHP, but I wasn't expecting much. My God... this is just stupid, what he's doing. -
TLB -- I hear what you're saying. But, allow me to live in ignorant bliss on this subject. I was trying to say (to at least myself) that if we played the same schedule as the Cubs to this point we wouldn't be discussing the wildcard as our best chance. I realize that in the grand scheme of things our 2-7 record against Florida and Minnesota probably wouldn't be 4-3 if we were playing SD and COL. But, it might be. And then we'd only be three back with a whole lot of head to head matchups to play. It's plausible, if not likely. And I look at Chicago's roster, and it screams to me that they'll be coming back to Earth in a big way - even though Soto and Fukudome have been very nice upgrades for them this season.
-
I've mentioned brilliant already. But I have apparently forgotten to characterize you as open minded. Sorry, my bad.
-
OK... I don't recall the circumstances of why he pitched in the 5/27 game. But he did, and it was a close game, so you're right. But in looking at some box scores, CV had pitched 2 IP the night before, Shouse pitched 1.2 IP the night before, and Mota had pitched 3.1 IP over the previous three days. Other than them, you're probably looking at Dillard (who also pitched 3 of the previous four days), or DiFelice one outing removed from getting bombed in Boston. In looking at that, I can't say I have much problem with using Tavarez there. It was probably down to him or DiFelice (sound familiar?). He did pitch well in that 5/27 game, if that's any consolation. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif The majority of his appearances were in blowouts. And now he's gone, and we're all happy. The Brewers have had/still have too many guys that I wouldn't want to use in close games. Unfortunately, on occasion it can't be avoided (or maybe shouldn't be for the long term good of the pen).
-
Sad? No. In fact the only thing that I had any problem with on opening day was Hall hitting in front of Hart. But, I'm one of those guys that doesn't feel the order in which they bat makes a whole ton of difference. So, I wouldn't even say that I had a big problem with that. The rest of what you call sad, I find completely defensible - and have defended it on many occasions.