24fps

Time will tell (or just wait etc., etc., etc...) is a response that can apply to any assertion, any time, anywhere. At best it contributes nothing to the discussion and at worst it kills that discussion in the crib. Of course time will tell. No one would dispute that things change and people can't predict the future. To me that's not the point. The point is what do you believe now when the thread is active and why? Time will tell you that you will be wrong more often than not, but so what? In the meantime, as you wait for your inevitable defeat, you've had the benefit of several other people's point of view to think about. Opinions also change and being open to that in yourself is a good thing. If your purpose is to always be right, then you're doing the internet wrong IMO.

To me, the value of this or any message board is the dialogue and that means that anyone who makes an assertion is obligated to support it. If you say "time will tell" as a way of saying there's no common ground and I no longer want to engage, that's one thing. It's an entirely different thing if you want to take unconventional positions and act as if you're the only one with a crystal ball.

I think you're wrong. I guess time will tell.

It's the moustache, it's gotta be the moustache. The baseball gods want big moustaches like Rollie Fingers and Eck

At the very least he could aim at more hitable pitches.

You can commit many sins on a message board. Only one is unforgivable and that is to invoke the phrase "time will tell" or some variation thereof. The debate is here and now.

Yes, Holt is a great pitching coach. Imagine what he could do if he has some prime talent - Bobby Miller, Gavin Stone, guys like that who've been batted around on here as logical targets in a Mateo trade. That is unless your argument is that Holt is so good that he can succeed even without high-end pitching talent to work with. Then I think you will find yourself in an even lonelier place - one where even Leo Mazzone won't talk to you.

You said earlier in the thread that you like the potential of the current O's starters. Do you think that potential is enough to carry the team deep into the post season? If so, I like the optimism, but I don't think you have very much company in that belief.

If Elias' strategy is to grow the bats and trade for the arms, then maybe it's time to see some evidence of that. If Mateo can continue to show that he's turned a big corner, then yeah, you trade him for pitching obviously. If Elias had a more balanced approach to organizational development, I would be a lot more inclined to keep Mateo because he's an exciting player to watch.

Boy, me too. I have a loooooong memory. And I still hate that song...

It wouldn't be terrible if Bautista got a couple or three days off soon.

Apologies if I mischaracterized anything you wrote, but as near as I can tell from the quote you used is that Taleb (or whomever) is arguing that garbage in does not equal garbage out as long as the results adhere to a certain formal consistency. Maybe I have it wrong, but such are the pitfalls of excessively complex academic writing. And how does this esoteric notion apply to building a successful baseball organization anyway? Your post is more understandable if I ignore the quote altogether and focus on the proposition that posters on a message board should resist the impulse to weigh in before an issue is ripe for discussion - which is what I did. That's not likely; we're the rabble and many of us pay for the privilege. Personally, I'm very interested in process and we're lucky that Elias and his organization are tuned is as they are. Clearly they have a plan and I want to try to understand what it is even if they aren't going to come right and say it.

If you discount a concern with processes, then posters on fan-based message boards have little reason to participate. And if your method is to argue from results, then what's the purpose of modeling of any kind? I too am quite happy with the results Elias and Medjal (I suspect Sig is familiar with Taleb's work although I don't see how it could apply to individual personnel decisions) have achieved, but no model from anyone is going to convince this crowd to quit with the skepticism and that makes it a much more interesting place to be. More educative too.

A blast from the past! Love it.

Clearly hanging is too good for Ryan Mountcastle. AmIrite? smh

Pretty good AB by Mountcastle.

The pitch before Baez's hit was a strike all night.

Bogus call.

Is gambling under the influence a crime in MD? All addictions are worrisome, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent. It is certainly possible that someone can have an alcohol problem but not a gambling problem and vice versa. Addiction is a deeply individualized condition so I don't see the point of ranking the seriousness of one addiction versus another unless you are referring to a specific person, thus my question: to whom?

If both your legs were broken because you stiffed your bookie, that would too.

To whom?

Because Mike Elias and ownership has left no doubt in anyone's mind that they will do whatever it takes? I agree with everybody else who points out that 10% is far to small a sample size to infer anything meaningful. We've had a much longer time to draw conclusions about those whose job it would be to straighten out the pitching.

If I were betting, confidence would end at or before 9-6. The pitching is just too shaky and it could just as easily be 6-9 so I probably wouldn't bet. Offensively this team is not too shabby though.

It's definitely a problem with Safari. It got so bad that I stopped coming here at all on my iPhone. I just checked again and sure enough, still a problem on Safari. However it is not a problem with DuckDuckGo which I would recommend a a default browser anyway.

Wow, all this digital ink spilled over Terrin Vavra...