Matt Wieters needs to be benched for a few days

[MrOrange82]

You're a real troll, man...I'm surprised you've been around here for 3,300 some posts without making some serious enemies.

Now, for the mundane work of showing your comments for what they are:

1) a jump from .750 OPS to .830 OPS based on possibly 2/3 more off-days sprinkled in (ie, use him at the rate of say Brian McCann, instead of Matt Wieters, a negligible difference, all things considered) would certainly be magic.

--secondly, your point makes no sense unless you have so little sense for tone that you couldn't tell that I was talking about future/long-term projection.

2) "How often do you hear professional athletes say, to the media, "I'm tired...want out?" That you can possibly try to use this as grist, and simultaneously criticize me, is another of the many embarrassing (and hilarious, at least we're getting some laughs out of this) moments you've produced for yourself in this thread.

3)"What's especially hysterical (and somewhat sad) is that you clearly don't understand what sparked my part in this argument". What's especially hysterical is that YOU are the one who attacked ME, for the very reason you find so especially hysterical. You still don't seem to get my argument was, and still is, simply this: accounting for Wieters' lack of expected production at this point of the season with the idea of lack of rest is a very poor excuse.

4) "TA said Wieters, Hell or high water, is a .750-.775 guy - period - and dismissed weariness as a potential factor in offensive output." Still confusing me with TA, I see.

5) " I wasn't debating, haven't debated, and won't debate what Buck will/won't do, because...well, I don't speak to the guy. As indicated above, Wieters may simply be too important to the pitching/defensive scheme to sit/DH enough to where his offense benefits. Still, that was never the issue. The issue was whether .750-.775 represents the extent of his potential. " There you go, redefining the argument again. There has never been mention of the "extent of Wieters potential" in our whole argument.

I won't even tell you to not go on, I'm actually getting to the point where you seem so far lost such that I'm starting to not even feel bad about making fun of your piss poor argumentative/logic/writing/.../.../... skills. It's like when the evangelical comes to you in the streets and you feel bad for turning them down their sermon and pamphlet, but then you hear the extremely wild stuff coming out of their mouth and it starts to be almost amusing.

Wow...as it turns out, I can end this back-and-forth more quickly than I'd imagined. And here's how:

Please point to where I said Wieters' problems were entirely due to a lack of rest. Or, put another way, point to where I said Wieters would be an .830 OPS player solely by virtue of increased rest.

And just for the sake of clarification: could you please explain how saying something along the lines of "Wieters is a .750-.775 player" doesn't define, or "attempt to represent," the extent of his potential? How does saying "he is what he is" fail to trigger the issue of "what he could be"?

Take as much time as you need.

[Flash- bd]

Wow...as it turns out, I can end this back-and-forth more quickly than I'd imagined. And here's how:

Please point to where I said Wieters' problems were entirely due to a lack of rest. Or, put another way, point to where I said Wieters would be an .830 OPS player solely by virtue of increased rest.

And just for the sake of clarification: could you please explain how saying something along the lines of "Wieters is a .750-.775 player" doesn't define, or "attempt to represent," the extent of his potential? How does saying "he is what he is" fail to trigger the issue of "what he could be"?

Take as much time as you need.

As always with you, I don't need time.

1) Please point to where I said Wieters' problems were entirely due to a lack of rest. Or, put another way, point to where I said Wieters would be an .830 OPS player solely by virtue of increased rest.

--Never accused you of saying this. You're getting a little too caught up with the .830 OPS number....it's pretty clear I was just throwing that out there as a number for number's sake.

2) And just for the sake of clarification: could you please explain how saying something along the lines of "Wieters is a .750-.775 player" doesn't define, or "attempt to represent," the extent of his potential? How does saying "he is what he is" fail to trigger the issue of "what he could be"?

--First off, I repeat: still confusing me with TA, I see. Secondly, Wieters is a .750-.775 player....in fact, he has a .743 career OPS and a .743 season OPS, so we can say, to be completely precise, he is a .743 OPS player. The fact that I am not TA should explain the rest for why your point was useless...go find somewhere in this thread I argued with you about potential.

Please, man, do yourself a favor and go back and read my posts and your posts. You are either extremely confused or as I suggested above, lacking the ability/mental resources to understand. I hope for your sake it's the former.

EDIT: and because I can anticipate where you will misunderstand, I add this:

my point is, and always was (go back and read, as I've asked all along! I don't like arguing about facts, it's boring!), "was that TradeAngelos point of Matt Wieters having a career OPS of ~.750 has a lot more explanatory value for why he is currently hitting to the tune of .743 (his career OPS: .743, as it happens) than does the excuse that he is suffering from tired legs at this point in the season, or that the collision with Rodriguez which no one in the club has bothered to comment about since is somehow the impetus for/beginning of his difficulties. "

I put it in quotes because I posted this about 2-3 posts back, and it perfectly responds to #2, just more evidence of this circle of me giving you answers-you changing the grounds/redefining the argument with specious reasoning/rhetorical maneuvers-me pointing out the problem with those tricks-you coming with more-and on and on and on.

Another EDIT: I'm looking forward to your next flourish of meretricious magic (or, alternatively, another word ending in gic)! I admit, I'm rather enjoying this now, and rather excited as to what it could be.

[MrOrange82]

Never accused you of saying this. You're getting a little too caught up with the .830 OPS number....it's pretty clear I was just throwing that out there as a number for number's sake.

Orly?

- "a jump from .750 OPS to .830 OPS based on possibly 2/3 more off-days sprinkled in . . . would certainly be magic." And "based on" means...?

- "[M]y argument was, and still is, simply this: accounting for Wieters' lack of expected production at this point of the season with the idea of lack of rest is a very poor excuse." So..."accounting for," as you used the phrase, was supposed to mean "accounting for any part/percentage, great or small"?

Secondly, Wieters is a .750-.775 player....in fact, he has a .743 career OPS and a .743 season OPS, so we can say, to be completely precise, he is a .743 OPS player . . . go find somewhere in this thread I argued with you about potential.

Well, since you asked nicely...

- "I tend to think Wieters is about an .800 OPS guy, well above his current career OPS, but well-below some people's expectations for him." Huh...neat.

- "[Y]our point makes no sense unless you have so little sense for tone that you couldn't tell that I was talking about future/long-term projection." You're fast becoming one of my new favorite people. I swear, I'd give you a cookie if you were nearby. Adorable, really.

Please, man, do yourself a favor and go back and read my posts and your posts.

Done and done. Well, at least the most recent page. I imagine that going further back would yield more amusement, but the number of times you crossed your own wires within the last few paragraphs suffices, IMO.

You are either extremely confused or as I suggested above, lacking the ability/mental resources to understand. I hope for your sake it's the former.

Clearly, I am horribly, irreconcilably confused. The blinding clarity of your insights has overwhelmed my capacity to process information. As to your "obviously confusing me with TA" issue...you chose to take up his mantle/back the reasoning behind his arguments. If you think his arguments are flawed or incorrect, then...what have you been doing all this time? And if you think he's right, then my attributing, in part, his stance to you is not faulty.

[Flash- bd]

Haha, you scourged through all of that and that's all you can come up with? If I went through all the gaps in logic, contradictions, and silliness in your last 5-10 posts I'd have work for days and days.

Secondly, again, you fail to point out a contradiction. You also failed, again, to understand me.

Look at my edit above, posted right after I made my post, immediately noticing what you weren't going to--and consequently didn't--understand:

"EDIT: and because I can anticipate where you will misunderstand, I add this:

my point is, and always was (go back and read, as I've asked all along! I don't like arguing about facts, it's boring!), "was that TradeAngelos point of Matt Wieters having a career OPS of ~.750 has a lot more explanatory value for why he is currently hitting to the tune of .743 (his career OPS: .743, as it happens) than does the excuse that he is suffering from tired legs at this point in the season, or that the collision with Rodriguez which no one in the club has bothered to comment about since is somehow the impetus for/beginning of his difficulties. ""

You must assume that I'm a complete fool for me to post that Wieters is a .743 OPS guy and Wieters is an .800 OPS guy in the same thread and not have a reason for it. Again, you clearly fail to understand the concept of tone/context: what you're doing is like turning a guys comment that a pitcher "was great yesterday" into the idea that somehow that person meant that pitcher was a has-been, when the context clearly suggests something else.

I thought, the fact that I made the point of going on that little amusing tangent to point out that Wieters is not a .750 OPS but a .743 OPS guy would make it obvious enough, but here it is: I was speaking in a clearly limited, statistical sense. In other words, I was speaking to the point, my point all along (which you still somehow don't get, or dare to refute!), "that TradeAngelos point of Matt Wieters having a career OPS of ~.750 has a lot more explanatory value for why he is currently hitting to the tune of .743 (his career OPS: .743, as it happens) than does the excuse that he is suffering from tired legs at this point in the season, or that the collision with Rodriguez which no one in the club has bothered to comment about since is somehow the impetus for/beginning of his difficulties. "

A little grammar: what the verb to be, conjugated in this case as IS, implies depends on the context. In spanish, they even split the verb to be into two different, heavily used verbs: estar and ser. One is temporary and conditional, one is permanent and exact. Do I have to go on? The point I'm going to make should follow for anyone reasonably perceptive.

Please, buddy, give up. If you're feeling self-conscious about your future as a newly-minted lawyer on account of this argument, don't, just as you said, there's a lot of bad judges, and there's a hell of a lot of bad lawyers out there. You'll be fine. You've certainly got the pertinaciousness of a good lawyer, I'll give you that.

EDIT: I realize that I shouldn't take the bolded part for granted. I will go on, if you ask me to: I'm starting to realize that I need to be VERY, very clear with you, leave no room for doubt or for the operations which I generally like to give the benefit of the doubt on, expecting an intelligent human to fill in the blanks-- I've got some experience teaching younger children, so I can be very specific and exact--and boring--to get my point across if I need to, though I generally like to keep my job separate from my free time. Just let me know, and I'll help you out.

[MrOrange82]

Haha, you scourged through all of that and that's all you can come up with? If I went through all the gaps in logic, contradictions, and silliness in your last 5-10 posts I'd have work for days and days.

Secondly, again, you fail to point out a contradiction. You also failed, again, to understand me.

Look at my edit above, posted right after I made my post, immediately noticing what you weren't going to--and consequently didn't--understand:

"EDIT: and because I can anticipate where you will misunderstand, I add this:

my point is, and always was (go back and read, as I've asked all along! I don't like arguing about facts, it's boring!), "was that TradeAngelos point of Matt Wieters having a career OPS of ~.750 has a lot more explanatory value for why he is currently hitting to the tune of .743 (his career OPS: .743, as it happens) than does the excuse that he is suffering from tired legs at this point in the season, or that the collision with Rodriguez which no one in the club has bothered to comment about since is somehow the impetus for/beginning of his difficulties. ""

You must assume that I'm a complete fool for me to post that Wieters is a .743 OPS guy and Wieters is an .800 OPS guy in the same thread and not have a reason for it. Again, you clearly fail to understand the concept of tone/context: what you're doing is like turning a guys comment that a pitcher "was great yesterday" into the idea that somehow that person meant that pitcher was a has-been, when the context clearly suggests something else.

I thought, the fact that I made the point of going on that little amusing tangent to point out that Wieters is not a .750 OPS but a .743 OPS guy would make it obvious enough, but here it is: I was speaking in a clearly limited, statistical sense. In other words, I was speaking to the point, my point all along (which you still somehow don't get, or dare to refute!), "that TradeAngelos point of Matt Wieters having a career OPS of ~.750 has a lot more explanatory value for why he is currently hitting to the tune of .743 (his career OPS: .743, as it happens) than does the excuse that he is suffering from tired legs at this point in the season, or that the collision with Rodriguez which no one in the club has bothered to comment about since is somehow the impetus for/beginning of his difficulties. "

A little grammar: what the verb to be, conjugated in this case as IS, implies depends on the context. In spanish, they even split the verb to be into two different, heavily used verbs: estar and ser. One is temporary and conditional, one is permanent and exact. Do I have to go on? The point I'm going to make should follow for anyone reasonably perceptive.

Please, buddy, give up. If you're feeling self-conscious about your future as a newly-minted lawyer on account of this argument, don't, just as you said, there's a lot of bad judges, and there's a hell of a lot of bad lawyers out there. You'll be fine. You've certainly got the pertinaciousness of a good lawyer, I'll give you that.

lmao...donde esta la bibloteca, Pedro? Good Lord.

"Scourged" through two posts? On a single page? (by the way, senor with a "~," I think you meant "scoured." Unless you're saying that our verbal sparing has morphed into battery)

Who cares if his career OPS "has more explanatory value" than some other, single factor, when viewed in a vacuum? Your entire line of obtuse argumentation pits one thing, devoid of context, against another, equally devoid of context, and therefore has virtually no value. I say again (I can practically see you waving knobby fingers at your screen)...whether one factor potentially has more predictive value than another is completely and utterly immaterial. There are a host of factors that have contributed to Wieters' 2012 performance, as have a variety of factors affected his career OPS. Are you saying that fatigue couldn't have played a role in shaping his, to date, career OPS, as well? Don't get me wrong, it's pretty, painfully clear that keeping more than one ball in the air at a time is troublesome for you, but man...when your teeth clamp down, you're downright myopic.

Spanish grammar lessons...amazing.

[Flash- bd]

lmao...donde esta la bibloteca, Pedro? Good Lord.

"Scourged" through two posts? On a single page? (by the way, senor with a "~," I think you meant "scoured." Unless you're saying that our verbal sparing has morphed into battery)

Who cares if his career OPS "has more explanatory value" than some other, single factor, when viewed in a vacuum? Your entire line of obtuse argumentation pits one thing, devoid of context, against another, equally devoid of context, and therefore has virtually no value. I say again (I can practically see you waving knobby fingers at your screen)...whether one factor potentially has more predictive value than another is completely and utterly immaterial. There are a host of factors that have contributed to Wieters' 2012 performance, as have a variety of factors affected his career OPS. Are you saying that fatigue couldn't have played a role in shaping his, to date, career OPS, as well? Don't get me wrong, it's pretty, painfully clear that keeping more than one ball in the air at a time is troublesome for you, but man...when your teeth clamp down, you're downright myopic.

Spanish grammar lessons...amazing.

I hope you enjoyed your last word. As tempting as it is to pick apart yet another post of yours, this is no longer fun, it's reached sisyphean levels. When you're resorting to make your points off an obvious typo on my part (or no, maybe I really don't know the difference between scour and scourge! Let me look it up!) as well as making fun of me for something I was already saying in the spirit of mocking/wryly, you know you've run out of material.

Have a nice night. The good thing about a message board is that it's all there for everyone to see.

While we're talking Spanish, there's a phrase that goes like this: Hay d?as tontos y tontos para todos los d?as

[Lucky Jim]

[video=youtube;j-9n2ImgJQ0]

Shall I declare a victor?

[MrOrange82]

I hope you enjoyed your last word. As tempting as it is to pick apart yet another post of yours, this is no longer fun, it's reached sisyphean levels. When you're resorting to make your points off an obvious typo on my part (or no, maybe I really don't know the difference between scour and scourge! Let me look it up!) as well as making fun of me for something I was already saying in the spirit of mocking/wryly, you know you've run out of material.

Have a nice night. The good thing about a message board is that it's all there for everyone to see.

While we're talking Spanish, there's a phrase that goes like this: Hay d?as tontos y tontos para todos los d?as

And there's irony in cutting/pasting question marks into your "parting shot," given the message. A fitting end, truly.

Get some rest, boss. You worked so hard today...and I'm so proud of you! :smile11:

[MrOrange82]

[video=youtube;j-9n2ImgJQ0]

Shall I declare a victor?

Hah...I'll concede. To be honest, I don't think I actually read his first 2-3 posts.

(kidding...maybe)

[Pedro Cerrano]

So, Wieters appears to be heating up.

[Flash- bd]

And there's irony in cutting/pasting question marks into your "parting shot," given the message. A fitting end, truly.

Get some rest, boss. You worked so hard today...and I'm so proud of you! :smile11:

Someone can enlighten him, I'm sure, what happens when you put an accent on an i on this forum. That is all.

As to your above post, that would explain a lot.

[MrOrange82]

Someone can enlighten him, I'm sure, what happens when you put an accent on an i on this forum. That is all.

As to your above post, that would explain a lot.

Hmm...well, I know what happens when you search for a pithy phrase on the internet, because you can't actually remember its precise wording, and copy/paste it into the reply box. I'm guessing it looks similar to what you're talking about.

I thought you were making a grand exit? Sheesh. Pins and needles over here.

[Flash- bd]

Joder, macho. Fijate: la palabra dia tiene un accento sobre la i, pero cuando pongo eso, se convierte en ser un se?al de interrogaci?n. No s? que m?s decirte, aparte de que si quisiera decir algo agudo no habr?a dicho esa frase hecha, porque es muy com?n...es decir, no se tiene que rebuscarla para recordarla. S?lo que es adecuado en el caso de t?. Que descanses, tio.

Tired of speaking to you in english.

EDIT: Ves? Parece ser que cada palabra con accento se convierte en eso. Que duermas bien, chavalito.

[MrOrange82]

Tired of speaking to you in english.

lol...thank Buddha.

Adios, haus.

[OrangeJerseys]

That was kinda tiring and only slightly entertaining.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.