Hammel-Chen-Tillman-Britton-Gonzalez

[Flash- bd]

The best way to show that I'm making a strawman argument, is to present one yourself. Well done.

This is going nowhere. So I'll concede. Chris Tillman is well on his way to establishing himself as a good ML starter, and any viewpoint expressing skepticism of that indisputable fact, is ignorant.

Please, don't be petulant. You know full well no one said anything close to that. No one even said Chris Tillman would definitely be a good ML starter. The strongest statement I've made about Tillman is that his floor (w/ his current stuff) is somewhere between 4.50-4.75 ERA over a full season and his ceiling is quite high. And what you're taking for a straw-man argument is actually me pointing out a clear flaw in your logic. That's the basic template for showing flaws in logic: you test them in extreme (read: paradigm) examples, and if the logic doesn't make sense, it probably isn't applicable in the doctrinaire way you are trying to apply it.

[Pickles]

Please, don't be petulant. You know full well no one said anything close to that.

I apologize. I haven't studied Latin in several years. You'll have to remind me of what ad absurdum means again.

No one even said Chris Tillman would definitely be a good ML starter. The strongest statement I've made about Tillman is that his floor (w/ his current stuff) is somewhere between 4.50-4.75 ERA over a full season and his ceiling is quite high.

I'll concede that his ceiling is high. Although I'm not sure why I'm conceding it as I've been saying it for 2 years in the face of criticism. But I'll repeat what I said pages ago: His floor is FAR below what you project it as.

And what you're taking for a straw-man argument is actually me pointing out a clear flaw in your logic. That's the basic template for showing flaws in logic: you test them in extreme (read: paradigm) examples, and if the logic doesn't make sense, it probably isn't applicable in the doctrinaire way you are trying to apply it.

Actually the "testing" of logic by carrying it out to its extremes is rather worthless for vast majority of scenarios. I mean, there is a reason they're called extremes isn't there?

[jamalshw]

I apologize. I haven't studied Latin in several years. You'll have to remind me of what ad absurdum means again.

I'll concede that his ceiling is high. Although I'm not sure why I'm conceding it as I've been saying it for 2 years in the face of criticism. But I'll repeat what I said pages ago: His floor is FAR below what you project it as.

Actually the "testing" of logic by carrying it out to its extremes is rather worthless for vast majority of scenarios. I mean, there is a reason they're called extremes isn't there?

I completely agree with this. That is all I have to say. How many times have highly touted pitching prospects flamed out without even reaching this mark?

[Flash- bd]

Actually the "testing" of logic by carrying it out to its extremes is rather worthless for vast majority of scenarios. I mean, there is a reason they're called extremes isn't there?

Logic=rules. You were using a certain brand of logic, applying it to a separate case, and extrapolating based on that. Rules, by their very definition, are rigid: if you can't apply them and extrapolate/infer in one case, you can't do it in all others, and when you take logic from one case and apply it to another you are presupposing it can be applied to all cases.

Before we get into some really absurd pedantry for a baseball message board, let's just put it this way: if you want more examples of why that "track-record" logic you used with Chris Davis is really bad, I'd be glad to give you many, many. I was trying to reign myself in, frankly...

EDIT: "track-record" logic above refers to your use of the argument: X has gotten closer to doing Y than A has gotten to doing B, thus X is more likely to do Y than A is to do B.

[Lucky Jim]

Before we get into some really absurd pedantry for a baseball message board...

.....

[Frobby]

I'm one of his biggest supporters, but until he becomes consistent nothing else matters. If he starts to string together victories at the ML level like he did at AAA he will be alright.

Hear, hear. I'm glad he's gained 4 mph on his fastball but consistent command is what I need to see.

[bobmc]

.....

LJ is def in HIS element......rock on! :smile11:

[Pickles]

Logic=rules. You were using a certain brand of logic, applying it to a separate case, and extrapolating based on that. Rules, by their very definition, are rigid: if you can't apply them and extrapolate/infer in one case, you can't do it in all others, and when you take logic from one case and apply it to another you are presupposing it can be applied to all cases.

Before we get into some really absurd pedantry for a baseball message board, let's just put it this way: if you want more examples of why that "track-record" logic you used with Chris Davis is really bad, I'd be glad to give you many, many. I was trying to reign myself in, frankly...

EDIT: "track-record" logic above refers to your use of the argument: X has gotten closer to doing Y than A has gotten to doing B, thus X is more likely to do Y than A is to do B.

You strike me as one of those fellows that screams about the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment- but has never been bothered to read either.

You use the term freely, so why don't you explain to me what ad absurdum means? Because it's exactly the basis of your argument.

I willingly concede that Chris Davis is highly unlikely to ever hit 30 hrs (season) in his career. By the same token, I suggest that Tillman is just as likely, nay, more, likely, not to win 15 games (season).

All the empirical evidence we have suggests I'm far more likely to be right to hedge my bets against Tillman than you are to double-down.

Is 2 good starts, out of 3, really enough, to invalidate all that?

All the empirical evidence

[Flash- bd]

You strike me as one of those fellows that screams about the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment- but has never been bothered to read either.

I don't live in the states, and I definitely don't talk much U.S. politics, and you're quite right: I definitely haven't read the constitution or the 2nd amendment since high school. Nice try, though.

You use the term freely, so why don't you explain to me what ad absurdum means? Because it's exactly the basis of your argument.

Go back and read how I used ad absurdum (freely? I used it once, haha. This is getting ridiculous). It had nothing to do with my argument...my argument was just simply pointing out your bad logic. Ad absurdum had to do with the fact I wasn't going to continue ad absurdum in showing why your logic was bad, because one example sufficed, and I daresay the X, Y, A, B breakdown I did above does an even better job of showing the fallaciousness of it.

I willingly concede that Chris Davis is highly unlikely to ever hit 30 hrs (season) in his career. By the same token, I suggest that Tillman is just as likely, nay, more, likely, not to win 15 games (season).

All the empirical evidence we have suggests I'm far more likely to be right to hedge my bets against Tillman than you are to double-down.

Is 2 good starts, out of 3, really enough, to invalidate all that?

All the empirical evidence

Ugh-- stop boring me! (15 wins? Seriously...that's your metric of choice?) When did I cite 2 out of 3 starts as evidence of Tillman having arrived? When did I even cite his stats except to say even that if you turn those 6 unearned runs into earned runs he still would have a decent ERA?

My argument--which I think I've backed up in an interesting and worthwhile way--was that people like you get carried away with loaded terms like track-record and cliches like show me consistency or never done it at the big league level that have a lot less worth than you think they do (especially in a unique case like Tillman's), and that if Chris Tillman stays healthy and retains his current stuff he will have success (ie, it's a future-oriented argument). I'm well aware of the risks involved with "staying healthy and retaining his current stuff", but I think people like you are way too cocksure in your assumption that the odds are actually against Tillman succeeding should those aforementioned factors not come into play. I argued that earlier in the thread, so I'm not going to repeat it. In fact, I'm well and truly bored with arguing with you, this is now pretty stodgy stuff at this point.

Go ahead, keep banging your fist and saying "Tillman hasn't proven anything yet!" You won't get any disagreement from me. I just don't find it to be very interesting discussion, as far as I know axiomatic statements never were...

[Lucky Jim]

There's a difference between ad absurdum and reductio ad absurdum. The reductio makes all the difference.

[Flash- bd]

I'm against these little cheap bumps of threads to try and rub in how right you were, but the point I want to make is exactly opposite of that so I'll allow myself it:

Part of why I made such a point about being so vocal about Tillman so early--and in this thread--is because I know that if Tillman throws about 3 more starts like he has today there are going to be hordes of people willingly pencilling Tillman into the rotation for next year. But is there any difference between 7 starts and 3 starts? That's a 4 start difference....4 starts in the span of a big league career--considering them strictly as data points--mean precisely nothing; it is just as absurd to pencil Tillman in after 3 starts as it is after 7. You can't make any worthwhile conclusions (or even assertions, for that matter)--from a statistical standpoint--from either.

Fact is, we're going off what our eyes tell us at this point, and there's a big fallacy going on if people are considering Tillman significantly more likely to succeed after 7 starts rather than 3 or 4. Truth is I only needed one start to tell me that Tillman was a guy very likely to have success at the big league level; I saw an impressive three-pitch mix against the Mariners with a repeatable wind-up and the kind of demeanor/attitude you want out of a pitcher, and I just don't see pitchers like that fail very often. That is why I made a point of being vocal--bordering on obnoxious, maybe--about my confidence in Tillman after his first start, second start, and third start, and in this thread.

[Pickles]

I'm against these little cheap bumps of threads to try and rub in how right you were, but the point I want to make is exactly opposite of that so I'll allow myself it:

Part of why I made such a point about being so vocal about Tillman so early--and in this thread--is because I know that if Tillman throws about 3 more starts like he has today there are going to be hordes of people willingly pencilling Tillman into the rotation for next year. But is there any difference between 7 starts and 3 starts? That's a 4 start difference....4 starts in the span of a big league career--considering them strictly as data points--mean precisely nothing; it is just as absurd to pencil Tillman in after 3 starts as it is after 7. You can't make any worthwhile conclusions (or even assertions, for that matter)--from a statistical standpoint--from either.

Fact is, we're going off what our eyes tell us at this point, and there's a big fallacy going on if people are considering Tillman significantly more likely to succeed after 7 starts rather than 3 or 4. Truth is I only needed one start to tell me that Tillman was a guy very likely to have success at the big league level; I saw an impressive three-pitch mix against the Mariners with a repeatable wind-up and the kind of demeanor/attitude you want out of a pitcher, and I just don't see pitchers like that fail very often. That is why I made a point of being vocal--bordering on obnoxious, maybe--about my confidence in Tillman after his first start, second start, and third start, and in this thread.

I feel fairly confident in Tillman going forward; I think of all the young pitchers he has the highest ceiling.

However, you're still wrong. His floor still is far below what you think it is.

[sangar]

I'm against these little cheap bumps of threads to try and rub in how right you were, but the point I want to make is exactly opposite of that so I'll allow myself it:

Part of why I made such a point about being so vocal about Tillman so early--and in this thread--is because I know that if Tillman throws about 3 more starts like he has today there are going to be hordes of people willingly pencilling Tillman into the rotation for next year. But is there any difference between 7 starts and 3 starts? That's a 4 start difference....4 starts in the span of a big league career--considering them strictly as data points--mean precisely nothing; it is just as absurd to pencil Tillman in after 3 starts as it is after 7. You can't make any worthwhile conclusions (or even assertions, for that matter)--from a statistical standpoint--from either.

Fact is, we're going off what our eyes tell us at this point, and there's a big fallacy going on if people are considering Tillman significantly more likely to succeed after 7 starts rather than 3 or 4. Truth is I only needed one start to tell me that Tillman was a guy very likely to have success at the big league level; I saw an impressive three-pitch mix against the Mariners with a repeatable wind-up and the kind of demeanor/attitude you want out of a pitcher, and I just don't see pitchers like that fail very often. That is why I made a point of being vocal--bordering on obnoxious, maybe--about my confidence in Tillman after his first start, second start, and third start, and in this thread.

This post is simply laughable.

Obviously Tillman has the potential to be a very good pitcher. You are far from the first to say that even though you choose to picture yourself as some sort of stand-alone martyr. Where I disagreed with you was your insistence that his floor is "pretty high" at a below average ERA+ of 90. You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong.

[Flash- bd]

This post is simply laughable.

Obviously Tillman has the potential to be a very good pitcher. You are far from the first to say that even though you choose to picture yourself as some sort of stand-alone martyr. Where I disagreed with you was your insistence that his floor is "pretty high" at a below average ERA+ of 90. You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong.

Where did I "picture (paint is the word you want, friend) myself as some sort of stand-alone martyr"-- when did I even say I was one of the few who have said that Tillman will very likely be (note: not "has the potential to": to say that is simply to state the patently self-evident, which, for all I can tell, is all you and Pickles do...well, that and get petulant in lame attempts to discredit me). I've been trumpeting Tillman for a while now but go back and read the initial Tillman thread: I constantly made the point of saying that my belief in Tillman was second-hand, based on first-hand reports form people like Weams and Lucky Jim, and hence, I'm obviously not the first one to believe in him nor did I for a second say I was...

As for "my insistence that his floor is 'pretty high at a below average ERA+ of 90", shows how well you read: I was talking about Hammel. In respect to Tillman I said 4.50-4.75 over a full season is his floor.

Finally, what, exactly, is laughable about my post?

Typical...I try to make a bigger point and you two try and drag the discussion into the mud in a querulous attempt to maintain your rightness by targeting exactly the most arbitrary point in this whole thread: this nonsense about projecting floors.

EDIT: Don't invest my words with your exceedingly subjective interpretation and then attack me based on that interpretation. Again, it's just petulant, and shows you're not really interested in discussing a point but are just trying to hold your ground at all costs.

[sangar]

Where did I "picture (paint is the word you want, friend) myself as some sort of stand-alone martyr"-- when did I even say I was one of the few who have said that Tillman will very likely be (note: not "has the potential to": to say that is simply to state the patently self-evident, which, for all I can tell, is all you and Pickles do...well, that and get petulant in lame attempts to discredit me). I've been trumpeting Tillman for a while now but go back and read the initial Tillman thread: I constantly made the point of saying that my belief in Tillman was second-hand, based on first-hand reports form people like Weams and Lucky Jim, and hence, I'm obviously not the first one to believe in him nor did I for a second say I was...

As for "my insistence that his floor is 'pretty high at a below average ERA+ of 90", shows how well you read: I was talking about Hammel. In respect to Tillman I said 4.50-4.75 over a full season is his floor.

Finally, what, exactly, is laughable about my post?

Typical...I try to make a bigger point and you two try and drag the discussion into the mud in a querulous attempt to maintain your rightness by targeting exactly the most arbitrary point in this whole thread: this nonsense about projecting floors.

EDIT: Don't invest my words with your exceedingly subjective interpretation and then attack me based on that interpretation. Again, it's just petulant, and shows you're not really interested in discussing a point but are just trying to hold your ground at all costs.

Wow, it would be so easy to tear your logic to shreds, instead I will offer a couple of effortless elucidations and leave you adrift.

I used the word "picture" and that is exactly what I meant. Think about it.

In your OP, you said all of your listed pitchers have a "pretty high" floor. You later defined that floor as having an ERA+ of 90. If I made a mistake it was in assuming your babble had consistency, my bad.

Do you still think Gonzalez has a floor of 90? I couldn't help but notice how you conveniently ignore that in your hurry to fallaciously pat yourself on the back. Perhaps your unique skill of being able to analyze a pitcher with one look wasn't working that day?

What is laughable about your post is your silly attempt to use one start to prove that Tillman's floor is ridiculously high. Which, if you recall, was the topic of the initial debate.

Beyond that I'm not going to continue to engage you in your petty quibbling. People who ignore parts of their own argument in order to placate their own egos do not deserve a plate at my dinner table.

Adois fool.