National Media Read This!

[bluedog]

Arrieta: 3.84 xFIP, 4.04 FIP in 101 IP

Johnson: 3.00 xFIP, 3.74 FIP in 17 IP

I'll take Arrieta

We'll agree to disagree. Johnson seemingly knows how to pitch effectively with inferior stuff. Arrieta hasn't figured that out yet. Once Arrieta does figure it out, he'll probably be a far superior pitcher, but indications are he's not there right now.

Granted, he could do exactly what Tillman has done and simply figure it out at some point and become a stud. But I'm not sure Buck would thrust him into the middle of a pennant race and take a risk on that happening, whereas Johnson has earned the opportunity to get another start through past performance.

I will say, if I'm drafting a keeper league, Arrieta's the man.

[Flash- bd]

This.

People shouldn't be afraid to post something in a moment of happy exuberance because their team is winning. There are a lot of lurkers out there who are absolutely terrified of posting on OH because they are afraid they'll be attacked for sharing their opinion. That's BS. No one deserves to treated like that, regardless of their opinion.

Do you really want those lurkers out there posting expressions of their exuberance every time something good happens (given the rate at which good things are happening for the O's nowadays)? Seems to me some of this stuff is for the good of the board: the snark and snide is maybe not necessary, I agree (and Malike, the little equation you post is definitely well-taken...I notice myself speaking in tones on here I simply wouldn't in everyday life--but then again, in a formal debate, you don't really speak as you would in everyday life either. Some of the better threads on here take on the tenor of a formal debate, and sometimes I actually think that's a good thing), but I think holding posters to a high standard of quality/reasoning is generally a good thing. Frankly I've seen a lot more threads than usual around here lately that amount to little more than YEAHHH!!!! O's!!!, *thumbs up*. If that's what people like about this place, and what people value in a message board, then perhaps I'm in the wrong place, but it seems to me this place is generally predicated on the standard set by Tony & co. which entails a good deal of rigor/worth in the thought around here, and being unafraid to call out thought that doesn't pass the test for what it is.

But again--if I haven't equivocated enough--I do understand if people see the condescension/dickwad-ery as a bit over the top at times.

[bluedog]

Do you really want those lurkers out there posting expressions of their exuberance every time something good happens (given the rate at which good things are happening for the O's nowadays)? Seems to me some of this stuff is for the good of the board: the snark and snide is maybe not necessary, I agree (and Malike, the little equation you post is definitely well-taken...I notice myself speaking in tones on here I simply wouldn't in everyday life--but then again, in a formal debate, you don't really speak as you would in everyday life either. Some of the better threads on here take on the tenor of a formal debate, and sometimes I actually think that's a good thing), but I think holding posters to a high standard of quality/reasoning is generally a good thing. Frankly I've seen a lot more threads than usual around here lately that amount to little more than YEAHHH!!!! O's!!!, *thumbs up*. If that's what people like about this place, and what people value in a message board, then perhaps I'm in the wrong place, but it seems to me this place is generally predicated on the standard set by Tony & co. which entails a good deal of rigor/worth in the thought around here, and being unafraid to call out thought that doesn't pass the test for what it is.

But again--if I haven't equivocated enough--I do understand if people see the condescension/dickwad-ery as a bit over the top at times.

Okay if I'd simply said "The national media needs to pay more attention to the quality of the O's starting pitching as a factor in the team's success". Would that have been a valuable thread?

I wasn't trying to just be "rah rah". I was trying to point out that every analyst I've listened to recently thinks the O's are lucky and they aren't willing to look beyond that for any other reason for the O's success. I think that's lazy journalism. I'll admit the thread title was over the top, but in my defense it was a response to ESPN and MLB.com repeating the same "lucky O's" crap over and over and over.

This team deserves more credit.

Also, Tony & Co. may apply rigor, but they NEVER and I repeat NEVER treat people with disrespect or call them names. If Tony had challenged my supposition, a baseball discussion would have ensued. That didn't happen here.

[Malike]

Do you really want those lurkers out there posting expressions of their exuberance every time something good happens (given the rate at which good things are happening for the O's nowadays)? Seems to me some of this stuff is for the good of the board: the snark and snide is maybe not necessary, I agree (and Malike, the little equation you post is definitely well-taken...I notice myself speaking in tones on here I simply wouldn't in everyday life--but then again, in a formal debate, you don't really speak as you would in everyday life either. Some of the better threads on here take on the tenor of a formal debate, and sometimes I actually think that's a good thing), but I think holding posters to a high standard of quality/reasoning is generally a good thing. Frankly I've seen a lot more threads than usual around here lately that amount to little more than YEAHHH!!!! O's!!!, *thumbs up*. If that's what people like about this place, and what people value in a message board, then perhaps I'm in the wrong place, but it seems to me this place is generally predicated on the standard set by Tony & co. which entails a good deal of rigor/worth in the thought around here, and being unafraid to call out thought that doesn't pass the test for what it is.

But again--if I haven't equivocated enough--I do understand if people see the condescension/dickwad-ery as a bit over the top at times.

You have been around here long enough to know that this isn't a YEAHHH11! Go O,s type site. I have been lurking and posting even before this was the OH. There are many serious and intellectual discussions, but being in a playoff race for the first time in eons, will make some people very enthusiastic, and that doesn't bother me. I've long since quit trying to figure out how we're 14 games over .500. I'm just enjoying this inexplicable ride.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[bluedog]

You have been around here long enough to know that this isn't a YEAHHH11! Go O,s type site. I have been lurking and posting even before this was the OH. There are many serious and intellectual discussions, but being in a playoff race for the first time in eons, will make some people very enthusiastic, and that doesn't bother me. I've long since quit trying to figure out how we're 14 games over .500. I'm just enjoying this inexplicable ride.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Crazy isn't it. Two days ago we were worried we might get swept by the hottest team in the majors, who just recently swept the Yankees. Now we've beaten a Cy Young candidate and we're heading into two seemingly winnable games with a chance to take 3 of 4 or even get a sweep! If this is what its like to be crazy, fit me for a padded room.

[Flash- bd]

Okay if I'd simply said "The national media needs to pay more attention to the quality of the O's starting pitching as a factor in the team's success". Would that have been a valuable thread?

I wasn't trying to just be "rah rah". I was trying to point out that every analyst I've listened to recently thinks the O's are lucky and they aren't willing to look beyond that for any other reason for the O's success. I think that's lazy journalism. I'll admit the thread title was over the top, but in my defense it was a response to ESPN and MLB.com repeating the same "lucky O's" crap over and over and over.

This team deserves more credit.

Well, yes and no. First of all, if you want to disparage the quality of current mainstream journalism you'll get no quarrel from me, sir!, I'm constantly amazed at what passes for "analysis" on channels like ESPN, or even the fact that analysts like that can be employed in positions where their chief role is to speak, an area where many of them clearly have some definite deficiencies in relation to even the average humanoid.

But, if you have to boil down the reason the O's are contenders in an idiotic, reductive way--as journalists, for time constraints (decline of western civilization due to facebook and twitter and all that...), or whatever other reason, seem compelled to do almost as a a rule--I think "luck" (yes, I agree luck isn't the best word, because it has connotations that people--rightly--take offense to. So let's say "statistical anomalousness" or odds/history defying numbers in close games) is, quite frankly, the pick of the litter, as it were.

I'm as big of a believer--and a proponent--of Britton & Tillman (and to a lesser extent Gonzalez) as you'll find here, so I'm definitely sympathetic to your view that this rotation, as it is currently constructed, is a lot better than some people realize or the overall numbers signify, but then again, I think most everyone on here understands that.

The only problem w/ your overall message, IMO--aside from the fact that the initial analysis is flawed and invalid for logical reasons that people have pointed out, as was SFOsFan for the same reasons (I and) other people pointed out in that thread--is that it's pretty obvious. Yes, the national media consists of a troupe of clowns and yes, this team is better since removing Matusz, Arrieta, and Hunter from the rotation and replacing them w/ good options. But there's not much w/ to argue there, thus I think it's a little unfair for you to call out people for not producing enough baseball discussion--as people in this thread have said, it's your job as the OP to provide something thought-provoking enough to elicit good "baseball" discussion.

[bluedog]

Well, yes and no. First of all, if you want to disparage the quality of current mainstream journalism you'll get no quarrel from me, sir!, I'm constantly amazed at what passes for "analysis" on channels like ESPN, or even the fact that analysts like that can be employed in positions where their chief role is to speak, an area where many of them clearly have some definite deficiencies in relation to even the average humanoid.

But, if you have to boil down the reason the O's are contenders in an idiotic, reductive way--as journalists, for time constraints (decline of western civilization due to facebook and twitter and all that...), or whatever other reason, seem compelled to do almost as a a rule--I think "luck" (yes, I agree luck isn't the best word, because it has connotations that people--rightly--take offense to. So let's say "statistical anomalousness" or odds/history defying numbers in close games) is, quite frankly, the pick of the litter, as it were.

I'm as big of a believer--and a proponent--of Britton & Tillman (and to a lesser extent Gonzalez) as you'll find here, so I'm definitely sympathetic to your view that this rotation, as it is currently constructed, is a lot better than some people realize or the overall numbers signify, but then again, I think most everyone on here understands that.

The only problem w/ your overall message, IMO--aside from the fact that the initial analysis is flawed and invalid for logical reasons that people have pointed out, as was SFOsFan for the same reasons (I and) other people pointed out in that thread--is that it's pretty obvious. Yes, the national media consists of a troupe of clowns and yes, this team is better since removing Matusz, Arrieta, and Hunter from the rotation and replacing them w/ good options. But there's not much w/ to argue there, thus I think it's a little unfair for you to call out people for not producing enough baseball discussion--as people in this thread have said, it's your job as the OP to provide something thought-provoking enough to elicit good "baseball" discussion.

I agree with everything you've said. If responses to my initial post had been limited to requests for additional statistical support or to logical arguments to the counterpoint, that would have been fine. But it quickly devolved into derogatory comments and name calling that had nothing to do with baseball. That's what I take exception too.