Nick...killing it in the 2 spot.

[Old#5fan]

And when someone ways that Markakis is playing gold glove defense, that's his opinion. Yet you claim that by posting this, he is claiming it to be a fact. That's where the first link of your string of illogic starts. Don't you read the very postings you respond to, where people have over and Over and OVER said that "gold glove defense" is an opinion, and you have argued that stating that is false, which (by definition of opinion about a subjective subject) it is not?

-Larrytt

It is only an opinion when you state it or delineate it as such. The poster did not do that in his original statement and even again in a subsequent post. It wasn't until my insistent argument that he ultimately admitted it was his opinion. So I actually won the argument a long time ago which really dumbfounds me why you continue to act like I haven't.:eektf::scratchchinhmm:

[larrytt]

I meant the first year he won it not that he won it his first year. The Gold Glove should have nothing to do with hitting and I don't believe it does despite the goofy Palmeiro voting that year.

I could me wrong but I believe Mark Belanger won quite a few and couldn't hit much at all. So don't give me it is connected with hitting as its not.

More circular reasoning. As to Belanger, one poor-hitting fielder winning gold gloves doesn't negate whether others may - Logic 101. That's like saying if one dog is white, all dogs must be white.

Nearly anyone paying attention knows that hitting ability does affect the voting. Do you really believe the hobbling Palmeiro, playing 28 games in defense, won on the merits of his defense or his great hitting that year as a DH? If you believe he won on the merits, as you claim above, then I have several bridges I'd like to sell you. Palmeiro won that year because the better-fielding first basemen split the vote, and so a few who voted for Palmeiro based on past years won out. And so, by your stated definition of "gold glove defense," Palmeiro played gold glove defense that year!!!

-Larrytt

[ledzepp8]

Say this year Hamilton ends up with 40 home runs, 140 rbi's, and bats .305.

Say this year Ramirez ends up with 40 homers, 140 rbi's, and bats .305.

Hamilton wins the MVP award and therefore is a MVP type player.

Does that not make Manny a MVP type player cause he didnt win it?

You obviously haven't been paying attention, of course he's not. Geez, have you never taken Logic 101?

[Old#5fan]

More circular reasoning. As to Belanger, one poor-hitting fielder winning gold gloves doesn't negate whether others may - Logic 101. That's like saying if one dog is white, all dogs must be white.

Nearly anyone paying attention knows that hitting ability does affect the voting. Do you really believe the hobbling Palmeiro, playing 28 games in defense, won on the merits of his defense or his great hitting that year as a DH? If you believe he won on the merits, as you claim above, then I have several bridges I'd like to sell you. Palmeiro won that year because the better-fielding first basemen split the vote, and so a few who voted for Palmeiro based on past years won out. And so, by your stated definition of "gold glove defense," Palmeiro played gold glove defense that year!!!

-Larrytt

Your problem is you cannot fathom that the poster who later admitted that it was only his opinion that he believed Nick Markakis played Gold Glove defense this year actually admitted I was correct in calling out his statement as opinion not fact. Should Markakis win the Gold Glove his opinion will be validated as it would then become a fact. However, if Markakis doesn't earn or win a Gold Glove than his opinion was simply wrong. There is no other conclusion to render in this matter. Again, LOGIC 101.

[BRobinsonfan]

Say this year Hamilton ends up with 40 home runs, 140 rbi's, and bats .305.

Say this year Ramirez ends up with 40 homers, 140 rbi's, and bats .305.

Hamilton wins the MVP award and therefore is a MVP type player.

Does that not make Manny a MVP type player cause he didnt win it?

I've read enough Old#5Fan that I can anticipate his response. You see, it would depend on how many of Manny's or Hamilton's RBI's were "productive RBI's"... suppose a lot of Hamilton's RBI's occurred when Old Fan wasn't watching... ergo... he's not deserving of the award because Old

fan saw more of Manny's. See how it works?

[DrungoHazewood]

That is not at all what I am saying, not even close. What I am saying is Brooks Robinson was hands down the greatest fielding third baseman of his era and IMO ever. If he only played 27 games during the middle of his Gold Glove Career, due to protecting him from a permanent injury by utilizing him as a DH (thank goodness this never actually had to occur) would it make him any less of a Gold Glove fielder? Especially, if he was able to return to third base full time the next season and continue his Gold Glove level of play.

I think not.

Absolutely, positively, without any doubt, 100% it would have made him less of a fielder. If he can't even play the position for his own team he's NOT THE BEST FIELDER IN THE LEAGUE.

You're basically arguing that Ted Williams should have been given the 1951 and 1952 MVP awards, during years that he played in six and 37 games, respectively. He was arguably the best in 1950. Arguably the best in 1953. He was damn good in the handful of games he played in '51 and '52. So, he's the MVP despite spending most of both seasons flying around Korea.

[hammer310]

You obviously haven't been paying attention, of course he's not. Geez, have you never taken Logic 101?

I did, but I failed it!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[DrungoHazewood]

Your problem is you cannot fathom that the poster who later admitted that it was only his opinion that he believed Nick Markakis played Gold Glove defense this year actually admitted I was correct in calling out his statement as opinion not fact. Should Markakis win the Gold Glove his opinion will be validated as it would then become a fact. However, if Markakis doesn't earn or win a Gold Glove than his opinion was simply wrong. There is no other conclusion to render in this matter. Again, LOGIC 101.

Your problem is that you cannot fathom.

[larrytt]

It is only an opinion when you state it or delineate it as such. The poster did not do that in his original statement and even again in a subsequent post. It wasn't until my insistent argument that he ultimately admitted it was his opinion. So I actually won the argument a long time ago which really dumbfounds me why you continue to act like I haven't.:eektf::scratchchinhmm:

Well, at least you openly show your illogic. You arbitrarily believe that anything a person says is stated as fact, not opinion, unless he specifies it is his opinion. This is totally wrong, but does shed some light on the source of much of your illogic. I could just as easily claim that whatever a person states is his opinion unless he explicitly states he believe it to be fact. Logic 101 again.

To use a simple example, your very first statement above is your opinion, not fact, and yet you do not state it as being your opinion. Just because you say it is true does not make it fact. To use a simple example, if someone says "Babe Ruth was the best baseball player ever," that is obviously an opinion, and no reasonable person would need him to say that it is an opinion.

Think of all the times you have insulted other's logic. (Yes, it works both ways.) That is obviously your opinion, but based on what you believe, you stated it as fact, when it is by definition opinion. Heck, you state that you "won" an argument with someone, when that is only your opinion (which no one else on this thread seems to agree with), and yet you forget to state that it is your OPINION that you "won" that argument. (You didn't win the argument; you lost it badly. But I don't need to state that this is my opinion, since that is obvious from the context.)

-Larrytt

[hammer310]

I've read enough Old#5Fan that I can anticipate his response. You see, it would depend on how many of Manny's or Hamilton's RBI's were "productive RBI's"... suppose a lot of Hamilton's RBI's occurred when Old Fan wasn't watching... ergo... he's not deserving of the award because Old

fan saw more of Manny's. See how it works?

Haha that's exactly what his response would be. :clap3:

[DuffMan]

Your problem is you cannot fathom that the poster who later admitted that it was only his opinion that he believed Nick Markakis played Gold Glove defense this year actually admitted I was correct in calling out his statement as opinion not fact. Should Markakis win the Gold Glove his opinion will be validated as it would then become a fact. However, if Markakis doesn't earn or win a Gold Glove than his opinion was simply wrong. There is no other conclusion to render in this matter. Again, LOGIC 101.

WAKE UP! I always said that it was my opinion. I never said otherwise. If you can't admit that or figure that out then you take the phrase "stubborn as a mule" to a new unreachable level of absurdity!!!!

[Old#5fan]

Absolutely, positively, without any doubt, 100% it would have made him less of a fielder. If he can't even play the position for his own team he's NOT THE BEST FIELDER IN THE LEAGUE.

You're basically arguing that Ted Williams should have been given the 1951 and 1952 MVP awards, during years that he played in six and 37 games, respectively. He was arguably the best in 1950. Arguably the best in 1953. He was damn good in the handful of games he played in '51 and '52. So, he's the MVP despite spending most of both seasons flying around Korea.

Well in your example there is a huge difference from mine. In my example Brooks actually played baseball all season, just not at his normal position. So it really isn't a comparable situation at all. Williams was doing much more important work.

[ledzepp8]

That is not at all what I am saying, not even close. What I am saying is Brooks Robinson was hands down the greatest fielding third baseman of his era and IMO ever. If he only played 27 games during the middle of his Gold Glove Career, due to protecting him from a permanent injury by utilizing him as a DH (thank goodness this never actually had to occur) would it make him any less of a Gold Glove fielder? Especially, if he was able to return to third base full time the next season and continue his Gold Glove level of play.

I think not.

Yes, that's exactly what it would make him.

[Old#5fan]

WAKE UP! I always said that it was my opinion. I never said otherwise. If you can't admit that or figure that out then you take the phrase "stubborn as a mule" to a new unreachable level of absurdity!!!!

Sorry, but in your original and one subsequent post you did not. I agree that afterwards you have. That is what brought my argument forth to begin with.

[Mark Carver]

Say this year Hamilton ends up with 40 home runs, 140 rbi's, and bats .305.

Say this year Ramirez ends up with 40 homers, 140 rbi's, and bats .305.

Hamilton wins the MVP award and therefore is a MVP type player.

Does that not make Manny a MVP type player cause he didnt win it?

Or let's go on fact, in 1995 -

Mo Vaughn - 300/388/575/963, 144 OPS+, 28 2B, 39 HR, 126 RBI, 316 TB

Albert Belle - 317/401/690/1.091, 177 OPS+, 52 2B, 50 HR, 126 RBI, 377 TB

Mo Vaughn is the MVP for that year and Albert Belle did not have an MVP caliber season.