Goldstein on the Os

[Pickles]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well I don't think the author was looking to reach a specific word count.

I'm not praising the article, I think it's pretty solid.  With a good conclusion.  Can't rely on the farm system to get the team where it needs to be.  Nothing wrong with that.

And if that's enough for you, that's fine.

Like I said, I'd like a little more.

[Pickles]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

And yet some here seem to think that they can…and people in the Twitterverse seem to get upset that people don’t see 5 home grown starters, 7 home grown relievers and 9 home grown position players all leading to a WS.  
 

If there is any critique of that or any negativity towards the team, it’s like the biggest deal ever.  I just don’t get it.

I personally see this as a very well balanced article explaining things pretty well.

 

I don't see this article as critiquing the O's.  I think it is far more positive than some of the other recent takes.  And I don't see anybody criticizing it on those grounds.

Furthermore, your classification of people's position on the idea that the rebuild will be accomplished entirely through the farm system is false.  At least here.  I can't speak to Twitter.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

And if that's enough for you, that's fine.

Like I said, I'd like a little more.

You've not really offered anything other than "I want more." 

[Pickles]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I hope I'm not so narcissistic as to think everything that isn't targeted at me is trash.

I'll take your insults and blatantant hyperbole to be an admission that you don't actually have anything to say.

[Pickles]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

You've not really offered anything other than "I want more." 

For not praising the article, you sure are defending it passionately.

What about the very specific analysis of the pitching woes I suggested?  That doesn't meet your standards?

[Moose Milligan]

9 minutes ago, Pickles said:

For not praising the article, you sure are defending it passionately.

What about the very specific analysis of the pitching woes I suggested?  That doesn't meet your standards?

I'm more interested in why you're picking this hill to die on.  It's kind of weird.  Like every once in awhile a poster on here shows his ass.  I'm not above it, mind you, I've done it plenty. 

I'm not even defending the article, I simply stated what the intent of the article was.  You agreed that it wasn't "for" you, yet you continued to rant about it.

You didn't even really go into any details about the specific analysis of the pitching woes and what you were looking for.  We're not talking about my standards here, we're actually talking about yours.  

You said you wanted something more interesting than "the pitching his historically terrible because they're giving up runs a historical rate."   You wanted him to "dig into the pitching data and come up with 'some kind of analysis' that would offer a fresh perspective," which is still really vague.  "Some kind of analysis" is precisely as vague as the article you're claiming he wrote.

Is that it, you wanted some stat analysis?  Did you want him to explain ERA+ to you?  FIP?  

"Far more interesting."  "Some kind of analysis."  

You also said you don't have much free time, and what free time you do have, you're extremely lazy with.  And yet here we are.  

[Pickles]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I'm more interested in why you're picking this hill to die on.  It's kind of weird.  I'm not even defending the article, I simply stated what the intent of the article was.  You agreed that it wasn't "for" you, yet you continued to rant about it.

You didn't even really go into any details about the specific analysis of the pitching woes and what you were looking for.  We're not talking about my standards here, we're actually talking about yours.  

You said you wanted something more interesting than "the pitching his historically terrible because they're giving up runs a historical rate."   You wanted him to "dig into the pitching data and come up with 'some kind of analysis' that would offer a fresh perspective," which is still really vague.  "Some kind of analysis" is precisely as vague as the article you're claiming he wrote.

Is that it, you wanted some stat analysis?  Did you want him to explain ERA+ to you?  FIP?  

"Far more interesting."  "Some kind of analysis."  

You also said you don't have much free time, and what free time you do have, you're extremely lazy with.  And yet here we are.  

What I find hilarious, is that this thread is a great example of people accusing one side of taking things personal and getting bent out of shape, while simultaneously accusing others of  taking things personal and getting bent out of shape.

I made no rant.  I'm not dying on any hill.

I find the article to be shallow.  I don't find it to be good journalism.

It did absolutely nothing to further my understanding.  Or anyone else's on this board.

We all acknowledge that.

So that's what I'm asking for.  Something to further my understanding of a topic.  If you want me to call it good journalism.

If stating blatantly obvious truths and generally acknowledged facts is enough for you, great.  I gave you multiple opportunities to end this conversation we're simply agree to disagree.

But you had to rant.  And die on this hill.

(My being as "vague" as the original article, is not insult to me.  But the original article.  Which was my point.  I am not the professional journalist.  If you want me to praise professional journalists, they should exceed the quality of a message board poster.)

[Jagwar]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/amid-another-awful-season-do-the-orioles-have-a-path-forward/
 

Great article 

Yes, a great article. The only thing I might have wanted was for him to more pointedly call Elias out for not focusing on pitching in his drafts. Something along the lines of "the pitching is dismal on the ML club and there isn't a lot of depth in the system, something Mike Elias could have addressed by drafting more pitchers, but he failed to do so".

[Sports Guy]

28 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I don't see this article as critiquing the O's.  I think it is far more positive than some of the other recent takes.  And I don't see anybody criticizing it on those grounds.

Furthermore, your classification of people's position on the idea that the rebuild will be accomplished entirely through the farm system is false.  At least here.  I can't speak to Twitter.

Yes…I’m not being clear.  I see a little bit of it here but what I see on social media is far worse and some of that is from bloggers, podcasters, etc…ie people like the rest of us who really follow the team.

[Moose Milligan]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

What I find hilarious, is that this thread is a great example of people accusing one side of taking things personal and getting bent out of shape, while simultaneously accusing others of  taking things personal and getting bent out of shape.

I made no rant.  I'm not dying on any hill.

I find the article to be shallow.  I don't find it to be good journalism.

It did absolutely nothing to further my understanding.  Or anyone else's on this board.

We all acknowledge that.

So that's what I'm asking for.  Something to further my understanding of a topic.  If you want me to call it good journalism.

If stating blatantly obvious truths and generally acknowledged facts is enough for you, great.  I gave you multiple opportunities to end this conversation we're simply agree to disagree.

But you had to rant.  And die on this hill.

(My being as "vague" as the original article, is not insult to me.  But the original article.  Which was my point.  I am not the professional journalist.  If you want me to praise professional journalists, they should exceed the quality of a message board poster.)

I don't think I really ranted there.  And again, you're saying it's not good journalism without providing examples of what good journalism is.  You say you want to further your understanding of a topic, yet you don't say what you don't understand and would like to learn, specifically.  You said "some kind of analysis" but didn't say what that would entail.  You wanted to know why the pitching was historically bad but that's it...again, just a shallow as the article.

I've not taken anything personal here.  It's not like you insulted something personal about me.  If I made fun of your mother, that'd be personal.  And I'm also not really bent out of shape, I'm pretty amused.  

[Pickles]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Yes…I’m not being clear.  I see a little bit of it here but what I see on social media is far worse and some of that is from bloggers, podcasters, etc…ie people like the rest of us who really follow the team.

Well, I'll say two things to that:

No team in history has ever been built entirely through amateur acquisitions, so anyone with those expectations is wrong.  I personally have seen nobody with expectations like that, but I can't deny they exist.

Secondly, we will bring in people from outside the organization.  Obviously.  They won't need to be high-priced FA necessarily.  

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't think I really ranted there.  And again, you're saying it's not good journalism without providing examples of what good journalism is.  You say you want to further your understanding of a topic, yet you don't say what you don't understand and would like to learn, specifically.  You said "some kind of analysis" but didn't say what that would entail.  You wanted to know why the pitching was historically bad but that's it...again, just a shallow as the article.

I've not taken anything personal here.  It's not like you insulted something personal about me.  If I made fun of your mother, that'd be personal.  And I'm also not really bent out of shape, I'm pretty amused.  

You're accusing me of "showing my ass."  I was accused of being a "narcissist."  

Simply because I've criticized an article that ya'll seem to think is good.  

But I'm the one ranting.  And taking things "personal."

LOL.   You can't make it up.

I said some kind of analysis beyond "The pitching is terrible because the pitching is terrible" is the kind of thing I would call good journalism.  I've defined it pretty accurately.

It's not my responsibility to DO that good journalism.  I'm not going to do that analysis.  Because I"m not a good journalist.

But a good journalist and a good article would have analysis that was deeper than "The pitching is terrible because it is terrible."

And I'm not sure why you in particularly can't just accept that- at the very least that that is my opinion.

[Pickles]

And you really you need something more specific?

Ok, we've had a whole class of rookie pitchers come up this year, and really struggle.  Far worse than might have been expected.

Why not explore why?

Maybe ask some questions to people that I don't get access to because I'm not a professional journalist.

How about something like that?

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

You're accusing me of "showing my ass."  I was accused of being a "narcissist."  

Simply because I've criticized an article that ya'll seem to think is good.  

But I'm the one ranting.  And taking things "personal."

LOL.   You can't make it up.

I said some kind of analysis beyond "The pitching is terrible because the pitching is terrible" is the kind of thing I would call good journalism.  I've defined it pretty accurately.

It's not my responsibility to DO that good journalism.  I'm not going to do that analysis.  Because I"m not a good journalist.

But a good journalist and a good article would have analysis that was deeper than "The pitching is terrible because it is terrible."

And I'm not sure why you in particularly can't just accept that- at the very least that that is my opinion.

Well it was a narcissistic take.  He wasn't wrong.

For the last time, I think the article was good for what it was.  It was for a national publication.  It was intended to inform baseball fans who are not necessarily Orioles fans as to who they have in the minors and how they can possibly get better.  From that perspective, it was a good article.  It did that clearly and concisely.  It didn't ramble, it was focused.  

And now it's some kind of analysis BEYOND "the pitching is terrible because the pitching is terrible."  

But you don't have to be a good journalist to critique journalism, clearly you've critiqued this article all the while missing what the intent was (again, an article for a national publication).  No one here's asked you to do any kind of journalism.  

[Pickles]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Well it was a narcissistic take.  He wasn't wrong.

For the last time, I think the article was good for what it was.  It was for a national publication.  It was intended to inform baseball fans who are not necessarily Orioles fans as to who they have in the minors and how they can possibly get better.  From that perspective, it was a good article.  It did that clearly and concisely.  It didn't ramble, it was focused.  

And now it's some kind of analysis BEYOND "the pitching is terrible because the pitching is terrible."  

But you don't have to be a good journalist to critique journalism, clearly you've critiqued this article all the while missing what the intent was (again, an article for a national publication).  No one here's asked you to do any kind of journalism.  

Yeah, I'm a narcissist because I have a different evaluation of a sports article than you.

That's completely normal discourse.

Again, we have a difference of opinion.

Ranting at me and insulting me won't change my mind.

Even if simultaneously accusing me of being the one ranting and insulting.

We agree to disagree.

Stop ranting and showing your ass.  One might considerate pretty narcissistic.