Viviano Show Question O's/Phils

[ejf1025]

This one part ruins your argument. OF may not come by all of his opinions in the most informed way, but his initial post was innocuous and valid. There was no need to call him out on anything. It was that very calling out that started this whole debacle. The encouragement of others made this thread resemble day care. What happened after were the entanglement of several different arguments.

OF's assertion that he'd take Werth over Markakis did not require a history of OF's posting to validate it. That's mixing, as MWeb has pointed out, message and messenger. What validates OF's position for the question posed are the statistics that show Werth was better than Markakis this year.

OldFan's overstatements were specifically about baserunning...he used the same methodology as he always does to reach an extremely biased and overstated conclusion.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Of course people were more vigorous because of his past history...but it was deserved. Because he was doing what he ALWAYS has done.

To act like he had somehow changed his approach is just wrong. And to defend him is laughable.

[ejf1025]

You consider "way down" to be 5th? Werth saw more PAs at the 5th spot than any other place. The player who saw the most PAs for the Phillies at the 6th spot, you ask? Raul Ibanez, he of the .552 SLG, .899 OPS, 34 HRs, and 93 RBIs.

Markakis saw more PAs at the #3 spot in the order. The player who saw the most PAs for the Orioles at the 4th spot, you ask? Aubrey Huff, he of the .384 SLG, .695 OPS, 15 HRs, and 85 RBIs.

I'm not sure you can really attribute that to Markakis having better hitters bat behind him because, well ... he didn't. So ... next reason?

Yes, but Werth is tall.

[mweb]

I explained why these were brought up...if you can't see that these are relevant examples to how he chooses to manipulate data, I don't know what to tell you.

And see my post above...his overstatements came before anyone but Scottie called him out.

Asking him to defend his Flacco and Jones comments while making fun of him is not needed, if you think it is, that's interesting to me.

There was no need to call him out. And the next 5 posts knocking his opinion or him in general had nothing to do with his post with the overstatement.

Many later posts also had nothing to do with the base-running thing such as this:

Most Philly fans are dummies and wouldn't know that Markakis is a better player....

much like yourself

and this:

Once again, Werth has 93 career homeruns, Markakis has 77.

Now, divde those numbers by their years in the league.

93/7 and 77/4

Now, you do that - tell me which number is bigger and then tell me how much power Jayson Werth has had over his career.

[Old#5fan]

Um...you got banned for it. I believe it was something along the lines of "his wife should divorce him" because you didn't think he seemed very excited...

Probably because he never smiles. You could be right as I forget plenty of my posts.

[Mooreisbetter27]

Poor o'sfan2009

Sorry buddy. The idea was solid.. so don't beat yourself up that it went this route.

[mweb]

Of course it has to do with history...and it should. He was doing what he always does...overstating a position to defend a personal bias and misconstruing and selectively picking data in his favor....like he JUST DID not two posts ago.

Again, it's his bed...he has to sleep in it. Given his history and the aggressive, over-the-top statements he made IMMEDIATELY...it's perfectly legit to call him out on his consistently horrendous ability to analyze.

Well like I said, I'm not generally a fan of his posts or way of debating, but that's why I tend not to deal with him. You have that option as well.

I'm just saying his initial post was perfectly fine, even right imo, and he got knocked for that post and other's like it simply because of who he is. Now the posts about his base-running, sure they deserve to be called out, although in some cases it could be done differently.

[ejf1025]

Asking him to defend his Flacco and Jones comments while making fun of him is not needed, if you think it is, that's interesting to me.

There was no need to call him out. And the next 5 posts knocking his opinion or him in general had nothing to do with his post with the overstatement.

Many later posts also had nothing to do with the base-running thing such as this:

and this:

I didnt see the dummy thing unneccesary...altho, given the OF's approach...F it...I don't care.

Again, I think he should take the heat on statements like Flacco and Jones...they are completely relevant because this is a debate about his manipulation of stats and leaps in logic.

I think most on here would have conceded the Werth played better in '09 statement...and those who don't have a right to argue that.

But what most on here don't want to hear, is BS concrete conclusions derived from analysis that is so small in scope as to be virtually useless...i.e. baserunning convo.

The history of the poster got brought up because it was an example of the same flawed logic that he has used time and time again...and was repeating once again here...to point out that he reached similarly wrong conclusions ("Flacco worse then Boller," "Jones = Frank Robinson," "Markakis clearly worse baserunner than Werth," "Markakis = ultra-conservative baserunner") using similar methods is valid. And pertinent to what was transpiring.

Furthermore, HE asked for evidence and he got it....only choosing to ignore it.

[ejf1025]

Probably because he never smiles. You could be right as I forget plenty of my posts.

Right...not personal at all.

[ejf1025]

Well like I said, I'm not generally a fan of his posts or way of debating, but that's why I tend not to deal with him. You have that option as well.

I'm just saying his initial post was perfectly fine, even right imo, and he got knocked for that post and other's like it simply because of who he is. Now the posts about his base-running, sure they deserve to be called out, although in some cases it could be done differently.

I generally do ignore him...got caught up this time. Slow day at work I guess.

His initial post was fine...disagree with you on the rest...he had it coming and brought it on himself really early on.

But I am pulling out of this track meet...

[Frobby]

Can we please get this thread back on track? The fact is, the Phillies are the defending World Champs and the O's were the 3rd worst team in baseball. It is therefore not surprsing that the Phils are superior at almost every position on the field. I'd say that in 2009 they probably had a leg up on us at every position on the field. So how come we swept them in June when we played head to head? :clap3:

Also, we have to realize this is a fully baked veteran team. 6 of their 8 position players are 28-30. Feliz is 34 and Ibanez is 37. You'd have to fast forward the O's 5 years to know how we'll compare when our key players are the ages the Phillies are now.

[mweb]

I didnt see the dummy thing unneccesary...altho, given the OF's approach...F it...I don't care.

Again, I think he should take the heat on statements like Flacco and Jones...they are completely relevant because this is a debate about his manipulation of stats and leaps in logic.

I think most on here would have conceded the Werth played better in '09 statement...and those who don't have a right to argue that.

But what most on here don't want to hear, is BS concrete conclusions derived from analysis that is so small in scope as to be virtually useless...i.e. baserunning convo.

The history of the poster got brought up because it was an example of the same flawed logic that he has used time and time again...and was repeating once again here...to point out that he reached similarly wrong conclusions ("Flacco worse then Boller," "Jones = Frank Robinson," "Markakis clearly worse baserunner than Werth," "Markakis = ultra-conservative baserunner") using similar methods is valid. And pertinent to what was transpiring.

Furthermore, HE asked for evidence and he got it....only choosing to ignore it.

Well I don't see the need to bring up comments from the past everytime he uses the flawed logic. I don't see a need to say anything, just move on and this won't happen.

I'm not even arguing with much of what you keep saying. I made a simple point and backed it up, it does not pertain to you and others getting into with him about Werth vs Markakis as a base-runner.

[Old#5fan]

[QUOTXBT% (extra base taken on a single or double)

M-41% W-36%

Not all that significance a difference - half a point to Markakis (concede).

1st S3 (Times as a runner on first and a single is hit and reaches third or scores)

M-12 W-9

Again, not all that significance a difference - half a point to Markakis - (concede)

PO (Runner picked off)

M-0 W-3

This is not something to show good baserunner. Brooks never got picked off either so what? Point should go to Werth for his VAST difference in steals and attempts.

RS% (percentage of times as runner player scores)

M-11% W-10%

So small a difference as to be statistically insignificant. tie.2nd SH (Times on second and runner scores on hit)

M-21 W-11

This is the one stat where I do concede a point to Markakis.

Bottom line is if you look at the steals and low percentage of getting caught along with these stats, Werth is clearly the OVERALL BETTER BASE RUNNER!

[mweb]

I generally do ignore him...got caught up this time. Slow day at work I guess.

His initial post was fine...disagree with you on the rest...he had it coming and brought it on himself really early on.

But I am pulling out of this track meet...

And his initial post was slammed by many, as were other posts that had nothing to do with base-running, and it's not hard to tell that's a who said it rather than what was said issue. That's all I'm saying.

[Old#5fan]

This one part ruins your argument. OF may not come by all of his opinions in the most informed way, but his initial post was innocuous and valid. There was no need to call him out on anything. It was that very calling out that started this whole debacle. The encouragement of others made this thread resemble day care. What happened after were the entanglement of several different arguments.

OF's assertion that he'd take Werth over Markakis did not require a history of OF's posting to validate it. That's mixing, as MWeb has pointed out, message and messenger. What validates OF's position for the question posed are the statistics that show Werth was better than Markakis this year.

And for some reason, it irritated certain posters because this was true!

[Mooreisbetter27]

BACK. ON. TOPIC.

If we were giving the Phil's a DH would you use Scott over their options (Stairs... and who else?).

How about Reimold? Would Reimold be a fit as a DH for them. Because I think we could send someone to the DH spot that's better then what they have.