Let me see if I got this right. The fact that I disagree with Bobby alot, means that if I agree with something he does, I'm a hypocrite. Wow.
Umm, even the worst manager in baseball sometimes makes a good call, and Bobby moving KJ out of the leadoff spot was one of Bobby's shining moments.
You say Danger has stayed the same by saying he went from agreeing to disagreeing with Bobby. Well, so did I. I just did it in reverse. I take offense to being called a hypocrite in this situation because I have never waivered on anything, I just happen to agree with Bobby for once. Don't worry though, my hypocritical self will disagree with Bobby once again in the near future. I guess I tend to flip flop like that.
Wow. Just wow. How can you completely miss the point time and time again? I'll try again, but I'm really starting to doubt your comprehension of fairly simple concepts.
Let me see if I got this right. The fact that I disagree with Bobby alot, means that if I agree with something he does, I'm a hypocrite. Wow.
Not at all. In fact, that is exactly what Danger did. Did you miss this part of my post?
If you can use Cox's position as an arguement, that makes the assumption that Bobby is always right- which you clearly do not.
You going from agreeing to dissagreeing with Cox is not hypocritical at all- it's that you used his position as part of your arguement.
Apparently Bobby is too.
That is clearly an arguement to favor moving Kelly out of the leadoff spot. But, you dissagreed with Bobby when he was leaving KJ in the leadoff spot. So you clearly don't think Cox is always right.
So, if Bobby is wrong sometimes, why couldn't he be wrong now? Because he agrees with you? That doesn't strengthen your arguement at ALL. The only way you could use this qoute:
Apparently Bobby is too.
Without hypocrisy is if you believed Bobby is always right.
As stated before, I doubt you will understand any of this, but it's as clear as I can be.
This stat, babip, has no rhyme or reason. It's just random. Some really unique players it treats nicely (ichiro) and some unique players it treats poorly (I don't have an example off the top of my head but if you need one I can definitely find one). Out of pure curiousity, who would be a player BABIP consistently treats poorly? I have become more interested in BABIP(and a few other stats) fairly recently. I can easily imagine that someone like Ichiro would benefit in that catagory, because of his speed and tendency to chop balls off the plate and get other types of infield hits. Can't think of one that would really be treated poorly by BABIP because of his style.
That is clearly an arguement to favor moving Kelly out of the leadoff spot. But, you dissagreed with Bobby when he was leaving KJ in the leadoff spot. So you clearly don't think Cox is always right.
So, if Bobby is wrong sometimes, why couldn't he be wrong now? Because he agrees with you? That doesn't strengthen your arguement at ALL. The only way you could use this qoute:
Apparently Bobby is too.
Without hypocrisy is if you believed Bobby is always right.
The idea behind saying "Apparently Bobby is too" was to illustrate that the manager for the Braves apparently feels like I do about KJ. It wasn't meant to say that Bobby is doing the right or wrong thing.
No, I don't think Bobby is always right, and I also don't think he is always wrong. I just happen to agree with his decision. Like I said, I tend to flip flop like that. Hypocrisy at it's finest I guess.
The idea behind saying "Apparently Bobby is too" was to illustrate that the manager for the Braves apparently feels like I do about KJ. It wasn't meant to say that Bobby is doing the right or wrong thing.
What? That's all I can say. Obviously if Bobby feels like you do about Johnson you think he is doing the right thing. Pretty blatant, wouldn't you say?
Like I said, I tend to flip flop like that. Hypocrisy at it's finest I guess.
Well, I said I didn't think you'd understand based off of your trackrecord. I was not disaapointed. Did you actually read my post? Because I honestly can't tell based off of that last quote.
I would imagine players that are pretty slow and don't hit a lot of line drives are susceptible to poor babips on an annual basis. Troy Glaus hadn't even managed a league-average .290 in babip since 2000 until last year. His are generally pretty low every year. Naturally, his line drive rate went up last year, which helps to explain it. For a 22% line drive rate, his babip was still really low. I know Ichiro and Bonds usually did well with it, but the opposite players are harder to gauge.
I'll look into it some more for you and my own knowledge, but those cases aren't as famous.
Of course I think he's doing the right thing. If your arguement for me being a hypocrite is based on me thinking Bobby is ALWAYS wrong, then you don't have an arguement, because that simply isn't the case. Hypocrisy would require me too change my feelings about a certain topic, and I have not done that. Bobby actually gets it right sometimes, and I feel this is one of those times. Is there anything else that you are not clear on? Like what hypocrisy REALLY means.
I would imagine players that are pretty slow and don't hit a lot of line drives are susceptible to poor babips on an annual basis. Troy Glaus hadn't even managed a league-average .290 in babip since 2000 until last year. His are generally pretty low every year. Naturally, his line drive rate went up last year, which helps to explain it. For a 22% line drive rate, his babip was still really low. I know Ichiro and Bonds usually did well with it, but the opposite players are harder to gauge.
I'll look into it some more for you and my own knowledge, but those cases aren't as famous. Thanks, Danger. It makes sense, too(slow players with low linedrive rates suffering from a low BABIP).
Of course I think he's doing the right thing. If your arguement for me being a hypocrite is based on me thinking Bobby is ALWAYS wrong, then you don't have an arguement, because that simply isn't the case. Hypocrisy would require me too change my feelings about a certain topic, and I have not done that. Bobby actually gets it right sometimes, and I feel this is one of those times. Is there anything else that you are not clear on? Like what hypocrisy REALLY means.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
My arguement is that you would have to think Bobby is always right to avoid hypocrisy. In your arguement for Cox doing the right thing, you brought up that he(Cox) agreed with you. If that is a valid arguement, then Cox must always be right, at least in your opinion. But that is clearly not the case. So, that statement was hypocritcal. How many times must I explain this to you?
This is bordering on ridiculous. There needs to be no carification on whether Bobby is always right or always wrong, and nobody even made a stance on that either way. The entire thing is opinion based, and I happen to agree with him on this one. Had I said he is always wrong, then I would be a hypocrite, but I never said that. Therefore, this entire line of conversation should be over with, unless you wanna ramble on a bit more. You will just have to forgive me if I don't take being called a hypocrite lightly.
There needs to be no carification on whether Bobby is always right or always wrong, and nobody even made a stance on that either way.No one said that. I said that you would have to think Cox is always right in order to not be hypocritical, because he used his position agreeing with yours as part of your arguement. That's the whole of it right there. And yes, it is ridiculous- ridiculous that you can't/won't understand a simple point. Since you seem to want to stop this convesation(because you're wrong) this will be my last post on the subject- if your last post is, in fact, the final post you make on this thread. If you continue the topic, why would I stop? This is a piece of cake compared a couple arguements I've had on here.
No one said that. I said that you would have to think Cox is always right in order to not be hypocritical, because he used his position agreeing with yours as part of your arguement. That's the whole of it right there. And yes, it is ridiculous- ridiculous that you can't/won't understand a simple point. Since you seem to want to stop this convesation(because you're wrong) this will be my last post on the subject- if your last post is, in fact, the final post you make on this thread. If you continue the topic, why would I stop? This is a piece of cake compared a couple arguements I've had on here.
Nope, not stopping, because you still think I'm a hypocrite. I don't want to stop this conversation because I'm wrong, I wanted it to stop because I figured I had explained it well enough to not have to continue the madness. You are gonna have to explain this a bit better, because I'm just not following you.
you would have to think Cox is always right in order to not be hypocritical, because he used his position agreeing with yours as part of your arguement.
Lets see if I can help you out on a more clear explanation. What was my original stance as it pertains to Bobby?
Would I be wrong to guess that you've taken some philosophy classes before? You sound like it, and your writing in this thread is very familiar to me in that regard.
I willl give this one more try. I feel this has gone from explaining another poster's position as I understood it to a petty arguement that has nothing to do with the thread at hand. However, I will attempt, one final time, to explain what I've said more than a few times already.
Lets see if I can help you out on a more clear explanation. What was my original stance as it pertains to Bobby?
You dislike many of Cox's decisions and don't think he's a very good manager. That is the key to the whole thing.
Then you used Bobby's position to help your arguement. But, since you think Cox is wrong on many occasions, that is hypocritical.
If you have ever dissagreed with Cox, you cannot use his position agreeing with yours in your arguement to favor moving KJ out of the 7 hole.
Danger,
Not any classes myself, but I have been around people who have taken them.
