What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
Eh, if you wanna make sloppy arguments, then go ahead. Just makes more sense to say "some fans" rather than "fans". Adjectives and pronouns are your friend.
What has Morland done? Murph has been better. Spring training means nothing to a season!You're right, the numbers don't lie: Rangers need solid 1st Base & Out Field Production
Lefty vs. Righty is the travesty of the day. Wash has NL envy!
Re: Moreland...act gotten together. (At least for one night). Of course, it's nights like this that make a lot of people think he's a future All Star, or something close.
Ben, go back to your knitting.
Future Rangers captain--Mitch Moreland is on a tear!
Yeah, that Mitch Moreland guy....yeah he is tearing the cover off of the ball.
Moreland is the reason you dont listen to idiots who post this crap.
Moreland is a real piece of crap, can't play defense, can't hit with risp, can't get a ball past the infield. Can we trade him yet? God
If 155 plate appearances is enough proof to anoint Mitch Moreland a superstar, then by all means, crown him. And while you're at it you can also crown Carlos Gomez and Jean Segura and Paul Goldschmidt. And Vernon Wells.
Erica: Please refer to where I refered to MM as a "superstar. I await.
155 is not enough to crown anyone. But a few weeks in April is not enough time to say Mitch as a full time player is a failure either. There are reasons to think he can take a step up this year. He is in better shape, further removed from the wrist injury and a more seasoned player. The declarative statements of his failure were no more sensible than anyone claiming he's definitely got it all figured out now. I saw more strongly phrased negative assessments than positive. It will be interesting to watch Mitch's season. I'm hopeful he can be a solid run producing first baseman.
Another exceptionally ignorant post by none other than Eric. Who around here was crowning MM a superstar you close minded fool. The thread was about Moreland and Murphy needing to be escorted off the team. Moreland turned around his bullshit and those sabr stats from his 75 PA's were worthless. Without Moreland the Rangers wouldn't be on an wonderful streak. So how bout you open your mind as much as you open your ass hole.
Hey man, don't be a punk. If you Mitch Moreland supporters want to resuscitate an anti-Mitch thread, then by all means I'm entitled to inject some reality into the situation. That's fair, and it's without the personal attacks.
Shut up Erica.
Making a strawman argument is injecting reality into the situation? Hardly.
The reality Eric is how seldom you know what you are talking about. No personal attack just an HONEST opinion of mine AND others I'm sure.
I disagree. It's not that Eric is often wrong; he actually has some good insights in my opinion. The problem is that he couches his arguments in two prickish ways. A) he is so fucking right and there is no way he could ever be wrong, and even when he is wrong he was just trying to do something (inject reality or whatever) and B) is the fucking SHIT for coming up with all this stuff and, really, he is the only dude who could have, with exception for the few others with like-minds, Joey, real GMs (the good, respected ones), the Fangraphs dudes, etc.
If he would just make his points without trying to wave his dick in everyone's faces, it would be just fine. That said, at least he isn't JD.
That said, at least no one named me A-Hole.
Btw. I can only imagine what would happen if someone waved a dick in your face. LOL
I'm sure you imagine that a lot. Makes sense with a lot of what else you've been saying on here. To each his own, I guess.
Don't be an A-hole A-hole. Just wondering does an idiot get a nAME LIKE aHOLE?
I'm not sure I feel comfortable giving out any personal info after that dick comment. Just use your imagination. You seem good at that.
A-Hole writes: Making a strawman argument is injecting reality into the situation? Hardly.
What argument am I presenting, and furthermore how can you make a straw-man argument when there is, in fact, no argument to begin with? My stance on Mitch Moreland is already implied, but it's not as if I was trying to spew more shit on him.
Point is, if I were to put effort into an actual argument, I'd venture off into crazy land and say Mitch probably won't ever again duplicate his .333/.403/.768 (207 wRC+) clip he's hit in May (over a 3-week sample). That's not me saying he's not a solid stopgap 1st baseman, or that he hasn't improved in 2013; that's me saying those numbers are really fucking good, and you'd have to be delusional to think that's who Mitch Moreland has become.
A-Hole also writes: If he would just make his points without trying to wave his dick in everyone's faces, it would be just fine.
I'm in a revived confirmation bias-filled thread aimed at worshipping Mitch Moreland in a very I told you so sort of way, and it's my fault for giving the opposite (realistic) perspective? Whether you like it or not, 155 plate appearances makes Hall-of-Famer's out of people like Chris Davis, but it's the same people putting those players on a pedestal who will be tearing them down after they hit .180 for a month.
So, I take it you don't know what a "strawman argument" is.
You claimed "If 155 plate appearances is enough proof to anoint Mitch Moreland a superstar, then by all means, crown him." The implication here is that they are mostly saying Mitch is a super star, when in fact, all they are saying is that he is not nearly as bad as the original posters were making him out to be. (This thread, if you recall, was NOT a pro-Mitch thread.) They were responding to the people who wanted to cut him based on the SSS. Now that he has a few more PA in and he is doing much, much better, they are coming back to point out the overreaction.
NO ONE is saying he will continue at this rate. NO ONE is saying he is a superstar player. They are simply saying that he is better, if not much better, than the chicken littles were claiming.
Regarding your dickish persona on the boards, I was not referencing this one thread. You do it in every thread here. You act like a little shit, pretty much all the time. Even in your last post you pointed out your "opposite" argument as the "realistic" one, assuming you are correct de facto. Again, it's not what you say; it's the way you say it.
(For the record, I agree with you on Mitch. I just refrain from acting like a giant douche about it and recognize that there are valid arguments both ways. Frankly, as much as I think Mitch is going to regress hard, I also thought the original posters on this thread were ridiculous for judging him so quickly. That point in mind then, the pro-Mitch people here are totally valid in their arguments.)
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.