Comparson, Clone, =. and > posts.

by cubsfan1 on Jul 31, 2009 12:19 PM EDT Comment 73 comments

I'm sorry guys but I find these posts just totally ludicrous. Let me start by saying I've read posts and play in a league with King Billy Royal and Dewey Finn and I have the utmost respect for not only their overall baseball knowledge but also there fanatical love of the game. That being said the most recent posts as well as some others have made me laugh. Knapp a Halladay clone and Westmoreland = Sizemore, really? Is this serious. Your comparing 2 established ML superstars to 2 guys who havn't played above Low A ball. People become enamored with what guys do in A ball and put way to much stock in it. In A ball so many guys survive and put up big numbers soley on pure skill. As we all know just having the pure skills dosn't always translate into good ML careers. Learning the nuances and intracacies of the game will tell if a player is gonna make it to the show and have a career. Probably the biggest jump for a prospect is going from A ball to AA in my opinion. If I have to read 1 more scouting report about some guy with good control but not an overpowering FB compared to Gregg Maddux or some guy with a good change being compared to Johan Santana I'm gonna flip out. There is only 1 Maddux and there is only 1 Santana. Those posts written by KBR and Dewey seem to be more written for shock purpose and to create controversy and get recomends from there buddys then to have actuall real value. And while I liked the Jaff Decker/Travis Snider post I don't really see how comparing what 2 guys did in A ball has any real value. I bet if I spent the time to go through the last 20 years of what guys did at A ball I could find handfulls of players with similar stats but never made the ML. Also aside from body type I don't see Decker and Snider as similar players. Decker controls the strikezone much better and Decker has a cannon for an arm making him a viable option to end up in RF where as Snider I don't think anyone can see him RF (though I think his defense is better then most ppl on this site think). It's like every black 5-tool player gets the Willie Mays comparison and every white 5-tool player gets a MIckey Mantle comparison. Their is only 1 Willie Mays and only 1 Mickey Mantle. Let's try to stop pigeon holing prospects and making comparisons to established ML stars which in my opinion leads to guys getting overhyped and putting unatainable expectations on them. The Cahill> Webb? post still stands as 1 of the stupidest things I've ever read and using there MiLB numbers and showing how Cahills numbers were better then Webbs is such a weak argument. I can find you 50 pitchers who put up better numbers in there MiLB career then Webb who either never played in the ML or will never end up half the pitcher Webb is. Minor league numbers are so overrated is not even funny. Yes they have SOME value but actually watching players and seeing if they are learing how to set up hitters or learning what pitchers are trying to do to a hitter from AB to AB is far more important then putting up monster numbers in A ball. I'm sure I'll take a lot of flack for this post and get ripped by KBR and Dewey and their little cronies but I felt this needed to be said. No hard feelings guys just 1 persons opinion.

7 recs | Comment 73 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Oh yeah.

The Norris>Davis post is another 1. Norris dons’t have nearly the polish or secondary stuff as Davis. Also I drafted Westmoreland and Norris in the SSKL so it’s not like I dislike either prospect, in fact the opposite I like both very much so there isn’t and bias there.

by cubsfan1 on Jul 31, 2009 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

LOL you seriously have a problem with this one?

From YOU later in this thread: “The Havens>Cardenas post was great. LOVED IT. Those type posts and prospect smackdowns are great.”

How is Norris vs. Wade Davis ANYTHING different from that? It’s exactly the same. You have now successfully contradicted yourself.

WordUpThome: I CANNOT BELIVE THAT THIS PRODUCT IS NOT BUTTER

Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons

by Player To Be Named Later on Aug 1, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just hope they catch the guy who put the gun to your head and made you read those threads

Hopefully they put that bastard away for a looooong time.

by alskor on Jul 31, 2009 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I wonder if that guy also made him write one long jumbled paragraph that I absolutely refuse to read

Somebody tell me if a good point was made.

by thejd44 on Aug 1, 2009 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1000

Enough with this. See ESPN, where there is an article called, “They’re called prospects for a reason.” We have no idea how these guys will turn out, and to compare them straight up is just stupid. We overvalue these guys to such a ridiculous level. Look, if you want to compare arm action of a pitcher to a major leaguer. But you cannot compare a prospect to a pro straight up, at least the superstars of today. It’s just stupid

by Mets2k9 on Jul 31, 2009 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

cubsfan1 > Dewey Finn

Honestly, I have stopped reading almost any thread started by Dewey Finn. He is Bravesin07 v2.0… seemingly more intelligent, but not as entertaining.

Adam Dunn: Proof that even sabermetrics doesn't have it right.

by Boxkutter on Jul 31, 2009 12:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

OP's post < entertaining reading

How about a paragraph break, sir?

by samjjones on Jul 31, 2009 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

The return key is your friend

by DeJay on Aug 6, 2009 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

THANK YOU Cubbie!!

I too am so tired of being flooded with quotes about this guy > the proven guy. Especially during the trade deadline periods…“every” prospect is considered untouchable. This makes everyone believe even more the prospect is worth more than the ML player! Guys…Fantasy is now a business. The hype machines are a business…to sell magazines, book, subscriptions! It is REVENUE!! The more you read…the more you eat…the more you buy!

The results being…the Cahill and Mazarro arguments! WTF is everyone smoking??

by GripDog on Jul 31, 2009 1:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like

Dewey Finn – the man starts conversations.

Quick point. Im not sure how this keeps getting ignored, but in this case Dewey did not create that comp. It was a baseball writer. He simply repeated it to see what conversation could happen.

by benzalman on Jul 31, 2009 1:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

Generating discussion on prospects is a GOOD thing. When someone posts a fanpost and gives stats, quotes from scouts, and a reasonable upside comparison, what is the problem? Too many guys on this site are quick to criticize people like Dewey and myself, yet they never seem to create any content (i.e. fanpost) for the community to discuss.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jul 31, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

If the hate is that strong, as mentioned multiple times in this thread: Ignore the threads he creates. This place benefits from Dewey’s threads, I have no doubt about that…

by cowboy4eva on Jul 31, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Couldn’t agree more. Prospect analysis isn’t scripture to be followed like dogma. The point of comparison is analysis, not projection. The point of analysis may be projection in some cases, but the projection is a product of the analysis, not the comparison. We can all agree its silly to say simply that “Cahill is better than Webb”. This is obviously not true to anyone who knows anything about baseball, even someone who doesn’t know who Cahill is could reasonably infer that this probably isn’t true, but that doesn’t mean saying “Cahill is better than Webb was five years ago” can’t tell us anything. It can tell us what Cahill is doing right, what markers and red flags to look for in his development, and give us a bit of insight on what the possible outcomes for Cahill are. Saying “Cahill is better than Webb five years ago” DOES NOT IN ANY WAY suggest that Cahill now must follow a congruent development path to Webb and thus eventually become a better player. The term must is universal, and in this case implies a type of deductive, syllogistic logic that is NEVER present in statistical analysis, which is, by its very nature, a form of induction.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Aug 7, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

The discussions are one of the reasons I stay on this board.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Aug 5, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

My sole purpose on this site is to encourage discussions on topics that I find interesting. Whether it be comparing a prospect to a current major leaguer, projecting upsides of prospects, or even discussing controversial issues such as the ages Latin baseball players, and today Canseco’s contribution to baseball.

For me, It’s not about getting people on board with my opinion, I appreciate comments that both agree and disagree with what I have to say. That is the beauty of a message board, is it not?

I just don’t see the point of people making comments that they don’t like reading my posts. If that is truly the case, then don’t read it. Simply ignore anything written by me. That’s not too hard is it?

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jul 31, 2009 1:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Prospect discusion IS good.

If your making a reasonable post to create discussion thats awsome. But when you make statements like Knapp = Halladay clone is just downright ridiculous to say a guy who has posted 116 2/3 ip and none of it above Low A is a clone of a Cy Young award winner, established player, and 1 of the best pitchers in the game. It’s like saying Stasburg > Koufax before Stras has even thrown a pitch in profesional baseball. If your making shock statements for the pure fact to generate discussion and not based on being a reasonable argument then I think it’s not productive. I don’t hate Dewey or KBR I just think people are fed up with seeing ridiculous posts for the sake of starting convos that have little to no merit and being recomended (by the same ppl) like they are great fanposts, when in reality the are being recomended by the same little click.

by cubsfan1 on Jul 31, 2009 1:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Jeez

Did you even read the post “Jason Knapp = Roy Halladay Clone?” ? NOTE THE QUESTION MARK!

I was questioning a comment made by a scout and presenting it to the community.

I never compared Knapp to Halladay. Please read carefully next time.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jul 31, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just that post Dewey.

by cubsfan1 on Jul 31, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

People aren't complaining about the post, they're complaining about the deliberately sensationalized, manipulative headlines.

If you think a comparison is ridiculous, it shouldn’t be given any credence at all.

If you headline a post “Scout compares Jason Knapp to Halladay” and then critique his logic in the body of the post, I don’t think anyone would have any problems with that.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This.

I have tried to explain this to him about a dozen times, but he doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend it. His posts’ content aren’t the problem. They’re not great posts, but they’re not terrible, either.

The problem is that people rec them without fail, and that Dewey is only encouraging them by going out of his way to be controversial and manipulative.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jul 31, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The reccing is sarcastic

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're probably right

I am not naive to believe that I have ‘fans’ out there, haha.

Perhaps there’s a cult following? Either way, I’m not changing my style.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jul 31, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

attention grabbing headlines (my fanpost titles)

What I do is no different from what newspapers do. They create a headline that will draw attention and get the person to open up the newspaper and read the article. I do the same.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jul 31, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

You want to base your writing style on a business model that’s imploding before our very eyes? What’s next, you going to start buying stock in butter churn or buggy whip manufacturers?

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Aug 1, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

as long as I can keep you as a loyal reader...

I’ll be fine ;)

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Aug 1, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

The online blogging business model is thriving and they are even more sensationalistic than newspapers. Sites like Perezhilton.com generate huge traffic with this approach.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Aug 2, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of your headlines are actually misleading (like the Canseco HOF post)

That’s not what newspapers are (supposed to be) doing

by thejd44 on Aug 5, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dewey seems to have a hard time coming to terms with the fact

that most people actually don’t like being bait-and-switched.

by PaulThomas on Aug 5, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a fair criticism

And probably is a part of the reason Dewey’s posts seem to generate so many more comments, because he deliberately uses a false conclusion as his title. Its possible to create catchy titles without being misleading, and the act of being misleading typically only adds to the level of “noise” in discussion.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Aug 7, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Canseco future HOF?

Come on be serious. A man who was a catalyst for starting the use of PEDS then turned around and snitched on everyone for doing the same thing he did and started should be in consideration for the HOF? Yeah lets put a guy in the HOF who started this whole problem. I cannot see how this is a good post..

by cubsfan1 on Jul 31, 2009 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There were no PEDs before Jose Canseco?

You are making it sound like Jose Canseco is the Pablo Escobar of Major League Baseball.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jul 31, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How many people....?

How many players were shooting anabolic steriods before Canseco?

by cubsfan1 on Jul 31, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ever hear of amphetamines? greenies?

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Jul 31, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

Such “pure” stars and “patrons” of the game like Hank Aaron and Mike Schmidt took amphetamines, but nobody cares about that.

Solace: Law says he's a fourth OFer
PaulThomas: I think Keith Law is only a fourth analyst

by hero66 on Jul 31, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UHHHH

While I am not condoning the use of"greenies" it’s a bit of a stretch to put them on the same level as shooting F***ing steriods into your body that make you bigger,faster, stronger and rebound faster from not only injuries but the day-to-day grind. Never heard of amphetamines making a middle releiver who threw in the upper 80’s before use, to mid-90s.

by cubsfan1 on Jul 31, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

which middle reliever went from upper 80s to mid-90s due to roids?

I’m honestly curious, are there documented cases of this type of transformation that can be attributed to steroids (or HGH or any other similar type of PED)?

Also, the point of using amphetamines was in fact to be able to overcome the wear and tear of the daily grind.

by jibs on Jul 31, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UHHHH

Greenies significantly aide your concentration capabilities, thus lead to better hand to eye coordination. Dare I say, that is MUCH more important than how strong you are.

by guru4u on Aug 3, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

MLB is attempting to isolate this problem as much as possible. PEDs were around long before Jose Canseco came along and provided tutorials to anyone that would listen. It is much easier for Major League Baseball to isolate the issue and refer it to the “Steroid Era” outling the late 80s to early 00s, rather than admit that baseball has always had cheaters.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jul 31, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree baseball has always had cheaters

but I also think you should try to limit the “cheaters”. And i agree steroids are a different degree of gaining an advantage from amphetamines. Like the difference between looking back at where the catcher is set up to having binoculars in the centerfield fence to steal signs. Or, almost like the difference between taking St. John’s Wort and coffee or Xanax. As an aside, I also think Bill James is being a bit naive to just say that steroids help guys stay young. I don’t look at giant bulbous heads and body-builder physiques and think, gee how youthful.

by wobatus on Aug 2, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its a completely different class of substance

The thing about amphetamines is you can take them every day, multiple times a day, and pretty much stay awake, alert, and focused with no apparent side effects. So while they may not increase muscle mass, it is possible to argue that the cumulative effect of amphetamine usage can have at least as great an impact on shifting a player’s level of play than years of steroid cycles do. The problem wasn’t that steroids became “favored” so much as the fact that amphetamines are just so easy to test for, and there really isn’t another class of substance that functions in quite the same way. Drugs like Caffeine and Ritalin have negative effects on motor function (hand shaking for example), obviously not a benefit to baseball players, and not something typically associated with typical amphetamine usage.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Aug 7, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the record...

It’s not like I don’t like some of your posts Dewey. The Havens>Cardenas post was great. LOVED IT. Those type posts and prospect smackdowns are great. I just hate the stupid comparisons of guys who have never played in the majors or even above A ball being compared to ML superstars.

by cubsfan1 on Jul 31, 2009 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i liked the cardenas/havens idea

not sure how much i agreed with it, but it was still a topic of conversation, so it served its purpose.

by flipgatey3 on Jul 31, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

cubsfan1

Im not sure of another way to say this, I think it’s been said multiple times:

Dewey Finn did not compare Roy Halladay (ML Superstar) to Jason Knapp (Guy in A Ball). A sportswriter did.

Even if he did, so what? Bad comparison? Yes. It sure is. I mean, theyre each pitchers who have some good scrabble letters in their names. Theyre pretty tall. Theyre righties. That’s about it.

Anyway, if you don’t like those posts, as has been recommended, don’t read them.

if you don’t like a thread, just leave it alone…
I find that people like making comparisons. It provides a frame of reference. Also, I’m not sure that it is comparing as much as projecting. What could Aball guy be?

by benzalman on Jul 31, 2009 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A scout made that comparison, which is even more disturbing

The comparison threads are fine by me, btw.

Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.

by Frederick0220 on Jul 31, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

-1

It isn’t your place to moderate the forum, that is John’s. We are here to discuss prospects and however ridiculous you think Dewey’s opening posts are, that is exactly what he starts every single time. A prospect discussion. I bet John likes Dewey on this forum because it gets hits, traffic, and conversation going when he can’t post updates. This community continues to amaze me, probably the worst I visit when it’s all said and done. Many of you have a good bit of knowledge but you can’t get over being complete assholes to everyone. If everyone had the exact same opinions and thoughts, there wouldn’t be anything to discuss.

So if you think a post is ridiculous, reply to the post in a respectful way and give your counter points so it can be debated.

by jfish26101 on Aug 1, 2009 10:43 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Nice post

by cowboy4eva on Aug 1, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

-1 To you pal.

The problem with Deweys posts is they are basically a copt cat of the The National Enquirer. A big sensational title, not much content, and hoping to create controversy for the pure fact of getting himself attention and getting his cronies like cowboy4eva to rec. them. If they were actually good posts that had valid points like “Why Chris Tillman will have a better career then Brain Matusz” or vice versa thern I’m all for reading them. But when they are stupid as “Jose Canseco HOFer”. Under that thinking the 1919 Black Sox should be in the HOF for showing how gambling was rampant in baseball and helping turn everyones attention onto it and cleaning up the game. It’s just stupid.

My point is that it does the site a diservice in my humble opinion. I’m not the only 1 who feels this way. I love prospect discussion but not when you take some outrageous statement, throw out some tiny little bit of stats and then sit back and watch the fireworks it takes away from the whole site. “John Danks>Steve Carlton?”. Just because I put a question mark at the end of that statement it dosn’t make it look any less stupid.

by cubsfan1 on Aug 1, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you need to relax

You are going on one tirade after another on how much you dislike my posting style. In a weird way, I am kind of flattered. Not even Paul Thomas or RedsoxFaithful put this much effort into “exposing” me. Listen cubby, I get it. You don’t like what I do. Move on pal. You are beginning to sound like a broken record. Unfortunately for you, I will not be adjusting the way I do things around here. To relieve yourself of future anger and frustration, I strongly suggest that you just ignore my threads from now on. Clearly they are upsetting you. Honestly, I don’t know what else to say. I love this forum because it gives me the opportunity to talk about stuff that I find interesting and get feedback/input from knowledgeable baseball fans. I’m not sure where you get off thinking you are the ‘voice’ of the people/community.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Aug 1, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

All I was doing was simply responding to a comment. No tirade just voicing my opinion Dewey. If you don’t want to change your writing style and look uninteligent that’s your choice. This post was some constructive critism in the hopes of getting more "Havens>Cardenas " posts from you and less sensationalized “LOOK AT ME” posts. Take it how ever you want bud. Happy writing. Oh BTW try re-reading the second sentance of my post, no anger or frustration just expressing my thoughts.

by cubsfan1 on Aug 1, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the biggest problem with your stance is (1) the posts you like and the posts you dislike are the same in every way other than whether you agree with what he is asking (or so it seems to me), it isn’t your place to tell Dewey or anyone else how they should post or think, and (3) his posts generate prospect discussions which is the whole point of this forum.

The rest of this is just utter nonsense so I wont entertain you but I do think you need to relax. There is absolutely nothing wrong with majority of his posts and unless he has a bunch of duplicate accounts it isn’t his fault that they get rec’d…and the fact that his posts do get rec’d is not something you can use as evidence that he should stop so don’t bother. If people want to be childish and rec his posts out of spite, that is on them not Dewey.

by jfish26101 on Aug 1, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which one was the second sentence?

Paragraph structure fail.

WordUpThome: I CANNOT BELIVE THAT THIS PRODUCT IS NOT BUTTER

Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons

by Player To Be Named Later on Aug 1, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me start by saying I’ve read posts and play in a league with King Billy Royal and Dewey Finn and I have the utmost respect for not only their overall baseball knowledge but also there fanatical love of the game.

He prefaced his criticism with a compliment then went on to bash him for creating discussion on a discussion board. I mean I can understand how some people get a little frustrated with the extremely outlandish ones but they still generate good discussion. Half the time I just ignore the first post and read the discussion because Dewey does try to debate points with people.

by jfish26101 on Aug 1, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then there was this to:

No hard feelings guys just 1 persons opinion.

I think some people read to much into his perceived tone but some of the comments after the initial post do make me think he is genuinely angry that Dewey keeps posting these discussions. I could be wrong but if that is the case, life is to short for that.

/me shrugs

by jfish26101 on Aug 1, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The word is "too"

Sometimes it has one “o”. Sometimes it has two. Which is another word that sounds the same, too.

by PaulThomas on Aug 2, 2009 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

…ah yes, another example of how horrible this community is. Paul Thomas here to save the day by being a jackass as always. If a post can be ignored because of it’s grammar than you can definitely be banned for being a complete asshole in almost every post you have ever written on this forum.

by jfish26101 on Aug 2, 2009 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude if you are going to criticize someone for their grammar yours better be right.

Dating girls is like starting pitching depth, you think you have a good full rotation, even too many starters, then in an instant as soon as you trade your depth away injuries decimate your rotation and you are forced to start Sidney Ponson.

by designatedforassignment on Aug 3, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where did I criticize grammar in my posts directred towards the OP?

Besides, you could use some commas so obviously I’m not alone.

by jfish26101 on Aug 4, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your reply was, at the very least, misleadingly placed

Your points appeared to be in service of the “paragraph structure fail” post, above. Maybe you didn’t intend that, but it obviously confused at least two people into thinking that your intent was to bag on the OP’s grammar.

As for the rest, if that’s your definition of “being a complete asshole,” you have unbelievably thin skin.

by PaulThomas on Aug 4, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which post exactly? My first reply? It was a direct reply to the original post. The reply that you replied to? Either way, neither have any mention of grammar.

As far as you extraordinary amount of posts that have nothing to do with the subjects being discussed, perhaps I’m to thin skinned but that doesn’t excuse your behavior for months if not years on this site. John has very little time to moderate the forum and nobody to really help him do so which gives his community a great amount of freedom to say and do whatever they please. Most seem to stay respectful and on point but there are a few who unfortunately can’t help but do the opposite and spend more time talking about the posters than their content. Perhaps I’m wrong to suggest you are one of these but you certainly seem to be involved in a lot of the pointless nonsense that goes on in this community.

Back to the subject, I’ve admitted I can see where someone may not like Dewey’s rather enthusiastic approach to his posts but you can easily ignore those parts and focus on the discussion. You actually add a lot to this site when you stay on subject, it’s to bad you get caught up in all of the other crap to often.

by jfish26101 on Aug 4, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Player to be named later snarked the OP with "paragraph structure fail"

You then replied to those posts in such a way that I (and, evidently, DFA as well) interpreted it as piling on.

I actually never criticize people’s spelling or grammar unless one of two things hold:

1. You’ve done the same thing yourself (or, as seems to be the case here, I mistakenly think you have), or
2. It’s confusing and you can edit it to be less confusing.

Obviously #2 doesn’t work on SBN, except if there’s a mistake in the original fanpost.

by PaulThomas on Aug 4, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"I strongly suggest that you just ignore my threads from now on."

Wait, that can be done!?!?!? If people don’t like it they can just skip over it and read other threads?? Wow, great news for cubsfan and others!

by cowboy4eva on Aug 1, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a specious argument

Crap threads take up space on the dashboard. Threads which get bumped from the dashboard usually die, which means that every crap thread potentially kills off an active discussion.

by PaulThomas on Aug 2, 2009 2:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, to be fair...

A decent share of my posts do lead to active discussions. Sadly, sometimes they are consumed with individuals such as yourself criticizing the topic rather than addressing the issue presented. I think we might have too many minorleagueball “police officers”.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Aug 2, 2009 5:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just because they're police officers doesn't automatically make them heroes

Anyone get that?

Aww… :(

WordUpThome: I CANNOT BELIVE THAT THIS PRODUCT IS NOT BUTTER

Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons

by Player To Be Named Later on Aug 3, 2009 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

by designatedforassignment on Aug 3, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then why did you rec all of his posts for months? Hypocritical much? For all we know the reason he gets his threads rec’d is because you thought it was funny to do so.

by jfish26101 on Aug 2, 2009 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I did that for like 3 days, after he had angered me to the point where retaliation was in order

and solely to irritate him… whether or not I’d like to lay claim to that particular form of punking, I can’t, because I most certainly didn’t come up with it…

by PaulThomas on Aug 4, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well whatever the reason, people seem to still find it comical to do. It’s to a point where I’d almost rather the whole rec’d posts get pinned to the top feature be disabled but with this particular forum style that would be even more problematic. I honestly just wish he would go to a more traditional style but I’m sure being part of SB Nation gets him hits he wouldn’t normally so doubt it happens any time soon. It’s to bad that the anonymity the Internet gives people allows them to be as immature as they possibly can be with zero repercussions. We are all here to discuss prospects, all of this other stuff really has no place here in my opinion.

by jfish26101 on Aug 4, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FINE JOB!!!!

I happen to like both BKR and FINNS post ,and i read them all cause of the different opinions. The major league comps are great , it gives a feel of what kind of player they could be. Keep posting guys

by phillip102478 on Aug 1, 2009 1:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like the posts

since it’s a baseball prospect discussion. And this is a baseball prospect website. And I come hear to read people argue and discuss. If I wanted anything less, I would just stay at foxsports.com.

by OscarDog on Aug 2, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Im very confused...

What exactly is wrong with comparing a prospect to a major league player. Thats the entire point of a comp, to say what type of player we see the prospect developing in to.

Whats the point of comparing a guy after he’s proven his skill set? The fun/interest comes from those early comps and how they work out

by ADLC on Aug 2, 2009 11:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

nothing wrong with comparing a prospect to an MLB player,

they’re just arguing as to how people make their post, thus gathering more hits. I do agree with cubbies, that I dislike how Dewey titles his posts, but some of the content is good when you get past the general crap. The issue I have is the condescending tone that pretty much pisses the majority of the general public off. Sarcasm is something else that is easily misunderstood in print. Apparently that’s another issue with certain members in the community.

"When Justin Upton faces Lincecum, I think Christ might appear in the heavens, and the world will end." -JakeFree

by JT12340 on Aug 3, 2009 7:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs