Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 310 of 310 FirstFirst ... 210260300308309310
Results 4,636 to 4,650 of 4650
  1. #4636
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,683

    2020 Chicago Cubs Offseason Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    Not at all. You seem to have a problem. Have a good night.
    You called me a tool and a dick and cried to the mod that I called you a moron, but yeah I have the problem. Haha. Typical Dawk.

    Have a wonderful, amazing, fantastic evening.

  2. #4637
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Lol. What an embarrassing post.
    Go read yours brah LOL.

  3. #4638
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Go read yours brah LOL.
    K brah.

  4. #4639
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    91,341
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    You called me a tool and a dick and cried to the mod that I called you a moron, but yeah I have the problem. Haha. Typical Dawk.

    Have a wonderful, amazing, fantastic evening.
    I said you were acting toolish.

    You called me a moron.

    Mods laughed.

    I then called you a dick.

  5. #4640
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,683

    2020 Chicago Cubs Offseason Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    I said you were acting toolish.

    You called me a moron.

    Mods laughed.

    I then called you a dick.
    Incorrect. You said I am toolish and implied I have been for a long time. Thatís a perfectly valid opinion to have if you want to stand by it. Thereís plenty of supporting evidence that shows I can be toolish, but you canít get all huffy and upset when I call you a moron after youíve insulted me, Dawk. The first cheap shot here was yours. If you want to complain to the mods, go for it.

    Anyway, I give you credit for admitting that your Darvish take was dumb. I still think you are often a moron, but at least you can own a bad take. Thatís better than some.

    Go Cubs.

  6. #4641
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,581
    It's not a bad take, a normally very good Darv got absolutely shelled in 2 appearance in the WS. Small sample, but the data supported the take at the time. Then we learned new info, the Astros stole signs. C'est la vie.

  7. #4642
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    7,481
    [emoji846]

    Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

  8. #4643
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    It's not a bad take, a normally very good Darv got absolutely shelled in 2 appearance in the WS. Small sample, but the data supported the take at the time. Then we learned new info, the Astros stole signs. C'est la vie.
    No man, it was always a stupid/bad take. By your own admission, it was a small sample. There was never enough information to determine that Darvish's issues were a result of "mental weakness" but people ran with it anyway. Your own example is a clear case for why the arguments you're making are bad.

    As for the overall subject, I don't care how much sample you have. You don't know the person personally. It's hard enough to get a true gauge on people that you do know, even the ones you know best. So yeah, overall, I think takes grounded in body language and demeanor are generally always stupid, bad takes, as well as disrespectful to the human being you're observing without even thinking it necessary to have said two words to the guy before passing assessments on their character.

    Substantiated claims = good

    Unsubstantiated claims = bad
    Last edited by La_bibbers; Today at 10:40 PM.

  9. #4644
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Addison, IL
    Posts
    24,648
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    Name calling is allowed now?
    Depends on the severity. Donít wanna be too over dramatic, since Iíve been told a few times that I was.

    2016 World Series Champions!!!


  10. #4645
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,581
    Anyone with an extended take on the Sogard signing?

    He'll probably suck because he sucks, but gives us options. Shows us how much money we weren't willing to spend on 2B this season, which is essentially nothing but a minor league deal.

    I think we spent more money towards starting pitcher depth which is a good investment, and seemed to go with a few less total retreads in the pen this spring than last if i remember, which I think is better spending because innings will be thinner this year among starters.

    I think it will be good to have a starter or 2 in the pen as longmen that can be ready to eat innings especially if we're losing and save the rest of pen.

    Unrelated note: Zach Davies looked decent today, he's similar to Hendricks, and not a very big guy at all. If Alzolay makes the rotation I'd put him between Hendricks and Davies in the rotation to mix things up.

  11. #4646
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,683
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    No man, it was always a stupid/bad take. By your own admission, it was a small sample. There was never enough information to determine that Darvish's issues were a result of "mental weakness" but people ran with it anyway. Your own example is a clear case for why the arguments you're making are bad.

    As for the overall subject, I don't care how much sample you have. You don't know the person personally. It's hard enough to get a true gauge on people that you do know, even the ones you know best. So yeah, overall, I think takes grounded in body language and demeanor are generally always stupid, bad takes, as well as disrespectful to the human being you're observing.

    Substantiated claims = good

    Unsubstantiated claims = bad
    Itís not worth it, bibs. Trust me.

  12. #4647
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    No man, it was always a stupid/bad take. By your own admission, it was a small sample. There was never enough information to determine that Darvish's issues were a result of "mental weakness" but people ran with it anyway. Your own example is a clear case for why the arguments you're making are bad.

    As for the overall subject, I don't care how much sample you have. You don't know the person personally. It's hard enough to get a true gauge on people that you do know, even the ones you know best. So yeah, overall, I think takes grounded in body language and demeanor are generally always stupid, bad takes, as well as disrespectful to the human being you're observing.
    I'm not judging anyone personally, i'm making observations on subjective intangible abilities (pitcher makeup) while in uniform that scouts judge literally all the time, so it isn't disrespectful in any way whatsoever, no more than saying player X's swing is terrible. I don't know why everyone is taking this as a personal affront to the character of these people as human beings.

    You're essentially arguing that all scouts have bad takes because their observations can't be substantiated with data (not that i'm a scout). You can't substantiate subjective intangible qualitative claims that are impossible to operationalize via statistics, which is why scouts exist to do the things that data can't.

  13. #4648
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,581
    Do you guys ask for statistical evidence when your wife gets mad at you? Stupid take dear. Lol.

  14. #4649
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,581
    Scouts and GMs do qualitative research when variables can't be operationalized via stats to measure intangibles: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/...tive-research/

  15. #4650
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,116
    Stratos, just curious but do you think Heyward, Betts, and McCutchen have bad makeup?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •