Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 312 of 314 FirstFirst ... 212262302310311312313314 LastLast
Results 4,666 to 4,680 of 4701
  1. #4666
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    I'm well aware of what a strawman is. Calling an argument "stupid" isn't an argument. That's called an ad hominem logical fallacy. See i wents to the college too.

    So far I've been responding to a lot of the bottom two today. Kudos to those who have disagreed with me today using logic.

    You don't know what an ad hominem is. Because calling an argument stupid is not an ad hominem. Lmao. You can't be a real person.

    As for responding to the bottom, I don't see the purpose in engaging with someone so deep in Dunning-Kruger that actual discussion is pointless. So, I mean. There ya go.

    Note: Engaging in real discussion. I find you to be hilarious. So I engage at a very basic level.
    Last edited by Doogolas; 03-04-2021 at 12:58 AM.

  2. #4667
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    I already addressed this ridiculous middle argument. She looked. You can PHYSICALLY SEE if meat looks right. You can not PHYSICALLY SEE a person's makeup. Thus, her looking is real evidence. I mean, I made a post explaining this to you, and predicted this argument coming from you. Yet here you are, still making it. Wild.

    You also CLEARLY do not even know what "makeup" means when scouts talk about it. So it's HILARIOUS that you are trying to scout it. If you knew ANYTHING about what makeup means it's not something scouts look to as a future rating. You're thinking of "composure" which is not makeup. Makeup is precisely things like work ethic and being a nice kid.

    Again, maybe just learn what you don't know.
    People in here can't have a discussion without being condescending, emotional and using insults. You have bad makeup.

    Saying I don't know ANYTHING isn't an argument, and will be ignored. Saying what I'm saying is CLEARLY AND HILARIOUSLY ridiculous isn't an argument, and will be ignored.

    Also, confidence, composure, and on-field demeanor is included in makeup. Here's my evidence, provide counter evidence if you have it: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/p...t-speedmakeup/

  3. #4668
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    You don't know what an ad hominem is. Because calling an argument stupid is not an ad hominem. Lmao. You can't be a real person.

    As for responding to the bottom, I don't see the purpose in engaging with someone so deep in Dunning-Kruger that actual discussion is pointless. So, I mean. There ya go.

    Note: Engaging in real discussion. I find you to be hilarious. So I engage at a very basic level.
    Lol, I like how you're pretending to be so smart and superior to me. That's a true Dunning-Kruger if I ever saw one.

    Maybe learn what an ad hominem is, and makeup (hint, consult links and quotes), before being so condescending in your supreme intelligence: https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-a...es-ad-hominem/

  4. #4669
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    People in here can't have a discussion without being condescending, emotional and using insults. You have bad makeup.

    Saying I don't know ANYTHING isn't an argument, and will be ignored. Saying what I'm saying is CLEARLY AND HILARIOUSLY ridiculous isn't an argument, and will be ignored.

    Also, confidence, composure, and on-field demeanor is included in makeup. Here's my evidence, provide counter evidence if you have it: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/p...t-speedmakeup/
    You don't know what something you brought up means. That's pretty amazing. It's actually one of the funniest things I can imagine. "I know what a straw man is, I'll prove it by bringing up another, unrelated fallacy. And then immediately proving I don't know what it means."

    That took skill. And you did it with no effort. I'm genuinely impressed.


    Here is an article about a scout talking about it:

    https://www.perfectgame.org/Articles...kes%20him%20up.

    So how does Bill Lajoie determine if a young player has strong character? The Magic Question (Appendix J) is a start, but it also requires a keen eye. Lajoie believed in watching a high school or college prospect in everything he did, in the dugout, on the field, interacting with his parents, essentially doing everything short of following the kid to the bathroom. The player will tell you if he’s determined to become a great player, if he’s motivated to succeed, or if he’s only motivated by money and attention. The way he plays when nobody’s in the stands, the way he plays “away from the ball” (to borrow a basketball/football term), the way he plays hurt, in big games, all these things collectively give an idea on what the young man is made of.
    Sure, not literally pissing yourself is part of it. But you can't really tell what's going on with somebody's body language. And you have no idea about the other 99% that goes into it.

    Here's another one: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...k-about-makeup

    First, what do we mean when we talk about "makeup". I'd like to say there are a few aspects to makeup. Here's a list of all the aspects that I'd think might make up (ugh) makeup:

    The perceived desire to play professional baseball, and to keep improving one's skills through practice.
    The perceived ability or willingness to play through injury and/or personal difficulty.
    The perceived ability or willingness to receive coaching.
    The perceived ability to get along with your teammates / the media / team management.
    The perceived ability to avoid "trouble," with the law, with steroids, etc.
    The ability to avoid mental mistakes on the field.
    The ability to learn the concepts and cognitive skills that make up a not-insignificant portion of the game.
    The ability to "forget" about previous at-bats or batters faced and re-focus on new challenges.
    A positive attitude in general.
    There is a 0% chance you can see any of that except MAYBE that last one.

    Again, please learn what you don't know and stop talking about it.

  5. #4670
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Lol, I like how you're pretending to be so smart and superior to me. That's a true Dunning-Kruger if I ever saw one.

    Maybe learn what an ad hominem is, and makeup (hint, consult links and quotes), before being so condescending in your supreme intelligence: https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-a...es-ad-hominem/
    I'm not pretending to be smarter or better than you. You're projecting that. You also don't know what Dunning-Kruger is, but sure.

    I know what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is attacking THE PERSON. If I call your argument stupid that is not an ad hominem. If I call YOU stupid it's an ad hominem.

    Jesus. This is not rocket science. Just please stop.

    Also, you have to understand that even if I DO use a logical fallacy it doesn't make my point incorrect. It just means the point I had was not supported by that claim. I didn't use an ad hom, and 1908 didn't use a straw man. But that's OK, you don't understand fallacies, it has nothing to do with anything.

    Also, just to be extra clear: Saying someone is performing on the Dunning-Kruger scale is not an indictment of their intelligence. Very bright people fall into that trap literally every day. So it's not me calling you an idiot when I say that, either.

    I'm not lording anything over you, I can assure of that. I think literally nothing is special about my intelligence. So try not to put whatever you're feeling onto me.
    Last edited by Doogolas; 03-04-2021 at 01:20 AM.

  6. #4671
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    There is a 0% chance you can see any of that except MAYBE that last one.
    I've already said I don't know most of these things from Marquez and thus haven't commented on them, nor have I said Marquez has bad makeup, and have already defined makeup considering much of the points you posted, like almost point by point.

    Read the replies before before coming into the middle of a discussion and pretending you know more than everyone without bothering to read anything and talking out your bottom. Dunning–Kruger...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Makeup is a player's psychological profile. I guess i'd say ability to perform under pressure, to control negative emotions, ability to make smart decisions on the fly during the game, hustle/work ethic, coachability/learning ability, ability to get along with teammates etc.

  7. #4672
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    I've already said I don't know most of these things from Marquez and thus haven't commented on them, nor have I said Marquez has bad makeup, and have already defined makeup considering much of the points you posted, like almost point by point.

    Read the replies before before coming into the middle of a discussion and pretending you know more than everyone without bothering to read anything and talking out your bottom. Dunning–Kruger...
    If you don't know 99% of a player's profile that makes up their makeup, don't comment on their makeup.

    This is very simple.

    And STOP just saying terms you don't understand. Coming into a discussion and not knowing something from earlier in the discussion (which didn't even happen here) IS NOT DUNNING-KRUGER.

    Holy crap. You're incredible.

    PS: You literally said he doesn't have good makeup TO ME. Tonight. Like, earlier. You made a positive (i.e. a claim of knowledge) that his makeup is NOT GOOD. HOW not good is not relevant. You simply have no idea if his makeup is bad, mediocre, or good.
    Last edited by Doogolas; 03-04-2021 at 01:27 AM.

  8. #4673
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    I'm not pretending to be smarter or better than you. You're projecting that. You also don't know what Dunning-Kruger is, but sure.
    LOL Read those 3 sentences again and see how you completely undermined your 1st sentence with your 3rd.

  9. #4674
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    LOL Read those 3 sentences again and see how you completely undermined your 1st sentence with your 3rd.
    You think me explaining to you that you don't know what certain words means implies I believe I am smarter than you or better than you? That means you believe I put a ton of value into knowledge of some words. Everybody doesn't know things until they do. I do not care that you didn't know them. That you read it as me believing I'm smarter than you is entirely a you problem, not a me problem.

    To be super clear: I think you're a dingus. But I have no real evaluation for your intelligence. The fact that you're too lazy to bother to learn basic **** about things doesn't make you not intelligent, though. There are many things I'm too lazy to learn basic **** about. I just try not to speak on them because I know that I don't know **** about them.
    Last edited by Doogolas; 03-04-2021 at 01:31 AM.

  10. #4675
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    And STOP just saying terms you don't understand. Coming into a discussion and not knowing something from earlier in the discussion (which didn't even happen here) IS NOT DUNNING-KRUGER.
    Dunning-Kruger is people with low intelligence assuming they are of high intelligence because their low intelligence means they can't know any better. You did that. You came in assuming things you did not actually know while assuming I was ignorant while not reading hardly any of this thread. You were responding to a ghost made up in your mind and projecting it on me.

    PS: You literally said he doesn't have good makeup TO ME. Tonight. Like, earlier.
    Provide the quote.

    You're literally making up strawmen in your mind, as are others here. It is insane.

  11. #4676
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Dunning-Kruger is people with low intelligence assuming they are of high intelligence because their low intelligence means they can't know any better. You did that. You came in assuming things you did not actually know while assuming I was ignorant while not reading hardly any of this thread. You were responding to a ghost made up in your mind and projecting it on me.



    Provide the quote.

    You're literally making up strawmen in your mind, as are others here. It is insane.
    No, it's not that.

    It's this: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

    Low ability. And it is field specific. It's not about intelligence. It's about knowledge in a particular area or field. Again, just stop trying to use terms you don't know.

    You don't know what a straw man is. And I'm happy to go grab the quote assuming you didn't edit it away.

    Look, I found it:

    My point was that Marquez doesn't have any other plus scouting scores on anything besides his fastball. Does that include makeup? I would imagine he's not 60+ on makeup, because why would he be? He's some inexperienced kid. I'd assume he's average or maybe slightly above average. Most young prospects work pretty hard and get along with guys...so they get a 50/55. He's all fastball.. Then I said the scale of pitcher makeup for a Cub goes from CJ Edwards on the low end, to Kyle Hendricks on the high end, then the forum went nuts lol.
    And that's literally just what you said TO ME. You claimed he doesn't have good makeup. End of story.

    You also claimed to 1908 that his makeup isn't as good as, of all ****ing people, Nico Hoerner.
    Last edited by Doogolas; 03-04-2021 at 01:40 AM.

  12. #4677
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    And I'm happy to go grab the quote assuming you didn't edit it away.

    Look, I found it:

    ...And that's literally just what you said TO ME. You claimed he doesn't have good makeup. End of story.

    You also claimed to 1908 that his makeup isn't as good as, of all ****ing people, Nico Hoerner.
    Average to above-average = bad makeup??? Dude, a 35/40 is bad, not 50/55 or whatever he has, which we can all agree is likely not 70, which was my only point. I'm going to bed.

  13. #4678
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Average to above-average = bad makeup??? Dude, a 35/40 is bad, not 50/55 or whatever he has, which we can all agree is likely not 70, which was my only point. I'm going to bed.
    So you didn't read what you quoted? I said, "PS: You literally said he doesn't have good makeup TO ME. Tonight. Like, earlier."

    I didn't say you said he had BAD makeup.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Marquez seems to be ok with throwing strikes, not great but not terrible. I think he'll be ok there eventually.

    He can hit 100, but he doesn't sit 98-100. And velocity doesn't tell us how or if his FB moves. Farnsworth threw high 90's gas that was straight as a board, Kerry Wood threw gas that exploded all over the place.

    I think Marquez will probably be a poor man's Hader, maybe a Hader if we're lucky. I guess a total bust would be if he isn't a good MLB pitcher at all, but I'm sure he'll probably find success in some role. His makeup seemed pretty terrible in his debut, I'm sure he had lots of jitters but he's also no Mark Prior or Nico Hoerner out there.
    What the **** possibly makes his makeup better or worse than Nico?

    Nothing. Because we don't know **** about them.

    I would say it's safe to assume he doesn't have a 70 anything, almost no player does. But I still don't know enough about them to be able to say. So I would simply say, "I have no idea what his makeup is."

    And also, "His makeup seemed terrible in his debut." Again. One of the most ridiculous things I've seen.

    The BEST you've given him is "average to above" and the worst is, "His makeup looked terrible." And again, you know next to nothing about his makeup.

    So please stop this nonsense. And just admit you were wrong. You're making positive claims when you simply don't know.

  14. #4679
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    What the **** possibly makes his makeup better or worse than Nico?
    I haven’t qwhite figured that out either.

  15. #4680
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,032
    Quote Originally Posted by ILMindState View Post
    Stratos, just curious but do you think Heyward, Betts, and McCutchen have bad makeup?
    I'm not Statos, but I'd say that they have fantastic makeups.

Posting Permissions

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