Who to Start Message Board
- Reply to Jay Dubbs Apr 5, 2015 6:24 PM
"With the trade of Craig Kimbrel to the Padres, it would appear that Jason Grilli is the next to close for the Braves." - Fantasy Alarm, aka rotoinfo.
Since Shae Simmons is on the DL, then it is likely the above unless we get surprised.
Stupid people are too stupid to think they aren't. Thus they think they are.
The weakness you make plainly obvious is assume you are the smartest person out there. Your local mensa chapter leader would be very unimpressed. You've used a classic red herring which is not a sign of intelligence. You may not be wrong here, but are too weak minded to bother to look at the possibility you are. Closed minded belligerence as your main point of argument is a poor one.
4. Logic: To assume what Rizzo is doing, and has mostly done his whole career qualifies as a 'bad process', and that leads directly to 'dumb luck'. Which is likely true, and I've admitted from the start. However, to not concede the possibility that for Rizzo, that very well may not be a 'bad process'. For him. Maybe for the rest of us, and much of baseball. If we remove that from that part of the equation, my point again is made.
5. The other stuff was in reference to 'your serve' comment, you clearly missed it.
You keep focusing on babip but missed why it was being used. babip was not the point to what I was saying, as babip is dumb luck, and I probably should have used 'luck' in every place you saw babip and maybe my point would have been made since it'd make the exact same sense in how I used it. But like my wife I mentioned earlier, you focused improperly on babip which wasn't even necessary to the point being made. Remember, Dunning-Kruger might just be yourself. To entirely dismiss the possibility (whether true or not) puts you more at risk of likely kidding yourself. Mirrors are important, I'm perfectly happy with my reflection.
Back to the dumbness of having to go back for you:
1. The abnormality of Rizzo's wrc+ vs his hard contact % is way above the norm. There is/was never an argument in any of what I wrote.
2."Good process will lead to good results in the future more often than shaky process will." What I was saying directly to you, Mr. internet Mensa, was the rationalization that the term 'more often' explicitly fails to correlate with 'always'. Which is exactly the point I made. Always, and arguing that it must be logically true is an absolute the author didn't even assume.
3. Let me break this down so a mighty mind bender box of cards reader like yourself can understand a similar (not same, break out of your tunnel vision) example to what I was saying. Mike Tyson was like 40-0 and he was described as "his pure boxing skills are inferior to most good pure boxers."
Implying those who might not meet the mean, may possibly have the ability to do more than that the numbers would expect. Even the author concedes that. Again, relating to the only point I was making.
Sorry, I just came back from a nice lunch. Nice cognitive bias there. Remember a general truism: stupid people are too stupid to know they're stupid. When they don't understand something, they resort to name calling and once again not addressing anything I wrote. Just bypassing it entirely by failure to acknowledge it. My wife does that in every losing argument as well finding a non entity portion of discussion/point to focus on.
You fail to realize I never disagreed with the article even a little. You just chose draw that conclusion because again, you failed to understand what I was saying and assumed I was saying the same thing as others you've been fighting with. Maybe it was poor communication on my part somehow.
Tell Federer you saw an ace.
Clearly you don't understand what I wrote, it was just an additional statistic to imply a mean. I get if you misunderstand what I wrote, then any comment on it is moot.
I wasn't implying the article was claiming an absolute, I was implying you personally are.
I will agree with you that the numbers show/imply Rizzo is a below average metric hitter. And the results were surprising to see last year, and we'll see this year as well.
Did you fail to read what I wrote, I believe it would be obvious the article was read. I don't believe you actually did, you just placed a copy/paste quote of what you commonly paste. And what does that say about you not reading a response? I just don't agree with absolutes of future performance being assumed.
Let me ask you. Would you agree things do possibly change? Would you agree that Root canals in 1985 are done much more comfortably, and significantly faster in 2015? Or, are you just hard headed and believe everything is static, and change is impossible when it comes to what your brain allows you to comprehend?
I mentioned he'll be worse possibly, or he'll be better possibly. No absolutes in anything I wrote. However again, if someone chooses to be narrow minded, obstinate and unyielding it doesn't say much for the ability to analyze really anything.
There is also the consideration of assumption. If we assume at 25 years of age, Anthony Rizzo is incapable of improving his poor hard contact numbers, then an absolute can be the conclusion.
However, and this is merely devil's advocacy since I do not own Rizzo in any format (pretty much for the same reason as the above article), Rizzo's babip last year wasn't out of his norm for being lucky. ie. it was close enough to his mean, like it mostly has been. All we're looking for with that is the predictor of sustainability. With as bad as Rizzo's hard contact is, he still put up serviceable numbers (even though I wouldn't touch him at this year's ADP) but it stands to reason if he can put up a .286 avg, .527 slug, 32 HRs with that poor of hard contact, imagine what he might do if that metric improves.
If we are going to utilize assumptions to create absolutes, he may very well do worse if he doesn't improve, or his babip drops a tad like it does every other year; but then again he certainly could do better if at age 25 he progresses like a normal MLB player generally improves by improving that particular metric. And we can also assume if that metric is improved upon, his counting stats should also improve. And I'd suggest that would be a pretty good year for most anyone.
Semien is someone to possibly take a look at as well. He'll have SS eligibility in 5 games, as well as 2b,3b. Starting gig is his, a bit of power and speed in the minors.
Spent very little on pitching. Both 12 team H2H private leagues. Both 10 hitting and 10 pitching categories.
Staff 1: W/L/SV/H/HR/BB/K/HLD/ERA/Whip
P. Hughes (10th)
G. Gonzalez (12th)
A. Cobb (w)
M. Pineda (13th)
M. Wacha (16th)
B. McCarthy (19th)
Staff 2: W/L/SV/H/R/HR/BB/K/ERA/Whip
A. Sanchez (8th)
M. Tanaka (10th)
M. Wacha (trade)
M. Shoemaker (18th)
J. Fernandez (dl)
Expert Fantasy Advice
We've got early games on Wednesday, so let's get to work... … More »