NEW SET : Card previews Catcher & SS & 2B ?

Actually Geekor, my argument is logical, incisive, and dead-on in so many ways, although you're rather bunk for attacking that argument without actually proving, much less explaining, why it's wrong. Instead of doing that, you
simply (and I do mean simply) mention that Niemann was picked over Lilly or that Josh Johnson had the best card with only 9 starts...as if that has anything to do with my argument above (which you clearly need to read again). I never claimed that Strat was consistent in their criteria for inclusion, and (as I've said in many of my posts) I've always argued that Strat should either establish such criteria or include established principles for the amendments of that criteria.

As to your continued obsession with Moss, you're just being foolish. Moss played 84 games and had 265 Abs, there Is no way that doesn't easily surpass reasonable minimums for inclusion. And I know you're gonna say "but Strat didn't let other players in who had seasons different from their career," and that would be foolish too. If Strat made that mistake in the past, they have made a greater mistake by continuing to apply that criteria to Moss or future players; it would eliminate ALL breakthrough seasons from inclusion, which would be disastrous.

As to your last point, we both agree (as I said above) that Strat needs to work on it's criteria for inclusion. However, allowing certain players in with ridiculously minimal statistics just to keep certain keeper league managers happy would be harmful to Strat and unfair to the rest of its players.

Harnful??? Harnfull??? that's a bit much don't you think?

But why? I still don't understand why, it gets peoples knickers in a twist

You've given me lots of how and lots of great voacabulary words, but I still don't get why it upsets you so.

I know one thing we all can agree on.......We love this game called Strat or we wouldn't care one way or the other. Bring on the new set so we can forget about this squabble.

First, I'm not upset, this is a game, I have far more important things in my life to worry about than getting upset about a game. (check the keeper league chat threads I am commissioner for details USKL3 GMKL NAKL)

Second, You've given me a long winded explanation for why you FEEL the RP issue isn't the same, and I simply catagorically deny your reasoning. (I'm pig headed, sue me )

.[/b]

Firstly, you are getting upset, because you asked me "why the hell" in a previous post (which completely calm people don't say), and you're moving to rudeness (by using attacking words like "longwinded") in this one. So calm down the frustration and just debate; there's no reason to make this personal.

Secondly, you again avoided the particulars of my arguments in my post above, which is probably why you chose to attack it instead. You need to go back to that post and see the part where I explain the difference between variations in game play between a simulation and its "object' (MLB) and variations in models of reality (players cards) and their actual objects (players' seasons) and why there is more room (and necessity) for such variation in the first case. You may disagree with this argument, but you need to actually address it and its particulars or we're just going around in circles.

And by the way, while I continue to argue and persuade, I categorically deny your reasoning as well...it truly boggles my mind.

First, I'm not upset, this is a game, I have far more important things in my life to worry about than getting upset about a game. (check the keeper league chat threads I am commissioner for details USKL3 GMKL NAKL)

Second, You've given me a long winded explanation for why you FEEL the RP issue isn't the same, and I simply catagorically deny your reasoning. (I'm pig headed, sue me )

.[/b]

Firstly, you are getting upset, because you asked me "why the hell" in a previous post (which completely calm people don't say), and you're moving to rudeness (by using attacking words like "longwinded") in this one. So calm down the frustration and just debate; there's no reason to make this personal.

Secondly, you again avoided the particulars of my arguments in my post above, which is probably why you chose to attack it instead. You need to go back to that post and see the part where I explain the difference between variations in game play between a simulation and its "object' (MLB) and variations in models of reality (players cards) and their actual objects (players' seasons) and why there is more room (and necessity) for such variation in the first case. You may disagree with this argument, but you need to actually address it and its particulars or we're just going around in circles.

And by the way, while I continue to argue and persuade, I categorically deny your reasoning as well...it [b]truly boggles my mind.[/b]

Well at least we agree on that.

PS you've no more persuaded me to your line of thinking, than I have you.

PSS I'm really not upset, read my keeper chat threads to see what has me upset, like I suggested, tone is so hard to read in electronic communication, sorry if my occasional colorfully languaged outburst offended you, not my intent.

Last time, though, just explain why it upsets you so much. I just want that. It's not gonna change my mind, but maybe, just maybe I'll have abetter understanding why the unleashed guys bother you to the point of saying they are "harmful"

Actually Geekor, my argument is logical, incisive, and dead-on in so many ways, although you're rather bunk for attacking that argument without actually proving, much less explaining, why it's wrong. Instead of doing that, you
simply (and I do mean simply) mention that Niemann was picked over Lilly or that Josh Johnson had the best card with only 9 starts...as if that has anything to do with my argument above (which you clearly need to read again). I never claimed that Strat was consistent in their criteria for inclusion, and (as I've said in many of my posts) I've always argued that Strat should either establish such criteria or include established principles for the amendments of that criteria.

As to your continued obsession with Moss, you're just being foolish. Moss played 84 games and had 265 Abs, there Is no way that doesn't easily surpass reasonable minimums for inclusion. And I know you're gonna say "but Strat didn't let other players in who had seasons different from their career," and that would be foolish too. If Strat made that mistake in the past, they have made a greater mistake by continuing to apply that criteria to Moss or future players; it would eliminate ALL breakthrough seasons from inclusion, which would be disastrous.

As to your last point, we both agree (as I said above) that Strat needs to work on it's criteria for inclusion. However, allowing certain players in with ridiculously minimal statistics just to keep certain keeper league managers happy would be harmful to Strat and unfair to the rest of its players.

Harnful??? Harnfull??? that's a bit much don't you think?

But why? I still don't understand why, it gets peoples knickers in a twist

You've given me lots of how and lots of great voacabulary words, but I still don't get why it upsets you so.

"Harnful" is cute, Ninersphan....particularly repeated twice. It would be harmful to Strat, although it wouldn't "upset" those of us opposed to it, although it would lessen our enjoyment and appreciation of the game. I get it that you want ALL players in--even if they had 10 ABs and 6 hits--to ensure the most likely success of your keeper teams. But many of us still feel it would considerably damage the semblance of MLB reality provided by the Strat simulation. I'm not going to argue the merits or legitimacy of that point since I already have many times, but at least we know where we both stand.

And your "colorful language" did not "offend" me, I just noted that it was typically indicative of upset and aggression. I also had no idea I had used any great vocabulary words......were any particular ones your favorites?

Allowing players with minimal ABs and production to become statistical leaders or significant contributors would radically damage that minimal degree of representation that makes Stat successful...Matt Dominguez hitting 35 homers stretches that degree of representation; Pete Kozma leading the league in hitting snaps it.

So where-in does your "line" lie. Dominguez played in 31 games and had 109 ab's. Kozma played in 26 games and had 79 ab's.

Does your theoretical line lie at 30 games and 100 ab's? Somehow they both played in very small amount of games. somehow one hitting 35+ hR's is ok, but the other hitting 15 HR's with a 300+ BA isn't?

I really don't get that theory.....

Again, if SOM would just post a line, there wouldn't be the belly-aching you are hearing here.

Where I would put the line isn't really important, since nobody wants me to be the arbiter of this thing. However, since you asked, I think 30 games and 100 AB's is a good starting point. Although I admit the Dominguez-Kozma comparison was not the strongest example of my argument, it doesn't take away from that cogent argument that there needs to be some[b][/b] line separating the players included and not included.

Also, your statement you "don't get" my theory that would allow for proximity in (real life) statistics between an allowed player (such as Dominguez) and a disallowed player (such as Kozma) is disingenuous since your next statement asks SOM to post a line that would allow such proximity. No matter where SOM sets its line--which you yourself want SOM to set--there is going to be statistical proximity between an allowed player and a disallowed one. For example, if SOM sets the line at 30 games and 125 ABs, the player with 31 games and 126 ABs would get in while the player with 29 games and 124 ABS would be excluded, despite the proximity in their statistics. So, no, I'm not thrilled about a player at the floor of SOM's inclusion "line' (such as Dominguez) hitting 35 homers, but it's an inevitable result of setting a line for inclusion, a line for inclusion you yourself advocate. Unless SOM sets it's line for inclusion ridiculously (and unmanageably) high, there will be players (like Dominguez) at the floor of that line with somewhat skewed statistics.

...Also, I think it's funny that you talk about belly-achers, since you've been one of the biggest belly-achers on many of these forums..

"Harnful" is cute, Ninersphan....particularly repeated twice. It would be harmful to Strat, although it wouldn't "upset" those of us opposed to it, although it would lessen our enjoyment and appreciation of the game. I get it that you want ALL players in--even if they had 10 ABs and 6 hits--to ensure the most likely success of your keeper teams. But many of us still feel it would considerably damage the semblance of MLB reality provided by the Strat simulation. I'm not going to argue the merits or legitimacy of that point since I already have many times, but at least we know where we both stand.

And your "colorful language" did not "offend" me, I just noted that it was typically indicative of upset and aggression. I also had no idea I had used any great vocabulary words......were any particular ones your favorites?

Harmful was your word, not mine, not sure why you think it's cute

And clearly if I'm upset, then you must be as well, to keep posting

As for the success of my keeper teams, they aren't really all that successful, even with the Unleashed guys, the leagues are to damn competitive, which is partly why I like having lots of players available. It makes it possible for teams to improve greatly on a year to year basis in a keeper format, which makes the leagues more competitive and keeps the owners coming back.

You keep talking about reality in a game situation I feel doesn't have much to begin with, so I guess that's the crux of our difference.

Vocab words, I don't often hear/see outside of SAT tests or statistics classes( neither of which I've participated in for a VERY long time):

deviation
semblance
innocuous
cogent
proximity

these were some of the ones I really liked

...Also, I think it's funny that you talk about belly-achers, since you've been one of the biggest belly-achers on many of these forums..

I'm pretty sure if you read that again, you'll see geekor WAS referring to himself as a belly-acher, whose ache would go away if Strat would establish set limits. YMMV though.

"Harnful" is cute, Ninersphan....particularly repeated twice. It would be harmful to Strat, although it wouldn't "upset" those of us opposed to it, although it would lessen our enjoyment and appreciation of the game. I get it that you want ALL players in--even if they had 10 ABs and 6 hits--to ensure the most likely success of your keeper teams. But many of us still feel it would considerably damage the semblance of MLB reality provided by the Strat simulation. I'm not going to argue the merits or legitimacy of that point since I already have many times, but at least we know where we both stand.

And your "colorful language" did not "offend" me, I just noted that it was typically indicative of upset and aggression. I also had no idea I had used any great vocabulary words......were any particular ones your favorites?

Harmful was your word, not mine, not sure why you think it's cute

And clearly if I'm upset, then you must be as well, to keep posting

As for the success of my keeper teams, they aren't really all that successful, even with the Unleashed guys, the leagues are to damn competitive, which is partly why I like having lots of players available. It makes it possible for teams to improve greatly on a year to year basis in a keeper foprmat, which makes the leagues more competitive and keeps the owners coming back.

You keep talking about reality in a game situation I feel doesn't have much to begin with, so I guess that's the crux of our difference.

Vocab words, I don't often hear/see outside of SAT tests or statistics classes( neither of which I've participated in for a VERY long time):

deviation
semblance
innocuous
cogent
proximity

these were some of the ones I really liked

...Also, I think it's funny that you talk about belly-achers, since you've been one of the biggest belly-achers on many of these forums..

I'm pretty sure if you read that again, you'll see geekor WAS referring to himself as a belly-acher, whose ache would go away if Strat would establish set limits. YMMV though.

It was the spelling that was cute...you kept saying "harnful," which was charming.

And that was a solid five. I actually do use all five of those in regular discussions--"proximity' not so much--and "innocuous" is a personal favorite.

Anyway, this has been an enjoyable discussion, and we have Scooter Gennett to thank. I am a Niners--and a huge Giants--fan as well, and I look forward to playing you in a season...if you ever stray from the keepers.

It was the spelling that was cute...you kept saying "harnful," which was charming.

And that was a solid five. I actually do use all five of those in regular discussions--"proximity' not so much--and "innocuous" is a personal favorite.

Anyway, this has been an enjoyable discussion, and we have Scooter Gennett to thank. I am a Niners--and a huge Giants--fan as well, and I look forward to playing you in a season...if you ever stray from the keepers.

Typo, I didn't notice(stupid fingers ).

HUGE Niners fan, but not Giants, the Mets(mess) . But right now it's College Basketball season, which is why I'm delayed in responding, had to wait until halftime of the Syracuse game, my home town team, GO ORANGE!!!!

Glad you enjoyed the discussion, as for playing against you, the only non keepers I do these days are jeepdriver's theme leagues(wildcard,etc) gave up regular leagues long ago, 'cause I hated playing in 9 coors fields ( yet another example of the unreality of the online version of the game )

That's why I did not put Scooter Gennet in the poll, too complicated

Seriously, he'll be something vs. the righties !

Don't forget to vote guys