Gwynn vs Suzuki

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

It takes two to tango, but I guess the being a moderator gives the guy who gets into the most arguments in these forums extra privilege. :rolleyes:

---

I don't see HGM or anyone else receiving extra privileges at all.

The main difference between HGM's posts and some others is that HGM simply makes his point(s). When you start including "snarky" (to use a cool term that someone else recently used) and/or sarcastic personal (or even impersonal) comments about whomever or whatever is being replied to, that's a problem. Every once in a while is easy to overlook (hell, I've been as guilty of falling into that myself before!), but when it starts to become commonplace it starts creating a bad atmosphere in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay
Wow, well first off i'm not going to begin a game of guessing with a crystal ball what his stats would have been had he played in MLB at the start of his career. I'll let you and your insiders determine that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Okay, I'm sick of your crap with this. I'm sorry, but cut it the hell out. I'm just making educated guesses based on the statistical record. It has nothing to do with "insiders" or whatever other sarcastic nonsense you want to throw out there. Get over it.

---

---

This is, IMO, where the discussion turned argumentative. And, IMO, it wasn't Dickay that started it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

This is, IMO, where the discussion turned argumentative. And, IMO, it wasn't Dickay that started it.

---

Thanks. Thats pretty much where I lost it too. I don't believe the 'insider' comment to be 'snarky' (to use the same cool word) because as I explained afterward...I assume he has insider knowledge based upon the comments that led to that post, and based upon many of his comments in the past.

I also think alot of HGMs posts / responses are 'snarky' and meant to agitate. His infamous ' never said that' type of posts are done deliberately to ignite feedback as he's often fully aware of the intent and meaning of the post but takes a simple view of it and responds with that comment which I see as demeaning.

He probably finds my posts insulting because I respond to him purposely in the same demeaning manner he responds to nearly everyone. I don't respond to anyone else that way, only him and I've done it for sometime. I pick each point apart and purposely respond taking them individually for what its worth rather than what should be understood as a whole by the lamen and giving the short 'never said that' type of rebuttal. Maybe one day he'll realize to respond to others as he'd like to be spoken to himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

This is, IMO, where the discussion turned argumentative. And, IMO, it wasn't Dickay that started it.

---

Making sarcastic, useless "insider information" comments that he's been making towards me in multiple threads, even though I've asked him politely to stop in the past, doesn't count as "starting it"? :rolleyes:

Oh, but, anyway, "He started it!" Real mature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Thanks. Thats pretty much where I lost it too. I don't believe the 'insider' comment to be 'snarky' (to use the same cool word) because as I explained afterward...I assume he has insider knowledge based upon the comments that led to that post, and based upon many of his comments in the past.

---

You're "assuming" I have "insider knowledge" as a way to belittle me and make sarcastic comments against me. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that I am speaking as if I have "insider knowledge" because I say that Japanese players lose power when they come to America.

You know damn well that I don't have any "insider knowledge" yet you keep repeatedly making these sarcastic comments and "assuming" that I do. It serves no purpose other than to be argumentative and I'd like to kindly ask you, again, to stop.

Quote:

---

I also think alot of HGMs posts / responses are 'snarky' and meant to agitate.

---

You'd be wrong. You just seem to think that by having a differing opinion than you, I do it just to agitate you, which isn't nor has it ever been true.

Quote:

---

His infamous ' never said that' type of posts are done deliberately to ignite feedback as he's often fully aware of the intent and meaning of the post but takes a simple view of it and responds with that comment which I see as demeaning.

---

Once again, wrong. When you make a statement that implies that I've said something I haven't, I'll make sure to point out that I actually have not said it.

Quote:

---

He probably finds my posts insulting because I respond to him purposely in the same demeaning manner he responds to nearly everyone.

---

Funny because I've debated and disagreed with plenty of other people on this forum before and you're one of the very few to take my posts in the manner you do.

Quote:

---

I don't respond to anyone else that way, only him and I've done it for sometime.

---

Yeah. Exactly. Drop the childish games. If you don't legitimately disagree with me and wish to have a civil discussion, don't respond to me.

Quote:

---

I pick each point apart and purposely respond taking them individually for what its worth rather than what should be understood as a whole by the lamen and giving the short 'never said that' type of rebuttal. Maybe one day he'll realize to respond to others as he'd like to be spoken to himself.

---

I'm not sure what the problem is with responding to individual points in a clear manner, but I'll make a mental note not to ever do it again. :rolleyes:

But, at any rate, thanks for admitting that you're being argumentative for no reason whatsoever except to argue with me. Mature. Another thread gone to hell because you can't disagree with me without it turning into crap. I suggest you read some of my debates with justanewguy in some recent threads. We've disagreed on things, but it's not hard to keep it civil, even in a back-and-forth debate.

No matter how many times you call others 'immature', it doesn't mask the immaturity of the tone in your responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay
Wow, well first off i'm not going to begin a game of guessing with a crystal ball what his stats would have been had he played in MLB at the start of his career. I'll let you and your insiders determine that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Okay, I'm sick of your crap with this. I'm sorry, but cut it the hell out. I'm just making educated guesses based on the statistical record. It has nothing to do with "insiders" or whatever other sarcastic nonsense you want to throw out there. Get over it.

---

---

This is, IMO, where the discussion turned argumentative. And, IMO, it wasn't Dickay that started it.

---

Agreed, it started with the highlighted comment.

Quote:

---

I don't believe the 'insider' comment to be 'snarky' (to use the same cool word) because as I explained afterward...I assume he has insider knowledge based upon the comments that led to that post, and based upon many of his comments in the past.

---

Obviously, I disagree. Not having been a participant in this conversation at all before now, I'd think that would count for something.
I don't come to HGM's defense automatically, and if the tables were turned I'd be saying the same thing to him (as a matter of fact, I have). There's no "favoritism" going on here, no mater how loudly you shout that there is. On the other hand, the reason that I specifically asked Clay to grant HGM moderator privileges is because in my experience he rarely makes snide comments or looses his temper.

Regardless, I think that Clay says it best, here:

Quote:

---

The SECOND RULE is that in my absence, it is the responsibility of the moderators to keep things under control. What they say goes. Don't pick a fight with a moderator, even if you think he or she is being a jerk. It's like picking a fight with a cop. You may have your 'day in court' later (that is, Sports Mogul can repeal a ban for example). But in the meantime your posts will be edited and/or deleted, and you could get yourself banned.

---

:eek:
You agree with HGM

I, for one, am absolutely stunned. No crystal ball or insider information needed to divine that response.

On another note, back to the dicussion at hand, I would take Gywnn especailly as a number 2 or 3 slot hitter, someone to get an Ichiro type home or in better scoring position. Can you imagine a line up with Ichiro as lead off, Gywnn batting second and maybe a Bonds or Ted Williams batting 3 and then a Ruth or Gehrig batting 4th? (yes I know Ruth was a number 3 hitter in his playing days with Gehrig batting clean up but this is just a hypoethical situation) THen maybe a Mantle, or Mays batting in the 5 hole...

Dream Team!
lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

On another note, back to the dicussion at hand, I would take Gywnn especailly as a number 2 or 3 slot hitter, someone to get an Ichiro type home or in better scoring position. Can you imagine a line up with Ichiro as lead off, Gywnn batting second and maybe a Bonds or Ted Williams batting 3 and then a Ruth or Gehrig batting 4th? (yes I know Ruth was a number 3 hitter in his playing days with Gehrig batting clean up but this is just a hypoethical situation) THen maybe a Mantle, or Mays batting in the 5 hole...

---

Henderson
Ichiro
Gwynn
Ruth
Gehrig
Mantle
MetsGuy
RedSoxRockies
Pitcher Spot

Best offense in history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Henderson
Ichiro
Gwynn
Ruth
Gehrig
Mantle
MetsGuy
RedSoxRockies
Pitcher Spot

Best offense in history

---

i hate this topic, but likely ichiro & gwynn wouldn't be in my 'dream lineup'. I think Bonds and even a guy like Manny, there's ton of super OPS guys especially in the OF that you could come up with. Cobb for one. If I can have any hitter ever, i'm not taking a slap hitting high BA guy. I'll take the best sluggers of alltime and leave the ichiro's and gwynn's to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

i hate this topic, but likely ichiro & gwynn wouldn't be in my 'dream lineup'. I think Bonds and even a guy like Manny, there's ton of super OPS guys especially in the OF that you could come up with. Cobb for one. If I can have any hitter ever, i'm not taking a slap hitting high BA guy. I'll take the best sluggers of alltime and leave the ichiro's and gwynn's to others.

---

so you'd just slug everyone into submission lol, not a bad plan:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

so you'd just slug everyone into submission lol, not a bad plan:)

---

exactly....the Bonds/Manny types get on base nearly as much. I'll take a lineup of the super sluggers over one built 'traditionally' with a low power high OBA leadoff hitter, move him over #2 hitter, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

exactly....the Bonds/Manny types get on base nearly as much.

---

More, actually. ;)

Quote:

---

I'll take a lineup of the super sluggers over one built 'traditionally' with a low power high OBA leadoff hitter, move him over #2 hitter, etc.

---

Agreed. I would put Henderson in said lineup, though, even if he isn't a typical slugger. Give me high OBP guys who aren't reliant purely on batting average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

More, actually. ;)


Agreed. I would put Henderson in said lineup, though, even if he isn't a typical slugger. Give me high OBP guys who aren't reliant purely on batting average.

---

so you'd take 9 barry bonds types over a mixed line up, wouldn't a traditional mixed line up be more excitin to watch though? just for the sake of discussion