I believe that, reading your stuff, but we have as many "experts" on sabermetrics as we do scouting here.

Hardly anyone here is actually a SABR person, and I would be surprised if anyone here was a scout. 

And that doesn't stop anyone here from talking like experts.

brewhawk:

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

One douchey barb deserves another.

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

Of course then there are those that think they know much more than they do about the latter and then use that assumption to dismiss those aspects of the former that disagree with their analysis.

Hit a nerve, did I.

I have a lot more respect for someone who can offer a decent argument or defense for their position, whether I agree with it or not, than I do for someone who constantly rugurgitates the work of others, without having any clue as to how it was derived or what it actually means.

Einsteinhood:

One douchey barb deserves another.

Indeed.  In fact, I think that's how this conversation turned this way after what was a relatively begnign observation directed at nobody in particular other than the person who asked that question you posted. 

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

Of course then there are those that think they know much more than they do about the latter and then use that assumption to dismiss those aspects of the former that disagree with their analysis.

Hit a nerve, did I.

I have a lot more respect for someone who can offer a decent argument or defense for their position, whether I agree with it or not, than I do for someone who constantly rugurgitates the work of others, without having any clue as to how it was derived or what it actually means.

Einsteinhood:

One douchey barb deserves another.

Indeed.  In fact, I think that's how this conversation turned this way after what was a relatively begnign observation directed at nobody in particular other than the person who asked that question you posted. 

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

Of course then there are those that think they know much more than they do about the latter and then use that assumption to dismiss those aspects of the former that disagree with their analysis.

Hit a nerve, did I.

I have a lot more respect for someone who can offer a decent argument or defense for their position, whether I agree with it or not, than I do for someone who constantly rugurgitates the work of others, without having any clue as to how it was derived or what it actually means.

Einsteinhood:

One douchey barb deserves another.

Indeed.  In fact, I think that's how this conversation turned this way after what was a relatively begnign observation directed at nobody in particular other than the person who asked that question you posted. 

I should have, but I didn't.

badger80:

I am confidant that I am a better scout that you.  Please...try to prove me wrong.

Earlier this year I believe Brewhawk made a good, descriptive breakdown of why he thought Weeks' swing had too much going on before he actually swung the bat.  

You chimed in with a comment along the lines of, "you're so wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about," except it was one of your usual one-liners.

That week Sveum broke down what he was doing with Weeks' swing and stated nearly exactly what Brewhawk said earlier that week.

That said, this doesn't neccessarily mean he knows more than you do or vis versa.  However, I do think people know more about the game than others.  I know I have experience in working with high schoolers and evaluating talent; granted it's on a very low level.  Yet, that's probably more experience in evaluating talent than many other people have.  Guys like Einstein read the literature and are more intune with the game in that regard.  Radio obviously does the research individually that would require several people to fulfill other wise in a front office. Others have seen more games of professional ball first hand than I have ever seen or will see.

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

Of course then there are those that think they know much more than they do about the latter and then use that assumption to dismiss those aspects of the former that disagree with their analysis.

Hit a nerve, did I.

I have a lot more respect for someone who can offer a decent argument or defense for their position, whether I agree with it or not, than I do for someone who constantly rugurgitates the work of others, without having any clue as to how it was derived or what it actually means.

Einsteinhood:

One douchey barb deserves another.

Indeed.  In fact, I think that's how this conversation turned this way after what was a relatively begnign observation directed at nobody in particular other than the person who asked that question you posted. 

I'll admit, I didn't see the "innocent act" coming here.

I should have, but I didn't.

See.  This is the kind of *** you pull when you have nothing intelligent of your own to say.

You know what, ***?  I'm not going to stop posting my opinion here whether you like it or not.  So you better get f*cking used to it. 

You're king of the forum act with your girlfriend Badger doesn't play with me.

TheDude:

badger80:

I am confidant that I am a better scout that you.  Please...try to prove me wrong.

You walked into this one yourself.

Earlier this year I believe Brewhawk made a good, descriptive breakdown of why he thought Weeks' swing had too much going on before he actually swung the bat.  

You chimed in with a comment along the lines of, "you're so wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about," except it was one of your usual one-liners.

That week Sveum broke down what he was doing with Weeks' swing and stated nearly exactly what Brewhawk said earlier that week.

That said, this doesn't neccessarily mean he knows more than you do or vis versa.  However, I do think people know more about the game than others.  I know I have experience in working with high schoolers and evaluating talent; granted it's on a very low level.  Yet, that's probably more experience in evaluating talent than many other people have.  Guys like Einstein read the literature and are more intune with the game in that regard.  Radio obviously does the research individually that would require several people to fulfill other wise in a front office. Others have seen more games of professional ball first hand than I have ever seen or will see.

I guess he just forgot about that one.

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

Of course then there are those that think they know much more than they do about the latter and then use that assumption to dismiss those aspects of the former that disagree with their analysis.

Hit a nerve, did I.

I have a lot more respect for someone who can offer a decent argument or defense for their position, whether I agree with it or not, than I do for someone who constantly rugurgitates the work of others, without having any clue as to how it was derived or what it actually means.

Einsteinhood:

One douchey barb deserves another.

Indeed.  In fact, I think that's how this conversation turned this way after what was a relatively begnign observation directed at nobody in particular other than the person who asked that question you posted. 

I'll admit, I didn't see the "innocent act" coming here.

I should have, but I didn't.

See.  This is the kind of *** you pull when you have nothing intelligent of your own to say.

You know what, ***?  I'm not going to stop posting my opinion here whether you like it or not.  So you better get f*cking used to it. 

You're king of the forum act with your girlfriend Badger doesn't play with me.

Oh, and I don't want you to stop posting here. What fun would that be?

brewhawk:

TheDude:

badger80:

I am confidant that I am a better scout that you.  Please...try to prove me wrong.

You walked into this one yourself.

Earlier this year I believe Brewhawk made a good, descriptive breakdown of why he thought Weeks' swing had too much going on before he actually swung the bat.  

You chimed in with a comment along the lines of, "you're so wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about," except it was one of your usual one-liners.

That week Sveum broke down what he was doing with Weeks' swing and stated nearly exactly what Brewhawk said earlier that week.

That said, this doesn't neccessarily mean he knows more than you do or vis versa.  However, I do think people know more about the game than others.  I know I have experience in working with high schoolers and evaluating talent; granted it's on a very low level.  Yet, that's probably more experience in evaluating talent than many other people have.  Guys like Einstein read the literature and are more intune with the game in that regard.  Radio obviously does the research individually that would require several people to fulfill other wise in a front office. Others have seen more games of professional ball first hand than I have ever seen or will see.

I guess he just forgot about that one.

I'm sure Badger will be "running for his life" now because someone pointed to one example where you happened to say something before a coach confirmed that he somewhat agreed with what you said in an interview. 

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

TheDude:

badger80:

I am confidant that I am a better scout that you.  Please...try to prove me wrong.

You walked into this one yourself.

Earlier this year I believe Brewhawk made a good, descriptive breakdown of why he thought Weeks' swing had too much going on before he actually swung the bat.  

You chimed in with a comment along the lines of, "you're so wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about," except it was one of your usual one-liners.

That week Sveum broke down what he was doing with Weeks' swing and stated nearly exactly what Brewhawk said earlier that week.

That said, this doesn't neccessarily mean he knows more than you do or vis versa.  However, I do think people know more about the game than others.  I know I have experience in working with high schoolers and evaluating talent; granted it's on a very low level.  Yet, that's probably more experience in evaluating talent than many other people have.  Guys like Einstein read the literature and are more intune with the game in that regard.  Radio obviously does the research individually that would require several people to fulfill other wise in a front office. Others have seen more games of professional ball first hand than I have ever seen or will see.

I guess he just forgot about that one.

Congratulations.

I'm sure Badger will be "running for his life" now because someone pointed to one example where you happened to say something before a coach confirmed that he somewhat agreed with what you said in an interview. 

Yeah, right.  Nice freakin' try.

I'm sure your girlfriend can speak for himself, though.

Frankly, I don't find anything about the World Series entertaining - especially considering how much it promotes spending like a drunken sailor to win.

A-Rod and the Yankees can go screw themselves.

brewhawk:

You're king of the forum act with your girlfriend Badger doesn't play with me.

brewhawk:

I'm sure your girlfriend can speak for himself, though.

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

TheDude:

badger80:

I am confidant that I am a better scout that you.  Please...try to prove me wrong.

You walked into this one yourself.

Earlier this year I believe Brewhawk made a good, descriptive breakdown of why he thought Weeks' swing had too much going on before he actually swung the bat.  

You chimed in with a comment along the lines of, "you're so wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about," except it was one of your usual one-liners.

That week Sveum broke down what he was doing with Weeks' swing and stated nearly exactly what Brewhawk said earlier that week.

That said, this doesn't neccessarily mean he knows more than you do or vis versa.  However, I do think people know more about the game than others.  I know I have experience in working with high schoolers and evaluating talent; granted it's on a very low level.  Yet, that's probably more experience in evaluating talent than many other people have.  Guys like Einstein read the literature and are more intune with the game in that regard.  Radio obviously does the research individually that would require several people to fulfill other wise in a front office. Others have seen more games of professional ball first hand than I have ever seen or will see.

I guess he just forgot about that one.

Congratulations.

I'm sure Badger will be "running for his life" now because someone pointed to one example where you happened to say something before a coach confirmed that he somewhat agreed with what you said in an interview. 

Yeah, right.  Nice freakin' try.

I'm sure your girlfriend can speak for himself, though.

I enjoy a good ol' personal attack as much as the next guy, but couldn't you knock it down from 7th grade insults to 4th grade insults for old times' sake?

For example: I'm sure your butt buddy can speak for himself, though.

I find this insult much more politically correct, and it implies the same thing without saying it outright, the gay undertones are still apparent... and best of all you also get to see the effective use of alliteration.

TheDude:

badger80:

I am confidant that I am a better scout that you.  Please...try to prove me wrong.

You walked into this one yourself.

Earlier this year I believe Brewhawk made a good, descriptive breakdown of why he thought Weeks' swing had too much going on before he actually swung the bat.  

You chimed in with a comment along the lines of, "you're so wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about," except it was one of your usual one-liners.

That week Sveum broke down what he was doing with Weeks' swing and stated nearly exactly what Brewhawk said earlier that week.

That said, this doesn't neccessarily mean he knows more than you do or vis versa.  However, I do think people know more about the game than others.  I know I have experience in working with high schoolers and evaluating talent; granted it's on a very low level.  Yet, that's probably more experience in evaluating talent than many other people have.  Guys like Einstein read the literature and are more intune with the game in that regard.  Radio obviously does the research individually that would require several people to fulfill other wise in a front office. Others have seen more games of professional ball first hand than I have ever seen or will see.

Brewhawk hates the Rickie Weeks bat waggle.  I pointed out that for how much he moves the bat up at the plate, the motion actually stops when he loads his hands (meaning he's not Gary Sheffield).  Svuem came out and said that Weeks should settle down the waggle (though not get rid of it).  Seems like you could call that a draw at best since he was never told to eliminate the bat waggle, just settle down.

You should look up the facts because you tend to "misremember" a lot of what goes on around here.  Do need help with any other arguments?  I can lend a hand since you seem to need it.