RagahRagah

Sorry I hold people to what they say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you don't, it kinda defeats the point of an argument. Everyone wants to express their thoughts but no one wants to be wrong. The lack of answers to my questions and subsequent disappearances says everything; your empty, pithy response falls in the same line. I care about making points, not quips for the sake of amusement or admiration. Someone might call this "pedantic" but again, if you can't call someone out for obvious falsehoods then what's the point of arguing in a forum in the first place?

He had already stated he watched none this year.

This post and the post you yourself quoted from Orlando are TWO excellent examples of the childish behavior you won't see me partaking in. I'm looking for cohesive arguments from adults. Luckily there is a lot of that on this forum. Unfortunately there are always exceptions.

Eh, my problem is I don't do that "agree to disagree" stuff when I'm presenting factual information. It just usually ends with the the other person refusing to answer a basic question and then disappearing (it's already happened multiple times).

No, you did not. You never stated that you understood my explanation. If you had, you wouldn't still be posting in ire against me because we'd be in agreement and that would indicate original position was incorrect (which it was).

LOL please explain where the straw man arguments are because I didn't even talk about arguments from anybody else, I simply explained the process of making good decisions versus bad ones. I'm thinking you might not know what a strawman actually is. I asked a legitimate question to another poster and you turned it around on me. Instead of just let it be and have him answer the question I was asking him. That's a form of whataboutism.

Ok, which fallacy did I commit? You responding before you could have possibly read the entire post and absorbed it is a little telling, too. Not to mention justifying someone else not being able to answer a question. Whataboutism. Guess what? That's a logical fallacy, bud. Nothing like committing a fallacy while accusing someone else of doing so.

No, they are not. It's very simple, statistics aren't even necessary. You make bad decisions consistently, you will have bad results. You make good decisions consistently, you will have good results. A good result after a bad decision is fortunate but not commendable. A bad result after a good decision is of no fault. Renteria made abysmal decision after abysmal decision, game after game. As a result, we lost the division and 6 spots in seeding in a week. It is absolutely reasonable to pin that on Renteria because win or lose, he made constant bad decisions and therefore is to blame. By your rationale the manager is never at fault It's really very simple. This is 100% objective.

I love when someone attempts a soft landing and subsequent disappearance after failing to answer a simple, direct question.

And I invalidated that point easily and you've had no follow-up. Third time I will ask you this: A manager is at fault if he doesn't put his team in the best position to win and they lose. If he puts them in the best position and they lose, it's not his fault. Do you understand? Not answering a question would indicate you don't have the answer or have to much pride to have to admit you missed it. So far the few people that have really come at me lecture me about things that they fail to explain. You can't say someone doesn't grasp something then fail to explain it. Little Dunning-Kruger effect there.

Either way he's conceding defeat without saying it. I'm not exactly seeing solid analysis.

You completely ignored my points and merely played victim, and did nothing else with the post. The comment about your son to make me look like a bad guy was silly. And shows you can't handle the argument.

Your lashing out in tantrums rather than attempting to understand is telling. To literally admit you know nothing of metrics or managing impact while professing an uneducated opinion about those things is absurd. How can you profess opinions on things you admit you don't understand?

You didn't read what I said at all. There's no way for me to extrapolate what would have happened had Renteria not made bad decisions. Telling me I don't understand statistics because I can't extrapolate them from thin air is laughable to say the very least. The point was that putting your team in the best position to win is what dictates fault or not. If you put your team in a good position and they lose, it's not your fault. Again I ASK: do you understand this? If you seriously want to ask me for exact examples of Renteria failing to do that then we can be here all day.

It doesn't take brilliance, just common sense. If you don't understand how simple decisions managers make or don't make affect the game then you probably don't process any information when actually watching a baseball game.

Then why do you even post.

I stated why he's at fault for the losses and it's a simple equation. Can you tell me why he deserves credit for wind? Simply because they won? Not even all those games are won because the manager made good decisions. In that mindset, any team over .500 has a good manager. The bad argumentation is only your own.

Your "point" is a gross simplification of numerous facets of the topic because you don't understand them enough to be analytical in even a rudimentary sense.

It is if you understand how logic works. There's no guarantee the Sox hang on to win those games, true. But they were commanding each and Renteria fucked them up, period. The losses are on him because he didn't put his team in the best position to win. If he DOES do that and they lose, he's not at fault. The process is what dictates fault, not the outcome. There is literally nothing subjective about that. Do you understand now? Now please explain YOUR position.

If it's absurd, then please explain exactly to the tee what Renteria contributed. Because if my position is absurd, you will absolutely be able to give concrete examples. For all we know, Renteria lost the faith and admiration of all the players in the last couple weeks. Your logic seems to be that the manager absolutely must be credited with numerous wins but must not be blamed for numerous losses. You saying Renteria didn't cost them three to four losses is absolutely absurd because it's very clear that he cost them much more than that many. Sorry, but you're just wrong. Again, that Cleveland series is all anyone needs to disprove your ridiculousness. But there's far more examples than just those. I'm not sure if blind loyalty in delusion is your problem or just a lack of comprehension but you're way off base to say the very least.

Another person talking about "logic" who clearly doesn't understand it. You're suggesting our mindset should be to stay with the expectations on paper before the beginning of the season and ignore how things have actually been going accordingly? That's one of the most obtuse things I've ever heard in my life. So once they win some arbitrary amount of games we might have expected before the season we should just stop expecting wins and stop TRYING to win? Please don't talk about logic and fallacies because this post is such a bizarre violation of common sense it's staggering. We actually were in line to win the division. Our manager arguably cost us that, as well as good seeding. Who gives a fuck what people expected at the beginning of the season? Good Lord...

You can at least go for 2 years.

Our manager literally might have cost us the division and we went from seed 1 to seed 7 in a week largely attributed to abysmal managing. I don't know what you're trying to say. I've seen your unfailing optimism and I appreciate it, but there's a time for realism. Realism is, managers make a big difference and ours cost us big time. You make way too many excuses and your narrative that managing isn't important is a blatant disregard of common knowledge.

They mean much. If this past season for the Sox hasn't shown you that I don't know what the hell will.

Well, sure. But why would we be aiming for a 1 year deal?