On "you supported/hated X, your argument is invalid" posts

[Schad]

Over the past couple days, there have been a bunch of reports/PMs about posts in which past opinions of members are being raised as a means to win arguments rather than actually engaging with the content of the posts. It's getting an announcement rather than individual warnings because god knows we've all been guilty of it at one point or another, but the frequency seems to be increasing, along with the volume.

And it needs to stop for a pretty simple reason: anyone with more than a handful of posts about trades/signings/the draft has been woefully wrong about something, often several giant glaring somethings. Baseball is that sort of sport, and it's rather possible to hold a differing opinion a year or two later, because much can change. Use past opinions as a cudgel against current ones and you invite others to counter with those somethings at which point no actual discussion takes place and we all descend into a fiery pit of derp. And no one wants that.

So, let it be. The guiding principle should be relevance to the topic at hand and timeliness; if Jose Bautista strikes out in the first inning, and I say that he's past it and should be amnestied, it's perfectly fine to point that out when, an hour later, he hits a home run and I declare him the man who will lead us to a title. If I'm arguing that Bautista is a very good hitter, digging up the post (and it exists) from early 2009 where I express deep reservations about dropping $2.4m on such a mediocrity is probably less relevant. Digging up the thread where I rage because we traded Brett Wallace is definitely not an argument-winner...hilarious, maybe, just not terribly likely to enhance the discussion de jour.

tl;dr Engage the argument itself, because trying to impugn the credibility of posters is a pointless exercise: none of us have any.

[Randle McMurphy]

On the contrary, I think everyone should bring up how I mercilessly ripped the Marcum for Lawrie deal years ago. Keeps me humble.

[Schad]

I have no problems with my (many) failings getting mentioned, either. But it ain't an argument, and shouldn't be used as such...if someone dislikes a move/decision/whatever, contesting that should consist of pointing out the problems with their dislike of that instance, not something they said a year or five before.

[tecumseh18]

On the contrary, I think everyone should bring up how I mercilessly ripped the Marcum for Lawrie deal years ago. Keeps me humble.

Or the Wallace for Gose trade (not that it has made a big difference either way).

But I think the issue here is not posting history, but hierarchy. Baseball, more than basketball, is a game of numbers. Always was, now even more so. The board members who can argue advanced stats consider themselves - perhaps rightly - to be a tier above those they perceive to be more casual, bandwagon fans (CBFs).

So when a CBF expresses a negative viewpoint about the team, the stathead guys become enraged - not at the opinion, but at the temerity of a mere CBF for expressing it. The fact that the CBF in issue is reversing themselves is just icing on the cake.

Also, to get specific, Randle had heavily advocated for the types and timing of the moves the Jays made to attempt to achieve contender status last year, and maybe he takes the 20-20 hindsight arguments a bit too personally.

Anyway, (SSS alert) we're winning. So whatever.

[Michael Bradley]

On the contrary, I think everyone should bring up how I mercilessly ripped the Marcum for Lawrie deal years ago. Keeps me humble.

I'm the opposite.

I feel people should only bring up that I hated the Napoli deal and Francisco signing, while loving the Morrow, Escobar, and Rasmus deals.

The fact that I felt the Jays should have gotten more for Marcum, that they signed Bautista to an extension too soon, that Maicer Izturis was a solid signing, etc, shall never be mentioned again.

[BigLeagueChew]

i was excited to see Drabek pitch for the first time 2 years ago until I was quickly put in my place. never again!

[Randle McMurphy]

Also, to get specific, Randle had heavily advocated for the types and timing of the moves the Jays made to attempt to achieve contender status last year, and maybe he takes the 20-20 hindsight arguments a bit too personally.

I don't think I take much of anything personal here, but I will say the use of hindsight-based arguments is always the worst.

It's not exactly difficult, for example, to say that the Ricky Romero contract turned out to be a poor decision. The real question that you have to ask (in order to properly evaluate the process), though, is whether it any made sense to give him that deal at the time.

[Santoki]

I'm fine with tooting your own horn every once in awhile but it does get a bit tiresome to read it as the precursor to every single post. I won't mention any names but l tend to skip over their posts.

[Hoopstarr]

Also, to get specific, Randle had heavily advocated for the types and timing of the moves the Jays made to attempt to achieve contender status last year, and maybe he takes the 20-20 hindsight arguments a bit too personally.

I don't think I take much of anything personal here, but I will say the use of hindsight-based arguments is always the worst.

It's not exactly difficult, for example, to say that the Ricky Romero contract turned out to be a poor decision. The real question that you have to ask (in order to properly evaluate the process), though, is whether it any made sense to give him that deal at the time.

How's "mediocre pitcher" Gio Gonzalez doing these days?

[Randle McMurphy]

Also, to get specific, Randle had heavily advocated for the types and timing of the moves the Jays made to attempt to achieve contender status last year, and maybe he takes the 20-20 hindsight arguments a bit too personally.

I don't think I take much of anything personal here, but I will say the use of hindsight-based arguments is always the worst.

It's not exactly difficult, for example, to say that the Ricky Romero contract turned out to be a poor decision. The real question that you have to ask (in order to properly evaluate the process), though, is whether it any made sense to give him that deal at the time.

How's "mediocre pitcher" Gio Gonzalez doing these days?

Pitching in the AAAA National League probably.

[Hoopstarr]

Pitching in the AAAA National League probably.

Haha. What can we do about "you don't pitch in the AL East so you can't be great" posts?

[Randle McMurphy]

Pitching in the AAAA National League probably.

Haha. What can we do about "you don't pitch in the AL East so you can't be great" posts?

Oh, there are plenty of great pitchers in the NL (Kershaw, Fernandez, Wainwright, Lee among them). Gio Gonzalez certainly isn't one of them, though.

[Hoopstarr]

Pitching in the AAAA National League probably.

Haha. What can we do about "you don't pitch in the AL East so you can't be great" posts?

Oh, there are plenty of great pitchers in the NL (Kershaw, Fernandez, Wainwright, Lee among them). Gio Gonzalez certainly isn't one of them, though.

Nah, they're not great because they run up their stats in the "AAAA National League".

[Randle McMurphy]

Haha. What can we do about "you don't pitch in the AL East so you can't be great" posts?

Oh, there are plenty of great pitchers in the NL (Kershaw, Fernandez, Wainwright, Lee among them). Gio Gonzalez certainly isn't one of them, though.

Nah, they're not great because they run up their stats in the "AAAA National League".

The lack of competition certainly helps their stats, but the guys I named have the skill set to pitch very well in any division/league. Not entirely sure that applies to a pitcher with a career BB/9 over 4.00.

[Hoopstarr]

You named like 4 guys who are "great" (semantics jerkfest alert) to exclude half a league of players at the highest level of baseball in the world. Your argument is as stupid as ever.

[Randle McMurphy]

You named like 4 guys who are "great" (semantics jerkfest alert) to exclude half a league of players at the highest level of baseball in the world. Your argument is as stupid as ever.

What argument? You decided to troll in this thread because you apparently hold some kind of grudge with me, so I responded in kind.

If you really want to get into a discussion over how good Gio Gonzalez is for whatever reason, that's fine. We can do that. But that wasn't your intention here.

[Hoopstarr]

What grudge? I'm pointing out how stupid it is to think half the league might as well be a minor league, which you apparently still believe.

[Randle McMurphy]

What grudge? I'm pointing out how stupid it is to think half the league might as well be a minor league, which you apparently still believe.

You tell me. You're the one who decided to troll me in this thread and go off on this tangent. Obviously the NL statement was facetious hyperbole in response to that (although it is statistically much more of a pitcher's league).

[Hoopstarr]

It's been a consistent argument of yours for a long time, hence "which you apparently still believe". And you're the one who prompted others to point to you being wrong.

To bring this back on topic, I was wrong to think missing out on Chapman wasn't a big deal. Even AA openly regretted it. Going further back, I thought Overbay would become one of the best all-around 1B in the league for us.

[Randle McMurphy]

It's been a consistent argument of yours for a long time, hence "which you apparently still believe". And you're the one who prompted others to point to you being wrong.

That the NL is the easier league to pitch in, yes. That it's a AAAA league full of David Coopers? As I said, that was just hyperbole in response to your trolling.