Quote:
Originally Posted by DTCromer
The ORG has pretty good posters who uses pythagorean theorem and a lot of seemingly useless baseball stats to prove to me Adam Dunn is a good defensive outfielder. It seems the posters in the Sun Deck are younger and don't understand the game as much as the ORG does. But the ORG has posters who are completely shortsighted who are negative about every little thing a person, especially WK, has done.
|
Yes, but the hot tubs and five star service on the ORG are to die for....
Seriously, I don't think anyone has argued that Dunn is good defensively. Some argue that PBP data indicate Dunn's defense dramatically mitigates his value while the other camp argues that while Dunn is bad defensively, the impact that his poor glove has on his value is dramatically overstated.
Concerning a general comment on the typical ORG member's perspective, i'd say the ORG is a very diverse place that may have some prolific posters but really doesn't have a prevailing viewpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTCromer
Overall, I like how you have separated the good from bad. But having to vote on a poster is ludicrous to get into the ORG. The reputation system is still in place and I feel like I have to agree with a lot of "important" people on this board or research those same old meaningless baseball stats for 3 hours before I can be considered a "good" poster
|
IMHO, neither stats nor the eyes tell the whole story and only through reconciling both can the whole truth be revealed in alot of cases. There seems to be alot of room in that equation for the opinions of old schoolers, statheads and just general baseball fans who don't think of themselves as either. It's each member's unique viewpoint and their ability to express it respectfully that is credited as valuable.
This is a content driven environment. While I can't speak for other ORG members, I personally don't evaluate other posters by consdering whether they agree with me or not. I'm drawn more to other posters that have opinions and an ability to explain/justify why they think the way they do while displaying a willingness to debate their beliefs without becoming defensive. I can most likely learn something from just about everyone who posts here at redszone. Besides the fact that debating/discussing baseball is fun (at least for me), I almost always come away being smarter. That's a neat thing. In the end, the criteria I use when voting is simply this: does the person in question consistently display a willingness to participate in/further a discussion while having something to say?