[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by Brittingham.Sam

And if you remember my original post about this a page ago i said his poor showing in the AFL "may" have hurt his stock a little. And yes age does matter IF WE ARE COMPARING TWO PLAYERS, which i did not start anyway. YOU started the comparisons with trout!

I didn't say everyone's stock plummits if they have a bad AFL. I said it may be a contributing factor as to why some pundits have Hamilton as low as 30th.

That contributing factor comment is wrong. Prospect pundits do not seriously consider the small sample size of the AFL, as evidenced by the history of prospects and some of their poor AFL numbers.

Originally Posted by Brittingham.Sam

My few comment about the AFL having some influence has spiraled into an argument about his arm strength and Mike Trout. And NEWS FLASH Hamilton is not as highly touted as Posey, Trout, or Fowler were.

NEWS FLASH: You may want to check your math there. Hamilton is similar to Fowler in terms of prospect-dom. He's close to Posey. IN John Sickels' mid-season review, for example, Hamilton's ranked as the 15th best prospect in the game. Fowler (16th) and Posey (14th) were ranked right around there after their poor AFL seasons.

And it's an argument because these two comments you made are questionable at best and outright wrong at worst.

Hamilton's arm is more than acceptable-- he threw in the 90s as a high schooler. (This has been verified, IIRC, in an ESPN article.)

And Mike Trout was used as an example of a prospect that didn't drop in the eyes of prospect mavens or scouts after a poor AFL-- an AFL season that was worse than Hamilton's, in fact.

Originally Posted by Brittingham.Sam

There are alot more differing opinions on Hamilton currently than there were with those guys 3 and 4 years ago. Which could be a contributing factor to his volatility in rankings.

Perhaps.

Originally Posted by Brittingham.Sam

I'm not wrong, YOU sir pick and choose what you wanted to read from my posts because you are a Kool-Aid drinking reds fan who is going bannanas about Hamilton (as you probably should) and cannot possibly stomach the notion that some other people may not think Hamilton is the second coming of Ty Cobb.

You may want to review the posting histories of Redszone regulars. I'm not typically one who goes "bannanas" (sp) over prospects. For instance, I haven't really liked Yonder Alonso, Devin Mesoraco, or Mike Leake all that much.

I certainly don't think Hamilton will become the "next Ty Cobb." My hope is that he turns out to be a Brett Butler clone. I recognize that as his ceiling, mind you, and would be very happy with him turning out to be Juan Pierre offensively.

I do find it telling that you'd attack the arguer and not the argument. Here at Redszone, we prefer the latter. It makes for better discussion.

Originally Posted by Brittingham.Sam

Furthermore!, it is possible for two people to draw separate conclusions from the same set of data, which is something that a loud minority of people on this board do not understand.

True, two people can draw different conclusions from the same data. However, data-- cold, hard facts-- have to be correct. You provided erroneous data as a conclusion, then got mad and called me named after I corrected it.