Phrases Which Have Officially Jumped the Shark

[PuffyPig]

I think the following phrases are entirely used too much on Redszone and should be officially retired:

1. "He's scrappy". Even if he is. Especially if he is.
2. "Why is "Player X" hitting leadoff"? Because he is. Learn to accept it.
3. "Why is Dunn hitting 5th"? Because he is. Learn to accept it.
4. "Leatherpants". Just a very bad visual.
5. "Bowden likes "toolsy" players". Bad memories.
6. "Why is Phillips hitting cleanup"? See #2 and #3 above.
7. "Why don't be do a deal with Pena's agent to allow him to be sent to the minors"? I don't know. We should have. I guess we were just too dumb to ask.
8. "Encarnacion should be sent to the minors". No he shouldn't. He never should have either.
9. "Encanacion should be batting cleanup". Yep, but see #6 above.
10. "Dunn should be moved to first base". "Griffey should be moved to first base". "Encarnacion should be moved to first base". Funny, you never hear that Votto should simply stay at first base. And he should.
11. "How can we have 3 catchers on the roster"? Or as I like to refer to it, the "Devil's Triangle". Nuff said about that.
12. "Dave Duncan can fix any pitcher and make him great". I don't care if it's true (it's not, or at least it's not likely true), I don't want to hear it and I don't want to read it.
13. "The Cards are better than the Reds". See #12 above.
14. "Jumped the Shark". I used it here for the last time. I'd consider using it again, but everytime I do I think of Fonzy wearing a bathing suit and a leather jacket. I should be thankful it wasn't a leather bathing suit. Now, Fonzy was "scrappy". But not as scrappy as Mrs. C.

Any others to be added?

[princeton]

"I completely agree with princeton"


I mean, after 500,000 times, it's really understood isn't it?

[acredsfan]

I agree with princeton....

Oh wait, I agree with post number 2.

[RedsManRick]

15. "stat guys". Or any of the variations thereof. Scouting and data analysis are simply two different ways to gather information about baseball players, teams, etc. The are not in competition, period. There's no need to categorize those people who choose to use quantitative methods in addition to the qualitative ones. Anybody who chooses to use less information than what is available should be considered suspect - regardless of which bias they show.

An aside, my personal experience has shown that people versed in the quantitative side are much more appreciative of the value of the qualitative side than the other way around. I find that calling people "stat guys", often implying "basement-dwelling", "noses stuck in spreadsheets" and the like, often simple insecure bullying from people who are afraid of the limits of their own knowledge. Using those terms often makes it unclear whether you are simply trying to generalize a person's comfort level with certain types of analysis or if you are participating in the bullying game.

16. "baseball man". This means something different to each person who uses it. However, I find it's generally referring to somebody who has been involved in the game a very long time and who is implied to have special knowledge not accessible to outsiders. Said knowledge is often unarticulated, making it unclear whether the person really does have some great expertise, or whether they are trying to inflate their value out of respect, confusion, or otherwise.

17. "luck". Not entirely, but let's be more accurate with our terms and use "variation", where appropriate. For example, Arroyo has not really been "unlucky" so far this year. However, the performance we've observed from him to date is such that it is within an expected range of variance, given the relatively small sample, even if his true level of skill had not changed at all. Therefore, we cannot conclude that he is likely a worse pitcher (as in less capable) this year than he was last year.

[BCubb2003]

I have nothing to say.

[nate]

"Dusty favors vets"
"Win now"
"Adam Dunn is/isn't....."

and!

"just like I thought"

[princeton]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

An aside, my personal experience has shown that people versed in the quantitative side are much more appreciative of the value of the qualitative side than the other way around.

howdy stranger. Welcome to Redszone.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

15. "stat guys". Or any of the variations thereof. Scouting and data analysis are simply two different ways to gather information about baseball players, teams, etc. The are not in competition, period. There's no need to categorize those people who choose to use quantitative methods in addition to the qualitative ones. Anybody who chooses to use less information than what is available should be considered suspect - regardless of which bias they show.

An aside, my personal experience has shown that people versed in the quantitative side are much more appreciative of the value of the qualitative side than the other way around. I find that calling people "stat guys", often implying "basement-dwelling", "noses stuck in spreadsheets" and the like, often simple insecure bullying from people who are afraid of the limits of their own knowledge. Using those terms often makes it unclear whether you are simply trying to generalize a person's comfort level with certain types of analysis or if you are participating in the bullying game.

16. "baseball man". This means something different to each person who uses it. However, I find it's generally referring to somebody who has been involved in the game a very long time and who is implied to have special knowledge not accessible to outsiders. Said knowledge is often unarticulated, making it unclear whether the person really does have some great expertise, or whether they are trying to inflate their value out of respect, confusion, or otherwise.

17. "luck". Not entirely, but let's be more accurate with our terms and use "variation", where appropriate. For example, Arroyo has not really been "unlucky" so far this year. However, the performance we've observed from him to date is such that it is within an expected range of variance, given the relatively small sample, even if his true level of skill had not changed at all. Therefore, we cannot conclude that he is likely a worse pitcher (as in less capable) this year than he was last year.

Whatever you say, stat guy.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

An aside, my personal experience has shown that people versed in the quantitative side are much more appreciative of the value of the qualitative side than the other way around.

I can't argue personal experience, so I won't.

[REDREAD]

"XYZ says hi"
"Fixed that for you" (after someone edits quoted text).

Now that you know my pet peeves, I expect to see them more often

[MrCinatit]

"Roger Clemens has been accused of..."

[11larkin11]

So the Reds drop game X of the series...

[Dan]

Originally Posted by princeton

"I completely agree with princeton"


I mean, after 500,000 times, it's really understood isn't it?

I disagree.

It's 499,999 times, to be precise.

[Big Klu]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

"XYZ says hi"
"Fixed that for you" (after someone edits quoted text).

Now that you know my pet peeves, I expect to see them more often

Those drive me nuts, too!

[Tommyjohn25]

I say the phrase "jump the shark" has jumped the shark.