From: zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Electric Pancreas Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Hall of Famers
Keywords: I still have yet to see ANY evidence from you.
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:18:13 GMT
Organization: Aerobicize - The Ted Frank Way!

(Mike "Mr. Kill File" Fester) writes:
>source is self-impugning. You admit you don't know HOW they arrive at these 

I never said any such thing.

>numbers, they contradict what most people believe (ie, 3rd base is a TOUGHER
>defensive position than 1st) but you swallow it H,L & S.

T&P make no such claim, nor did I say they did.  What I said, which
you have attempted to twist was:

Interestingly, T&P also show Garvey to be a pretty good 3rd baseman
before his switch to first, in admittedly limited playing time.

How you get this to be self-impugning is beyond me.  Nor does it make
any statements about the relative difficult of playing first and
third.

>You also stated he had no footwork, a bad arm, etc, and yet was a decent
>3rd baseman.

I made no such claim about about him being a decent 3rd baseman.  His
footwork, as a first baseman, sucked rope.  Being a baseball player
and coach myself, I tend to study such things fairly carefully.

>And you claimed you don't know how they got the data. SO, you have a source 
>that lists a guy with (your words) no arm, bad footwork, and a proclivity to 
>let shots go down the line as a BAD 1st baseman, but a DECENT 3rd baseman.

I'm tired of having you put words in
my mouth.  It wasn't until I had lunch with a couple of other netters
on Sunday that simply choose to ignore you that I realized I was
wasting my time 'debating' with you.

>It doesn't make any sense, yet you don't question it in the slightest.

Rubbish.

>Objective evidence? Sorry, does your source keeps track of throws in the dirt,
>scooped out by 1st basemen? Probably not. 

Wrong, not that you care.

>Does it keep track of (eg) 
>successful plate-blockings? Again, probably not. So, not only will I make
>the statement "Garvey was a GOOD defensive 1st baseman", I will make the
>the staement "Scioscia was an OUTSTANDING plate blocker". No "objective source
>available for it. None, keine, nil, rei, bu, pick a word. I saw it happen,
>over and over again. Routinely. Often. Get the picture? Clear enough? What is
>confusing you here?

Your arrogance in choosing to believe your own subjective memory over
the observations of hundreds of people, which are immune to things
like subjective memory.  Not to mention your tone, your complete lack
of logical skills, and your complete inability to debate, discuss, or
even argue in a logical fashion.  I guess you could say I'm pretty
confused.  Not about Garvey's complete incompetence at first base
defensively, but about your tenacious hold on to illogic.  Tell me,
how did you handle being told there was no Santa Claus?  (Sorry,
Noel...  I didn't mean to break it to you this way, but Mr. and Mrs.
Steere asked me to...)

>Actually, it is YOU who responded, not me. And the term your looking for is
>"point and laugh".

Pshaw.  Yes, I responded to your original mindless post.  Guilty as
charged.  In retrospect, I was wrong to do so.  All I did was waste my
time and breath.  And not for the first time.  I worked for John
Anderson in 1980, too.  Call me a sucker for lost causes.

>Watch some old clips were he scoops Cey's and Russell's throws out of the dirt.

I have.  Watch some old clips of him missing ground balls three feet
to his right and left.  See also Lansford, Carney.

>And I state that your source is faulty. Point blank. 

Total Baseball II isn't perfect, I'll grant that.  But do you not
accept it as more valid than your personal observations?  Care to tell
us why?

>And your source has a serious logic flaw.

From the expert in such.

>How's this; explain how a guy with all the qualifications you mentioned makes
>a decent 3rd baseman.

Can't do it.  The skills necessary to play different positions are
different.  You don't need a rocket arm to play any position, nor
great footwork, nor anything else.  You can have an instinct.  Or,
more likely, you can play just a few games there, get lucky, and
superficially look good.  I didn't do an in-depth look at Garvey's
brief career as a third baseman.

FWIW, George Brett's form at 3rd was shaky, too, but he got the job
done.  There are exceptions.

If you'd like to convince me that your observations are more valid
than TB II, perhaps you could inform me of your qualifications as a
trained observer?  Why should I believe your observations over Total
Baseball II?

Simple enough question.


-- 
*    Gary Huckabay    * "So he's a squid?"  "Of the highest order." "Why do    *
*   "The net's most   *  you even respond to him?"  "It's like slowing down    *
*       huggable      *  to see car wrecks."  "Does anyone else pay him any    *
*       stathead."    *  mind?"  "No one else is as stupid as I am." - GH & KS *
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball