JTWood wrote:You want to post for me? I'll give you my password, and you can write these up on your own to your standards.
I'll write them how I see fit based on my perceptions of the intelligence of the people that post here. I apologize for overestimating yours.
I'm done here. Feel free to talk to yourself ad infinitum.
Wow, you're one ungrateful person! I give you a compliment and you trash me. Do you cuss out people if they hold open doors for you too? With regard to your more in-depth analysis of his "control issues," my comment that you should have included in your original post was a compliment with regard to it being useful, informative information, which I even said. That was useful information for anyone who didn't see the game don't you think? This has to be the first time someone trashed me for complementing some information they posted. Are you always this ungrateful?
As for the rest of what I said, if you look at what you originally said it's far more negative sounding then positive. All I was arguing is that given the situation he did better then most pitchers would have done. Do you disagree with that? The degree of negativity in your original post implied you did. Your last post, which I responded too, made it sound as if you didn't, hence to poor word choice comment. You seem to take offense at that, because oh no, you're too perfect to have ever written something ambiguous. Well it was, so where exactly do you stand on the issue? Do you agree or disagree that he did better then most pitchers would have if placed in that same situation under the same conditions (no pitching in games for a month and coming back from an injury)? If you disagree then why?
californiasunshine wrote:JT is a great poster, and in case you want to reread what he wrote (maybe it takes you 10 or so times but w/e) he said TRIUMPHANT return.......Let's chalk it up to poor reading comprehension since incase you didn't know; Triumphant is usually when your REALLY good, I'd say CC was more pretty damn lucky that game proven both by his WHIP and from what I say watching the same.
Yep, you're right, we can chalk it up to your poor reading comprehension. You need go re-read it again, because you don't understand the context in which he used the word triumphant
. He said "I would hardly say it was a triumphant return
." In that context hardly
negates the meaning of the word it modifies, in this case triumphant
. So in this case, whether it's what he meant or not, the meaning of what he typed was it was NOT
a triumphant return. If that's not what he meant then it was poor word choice/phrasing as I previously said. I think he meant to be rather negative in that situation though, which is the point of contention. He did add a slightly positive note at the end but overall was more far more negative then positive.
BTW, isn't it mark of a good pitcher to be able to pitch out of jams when they don't have their best stuff? That's what I always hear when watching baseball on TV or reading game summaries or related baseball articles. It's not just mainly luck or Adam Eaton would be a good pitcher. Also Carp's WHIP in that game was 1.00 (3 hits + 2 walks in 5 innings unless the box score is wrong). Since when is a WHIP of 1.00 considered bad? Maybe you should check the box score next time before posting.