Firstly:

 

Anyone who's worked a significant job understands the importance of leadership - to push you to do your best when the situation is at it's worst.

 

However, for me, this has always come from somebody above me - normally my boss, but at the very least my supervisor. I have never, and likely would never, find leadership in a coworker. This shows a breakdown in management, that they are failing to do their job. And at which point, why would I work hard under poor management?

 

In baseball terms, it is the mangers job to be the fielder leader. It is not a "teammates" job. You stating that this team lacks leadership is not a problem with the roster, it is a problem in management. Your pointing your finger in the wrong direction. The manger is there to leader. The roster is there to play. If your expect the roster to lead, there's a breakdown in the process.

 

Secondly:

 

What is one person's leadership is another persons annoyance. Acting like there's a catch-all "leadership" is foolish.

 

Thirdly:

 

Your examples are: "This person was a leader and your stupid if you didn't see it. And if you thought that guy was a leader, you're stupid."

 

Do you not see the issue with that?

 

Regarding your your first and second point, we'll have to agree to disagree. Regarding your third point, I do not recall writing that.

 

 

That's not what I said. What I mean is that there are certain things that could influence performance. For example, Yelich's performance might be bad for a couple of months because of a back injury and might improve as his condition improves. Stats measure this change and enable you to account for it.

 

Then your analysis of stats is incomplete as you have discounted other factors such as an emotional state of being during his rehabilitation. Your fallacy is you place all your emphasis on stats and no where else. It's why your arguments will naturally fail but since your head is so far up your ass why should you care? Of course, this has been a reason why I haven't engaged you recently because it's a complete waste of time reasoning with you. But hey, if it turns you on to make these statements, have at it! I've had my fill for now.

 

There was no reason to attack nny there. He, like all of us should, evaluate players and teams based on what they produce on the field. Regardless of emotions being important or not, we can't evaluate players on matters that can't be quantified.

 

 

There was no reason to attack nny there. He, like all of us should, evaluate players and teams based on what they produce on the field. Regardless of emotions being important or not, we can't evaluate players on matters that can't be quantified.

 

How did I attack him? I simply said I disagreed with his position.

 

You said his head was up his own ass. You said answering his posts is a complete waste of time. I don't know how you can read your own post and see it as something other than over the top.

 

 

You said his head was up his own ass. You said answering his posts is a complete waste of time. I don't know how you can read your own post and see it as something other than over the top.

 

That was not referring to nny.

 

Then your analysis of stats is incomplete as you have discounted other factors such as an emotional state of being during his rehabilitation. Your fallacy is you place all your emphasis on stats and no where else. It's why your arguments will naturally fail but since your head is so far up your ass why should you care? Of course, this has been a reason why I haven't engaged you recently because it's a complete waste of time reasoning with you. But hey, if it turns you on to make these statements, have at it! I've had my fill for now.

 

Emotional states of being? Who are you? The Dalai Lama? :lol

 

You said his head was up his own ass. You said answering his posts is a complete waste of time. I don't know how you can read your own post and see it as something other than over the top.

 

He was directing that at me.

 

 

Oh then that's all cool.