Farrell

[a700hitter]

And you refuse to define in any way what I am supposedly invalidating. What does it mean to believe in clutch? What is the meaning of clutch? Is clutch dependent on results? Does clutch produce observable actions? How do you feel clutch? What tells you when you are looking at a clutch player?

You are not getting it are you? I don't give a shit what you think or believe. If it makes you feel better, you can declare victory, and I will not dispute it other than to say that you haven't proved or disproved anything.

[a700hitter]

It is patently obvious what you are doing.

Mastering the discussion.

[illinoisredsox]

Mastering the discussion.

That's one interpretation; there are others that are just as viable.

[devildavid]

You are not getting it are you? I don't give a shit what you think or believe. If it makes you feel better, you can declare victory, and I will not dispute it other than to say that you haven't proved or disproved anything.

I'm not asking you to give a shit. I'm asking you to tell me what clutch is, in your view. You have so far failed to do that. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to get you to define what we are debating, but you refuse to do that. Is clutch dependent on actual results, or is it merely something you believe that you see in someone?

[Bellhorn04]

You two both have to pack it in on this, really. This has been going on for page after page and it's still going nowhere.

[a700hitter]

You two both have to pack it in on this, really. This has been going on for page after page and it's still going nowhere.

I have. It is pretty clear that I told him that it was done. He wants me to make his case for him. I have no interest in that.

[devildavid]

I have. It is pretty clear that I told him that it was done. He wants me to make his case for him. I have no interest in that.

No, I want you to tell me how you know someone is clutch and you have failed to do it. I am not arguing a case. I am debating a concept.

[a700hitter]

No, I want you to tell me how you know someone is clutch and you have failed to do it. I am not arguing a case. I am debating a concept.

I am not interested in debating this with you as I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. On the other hand, if you want to present a compelling case of why clutch doesn't exist using definitive measures, I can't stop you and I will read it and consider it. Otherwise, just stop.

[d-money]

Time to give Farrell the pink slip!

[cp176]

People can believe anything they want. There is nothing to stop them. That does not mean all beliefs mean anything except to the individual. I didn't realize that clutch was merely a belief. I thought it was dependent on actual results in game situations. If it is only a belief then I can believe I am a clutch MLB hitter without even having to prove it on the field. We aren't discussing religion, are we?

Of course what constitutes clutch players and clutch situations is a belief. I'm sure that both exist and hope that no one ever can come up with a definitive way to prove the existence of either. As I have said many times sort of this is why I believe people who have real experience in athletics know more about what it really means than those who don't. You don't believe that - that is fine. Your attempts to intellectually stun me really are accomplishing much. I'm the guy who just coughed up a bunch of $ because the tooth fairy just made a visit.

[Spudboy]

DD, he's lawyering you. He's going to keep peppering you with questions and he will NEVER answer a question you ask him.

What's the matter boys? Didn't your Mother breast feed you?

[S5Dewey]

DD, he's lawyering you. He's going to keep peppering you with questions and he will NEVER answer a question you ask him.

Interesting. I saw that as completely the opposite, that DD is trying to perpetuate the "debate" by being obtuse and evasive. Two of the people (three including me) in this "debate" had already said that they don't care what DD thinks and yet he continues to try to perpetuate the debate.

Perception is everything, I guess.

[a700hitter]

Interesting. I saw that as completely the opposite, that DD is trying to perpetuate the "debate" by being obtuse and evasive. Two of the people (three including me) in this "debate" had already said that they don't care what DD thinks and yet he continues to try to perpetuate the debate.

Perception is everything, I guess.

I don't think I could have said it any more clearly. Plus, he said it at least on one occasion that there was nothing anyone could say that could change his mind. That doesn't seem like a good faith offer to debate, so why bother. Let him make his case all that he wants, but I have no interest in trying to convince him, especially when he has prejudged the issue.

[notin]

No offense for sure but I would hate to live in a world where nothing could be believed in unless there had to be some sort of statistical proof to support it. A real believer in anything I'm pretty much sure doesn't feel a need to justify their feelings. There isn't always a right or wrong answer to every question.

That's not how belief works. It is how proof works. But there is a grey area between the two which some might call "faith"...

[notin]

I don't think I could have said it any more clearly. Plus, he said it at least on one occasion that there was nothing anyone could say that could change his mind. That doesn't seem like a good faith offer to debate, so why bother. Let him make his case all that he wants, but I have no interest in trying to convince him, especially when he has prejudged the issue.

Debating rarely changes anyone's mind. Most people are too close-minded and see the opposite side not as an opportunity for education, but as a conflicting thought that needs to be countered. And the belief in "proof" has turned into a selection of what "facts" fit your original side. This has become more and more evident with politics these days.