Reading is for comprehension. I explained pretty clearly why he said what he said. Nice to be swashbuckling internet tough guy, but in the real world there's a game to be played. Make no mistake about it, what he's thinking is closer to what you said. But that's why he's where he is and you are where you are.
Now Matts....you lived in the corporate world, you of all people have witnessed this type of thing many times.
Funny, I don't recall Orwell making the term doublespeak positive in any fashion. But your welcome to quote from 1984 and prove me wrong. "To go in another direction" is a euphanism, common to business-speak. And while some euphemisms can be doublespeak, this example doesn't have the proper context. But hey is that's doublespeak from a carpet bagging Yankee to a southerner, so be it.
Ah, so then by this premise its plausible that Kevin Long was no longer getting players buying what he was selling. Not some and not all...but enough to warrant firing and "going in another direction." I rest my case.
Uh uh oh oh, "I can neither confirm or deny"...... In my defense, I was deep into a bottle of spirits to late into the night, after being up 20 hrs..... I know I know, I re-read my own thread this morn, and said: Rob, damn it go to bed next time, and quit stumbling over your tongue, I mean fingers.....
I got drunk last night, and passed out in a phone booth, some dude insisted it was his changing room......go figure, he left his backpack with a funny outfit in it, including a cape.....
...wtf does Orwell and a book written in 1949 have to do with this? Words, terms, and their accepted uses change over the years. Like I already pointed out, the term has more than one usage and meaning, and you "assumed" the incorrect one...your mistake. ...how many different definition sources would you like? ...And stop telling me what context I was using the term in and my intent...because you obviously have no idea. In post #2, rick asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer. Again, "doublespeak" does not necessarily have to be a good or a bad thing. Cashman did not want to go into detail so he used the euphemistic "going in another direction". But for whatever reason, you decided to interject your own version of the meaning and went off on a tangent of grammatical hair splitting. ...clear it up for ya?
Sometimes I can't help but wonder if you actually believe half the shit you spit out. So for ALL our benefits, please explain EXACTLY what genius Cashman meant when he used the term "Going in another direction". Its a fucking hitting coach, what OTHER direction could he go?
...lmao..."rest your case"?...on what? ...when did I praise Long?...I didn't. And after explaining it on multiple occasions, you still can't grasp what I really took issue with. You're still stuck on Long alone and that was never the sticking point with me...rest your case?...gimme a fucking break. ...don't know what your problem is lately, and like I've said before, I really don't care.
Ya'll are right pretty much spot on.... I've read in numerous sources, bios, even Wiki states, "Carew helped the Angels hit >.40 points higher during his tenure as Halo's Hitting Coach..." Yet no articles have provided the specific details to prove so.... I've looked at the Angels Batting Averages, (less the Pitchers inter-league at bats), and I just don't see it at all. Sure the Angels did hit 40 points higher one year. Yet- those stats don't take into account the rookie Darren Erstads 1st year record, of obtaining more hits than any other Angel rookie in the history of the Org. It doesn't take into account ANY variables, like 2nd and 3rd year players, who finally found their swing, timing or groove. Doesn't take into account, roster changes, obtaining other players from outside the org, albeit FA's or Trades. Time equates to improvement in most matters, other than decadence, which often abounds in its own rite. I've poured over those stats in the time frame Carew was the Hitting Instructor, and just DON'T SEE IT. Again, the statement quoted, lacks any and all specifics to prove its own point. 2ndly, had Carew really enabled Angels Hitters to improve their averages, then why didn't the same apply or happen, when Carew became the BrewHaHas hitting instructor????????? I don't see it, and: Men manipulate numbers to their own advantage, to say what they want them to say, take shit make it look and smell like a rose, or take a rose and make it smell like shit. Like life, the rose doesn't grow without that shit (fertilizer) and at times, we have to go thru the shit to smell the fragrance of life, otherwise their would be no rose buds....! I've seen several threads on how Ted Williams could not take his Senators and turn them into Hitting at will machines....IMHO, that says it all......!!! "There is nothing new that we can say, poets (teachers) hands only re-arrange those flowers of word boquets"...
Off Topic, but: Case in poin;t on statistics manipulation: When say lets use a document for sample sizes: If 1 work document, blueprint, shipping manifests, Specs, Procedures, have 30 errors on One Document which has 50,000 lines of instruction. Those errors are not calculated by 30 errors over 50,000 lines, which would be a .00033 error rate. or a .9967 success rate. That doesn't look to bad for statistics.... When in fact 1 document (sample size) with that many errors equates to .3300 error rate, or .67000 success rate. Each measurable system, process, et al., associated with these stats should never be errant beyond: The bar is set at .9999967 success/failure rate(s). No more than 4 parts per million samples. Yet even this system (6 Sigma) is inherently flawed, as the tail wags the dog....
honestly, stop being a DICK, for the last 5 months or so all you have been doing is trying your hardest to make others dislike me, who cares! who cares that i played the game! get out of the desert and get a freekin life!
The Wash Senators won 86 (?) games in 1969 with Ted managing. 86 wins for the Nats of that era was pretty darn good...to say the least. I know one season with 86 wins doesn't make a resume but I just thought it needed to be said. Nothing else.
...^^^that was his first year with an inherited team...and every year there after his teams' record got worse. 1970 ... 70 wins 1972 ... 63 wins 1973... 54 wins ...4 year managerial record was 273 wins 364 losses
_____________________ ouch! 1970- Four MLB teams won +90 games, Balt 108 Minn 98 Reds 102 Yanks won 93, good enough to go home. ooch!
My problem? Other than not laying down or giving in to you twisting words and deflecting points....nothing. And before you get all offended again, just shake my hand and agree to disagree and drop it. I can let it go, can you? Demonstrate it by not even replying to this post.
