The history says to me (granted that I’m an amateurish amateur) that it’s not that he “doesn’t know how” to hit, it’s that he can’t hit for power anymore.

Because it’s easy enough to predict who’s going to be hot, or to distinguish who’s streaking from who’s just had an 0-for-4, or whatever. I hope Trey Hillman’s been reading the Summa Contra Gentiles, because it’s going to be easier to turn a catfish from the Mississippi into herring than to run an effective platoon thusly.

just realistically thinking he might hit a home run or two.

the royals literally have nothing to lose (except games, but they’d do that anyway with Gload.)

Even in Sexson’s craptacular state, he’s still a better hitter, and would cost us less than Gload is costing us this year. (Assuming we waive him, and someone picks him up.)

Are you making the argument that the Royals should pick up Sexon because he was good in the past, like you were at the beginning of the thread? Because the most relevant past performance indicates a washed-up dude, based on numbers, trends, age, and relevant stastistical comparison.

But that’s certainly better than the current argument (whatever it is)—that past performance isn’t all that relevant “Contradiction” in relation to the earlier arguments might seem a bit unfair; more generously, it seems to be “in tension” with the earlier argument. So, if the past isn’t all that helpful in predicting the future, well, then there’s absolutely no reason to prefer one player to the other based on past performance. If the past doesn’t repeat itself, then, heck, maybe Ross Gload will suddenly turn into Ritchie Sexon circa 2005.

That’s obviously a caricature of whatever it is you are arguing, but then we’re right back to doing the best we can with the evidence we have—which is that Sexson is washed up.

I do understand the temptation. Sexson’s limited road numbers this season and his platoon split are the only positivese, and the pro-Sexon people haven’t even bothered to argue from that, only from “possibilities,” which are only barely better than Ryan Lefebvre’s Frank White-based optimism regarding TPJ. Anyway, if Sexson can be a good right-handed platoon guy away from Safeco—well, that’s the kind of cog that a contending team would sign, not the Royals.

Yeah, there might be an improvement on Gload (and it shows how far Sexson, who I really did like as legitimately good slugger only a few seasons back, has fallen that I feel obligated to put “might”). But, again, if the Royals are going to sign someone just to fill a 1b/DH slot for this year just to be a bit more respectable, I again say it should be Bonds, or even someone like Dan Johnson if the Rays will give him up for a little or nothing, before Sexson. Sexson offers neither confidence he perform now (Bonds) now the possibiilty, if he does perform well, that he would stick around with the Royals and maintain an average performance over the next couple years (Johnson or another older “past prime” non-prospect like him). Anything Sexson might possibly offer can be had just as or almost as cheap and with better possibilities elsewhere.

NHZ & Others,

1. If you read my post carefully, I was talking about arguments that are unreasonable, not people. There’s a difference. The first is called debate, the second ad hominem. Please don’t take things personally.

2. I do not retract the statement you highlighted. It’s not a particularly hurtful phrase--unless one is reading things personally. The phrase was certainly not aimed at you. But it is true, nonetheless, that many here have insisted-in this thread-things they just cannot know. I aimed my collective generalization at those who believe this: “Sexson is washed up. Period.” That just can’t be known-yet. Yes, he flopped in Seattle—for the last two years. No question. But he might yet be a reclamation project.

I plead with you, NHZ, and others, to just read the comments for what they are. You seem to be seeking a level of control over the discussion here that is unnecessary. I’m not the enemy. I simply make points and defend them. When I’m in the right mood, I’ll stay on a discussion for a couple of days. Sometimes I’ll let things lie.

In sum, I’m not the problem: I never swear, never call anyone names, and never ever made an ad hominem argument. Peace. – TL

Thanks for the supporting example. Wasn’t McRae our batting coach then? – TL