The Age Old Question of Objectivity

This interesting fanshot uses some intriguing language regarding the signing of Jason Kendall: 

"Once again, Mellinger gets it right. The negative uproar is as unnecessary as the overpraising of some potentially great pick-up would be (e.g. pulling off a trade for, say, Geovany Soto, would've been). On traditionally built teams, a weak bat at catcher would be tolerated if the traditional power positions were producing. The problem is the traditional positions, to which Mellinger alludes. In his words: "The Royals have much bigger issues." - TL

The operative term in the above quote is "negative uproar".   It is indeed fair to say that the Kendall signing has caused just that, in these and other quarters.    Why?   For followers of this website, the answer to this question is fairly obvious:   there does not seem to be an objectively reasonable basis for the signing.   Or, to put it different way, (1) Kendall's numbers suck, (2) they don't seem to be getting better, and (3) we're getting tired of the Royals' management's  "gut instincts"--personified by GMDM, and which seem to be the only explanation for the disregard of (1) and (2)-- being consistently off the mark.  

Or, to put it yet a different way, Dayton Moore's subjectivity is getting old, and it ain't working.

The philosophers among us will recognize this distinction (i.e., the distinction between the objective and the subjective) to be a problem that dates back to the pissing matches between Plato and Aristotle.    Plato saw truth as the wavy image on a cave wall.   Aristotle said:  get out of your cave and go look at the world.  These two schools of truth have caused some "negative uproars" over the past 2300 years, and, you could argue that the dynamic tension between these two schools have led to some good old fashioned burnings at the stake as well.   Now that's a Negative Uproar.

Are we just a bunch of Moore-haters or Kendall-haters around here?   I say no.  For one thing, we love poetry, and everybody knows that poets want the best out life for all, even for certain gritty slow guys who last were fleet of foot when tech stocks were fun to buy.   More important, bile-mongering should not be confused with merely seeking an objective basis for important decisions.  That, my friends,  is the heart of the matter.

The throughline for negative uproars is this:  there appears to be a strong, objective basis for evaluating baseball decisions, and the Royals all too often ignore that basis, or haven't yet fully explained what the alternative basis for their decisions might be.    Absent a reasonable explanation (and, obviously, merely calling something a "process" is not "reasonable"), the Royals can expect nothing but Negative Uproars in the wake of their moves, especially among those who have moved beyond a Pony League understanding of baseball.

Get out of the cave Dayton:  there is a big, Objective world out there!  

Until then, we will continue to hold your feet to the fire.