• CC Sabathia Makes Like Al Sharpton

    Posted by on January 21st, 2014 · Comments (17)

    Damn, he’s lost A LOT of weight.

    Skinny CC

    Comments on CC Sabathia Makes Like Al Sharpton

    1. Kamieniecki
      January 21st, 2014 | 12:17 pm

      … It’s as if all of the weight Sabathia lost was packed on by the Yankees’ G.M., pound-for-pound.

    2. McMillan
      January 21st, 2014 | 12:41 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      … It’s as if all of the weight Sabathia lost was packed on by the Yankees’ G.M., pound-for-pound.

      Which isn’t good, considering Sabathia is 6′ 7″, and Cashman is 5′ 3″. Sabathia looks as if Michael Pineda has 100 lbs. on him.

    3. January 21st, 2014 | 5:47 pm

      CC is now 2 for 2.
      He’s half the pitcher that he used to be, and,
      he’s half the walrus that he used to be now too.

    4. PHMDen
      January 21st, 2014 | 6:23 pm

      I wonder if one has something to do with the other.

    5. BOHAN
      January 21st, 2014 | 10:17 pm

      Apparently he hasn’t lost anyway… gained a lot of muscle and trim fat off

    6. Kamieniecki
      January 23rd, 2014 | 9:26 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Again, this is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Either that, or your stating a tautology: Sabathia is half the pitcher he once was, because he’s pitching half as well as he once did.

      @ Evan3457:
      Post ergo hoc propter hoc requires elements of causation and temporal sequence, and the above statement is not a tautology, either; stick with math.

    7. Evan3457
      January 24th, 2014 | 3:38 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Either that, or your (sic) stating a tautology: Sabathia is half the pitcher he once was, because he’s pitching half as well as he once did.
      @ Evan3457:
      …and the above statement is not a tautology, either; stick with math.

      “Sabathia is half the pitcher he once was, because he’s pitching half as well as he once did.”

      Which is stating the same thing twice, once as the premise, the other as the conclusion.

      From Wikipedia:

      Rhetorical tautologies guarantee the truth of the proposition, where the expectation (premise) was for a testable construct, any conclusion is by the precepts of falsificationism a non sequitur (logic). Circular reasoning differs from tautologies in that the premise is restated as the conclusion in an argument, instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise with arguments, while tautologies states the same thing twice.

      Chumped again.

    8. McMillan
      January 24th, 2014 | 1:28 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Again, this is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Either that, or your stating a tautology…

      From Wikipedia:

      “In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula which is true in every possible interpretation…”

      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for ‘after this, therefore because of this’, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X…’”

      @ Evan3457:
      The two are not remotely similar.

    9. Kamieniecki
      January 24th, 2014 | 2:46 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Which is stating the same thing twice…

      It’s not a tautology to state that the N.Y. Yankees 2004-07 postseason starting pitching as a whole was “lousy,” as evidenced by pitching to a cumulative 5.66 postseason E.R.A., and it’s not a tautology to state that Sabathia was half the pitcher in 2013 that he once was, as evidenced by the fact that his 2013 numbers were not comparable to what they once were.

      The Yankees 2004-07 postseason pitching was “lousy” because Brown (39), Johnson (41-42), Wright (35), etc. were not the pitchers they once were in their primes, and Sabathia (33) was “half the pitcher he once was” in 2013 because, for one thing, he’s no longer in his prime…

      Is it a tautology to state the 2004-07 N.Y. Yankees were “unlucky,” as evidenced by the fact that they didn’t hit well with RISP, and that’s the reason Team Cashman won only one (1) L.D.S. – not because the starting pitching sucked? It’s nonsense, but it’s not a tautology.

    10. Mr. October
      January 24th, 2014 | 5:34 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The Yankees 2004-07 postseason pitching was “lousy” because Brown (39), Johnson (41-42), Wright (35), etc. were not the pitchers they once were in their primes…

      And Mussina (36-39), Clemens (44)… it’s possible these guys might’ve had an ERA below 5.66 in their primes – but, the post-season is “(bleeping) luck,” so it’s equally possible they could’ve had an ERA about 8.00 in their primes, and the Yankees wouldn’t have won even the 2004 LDS.

    11. Evan3457
      January 24th, 2014 | 10:27 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Again, this is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Either that, or your stating a tautology…
      From Wikipedia:
      “In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula which is true in every possible interpretation…”
      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for ‘after this, therefore because of this’, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X…’”
      @ Evan3457:
      The two are not remotely similar.

      I wasn’t using the formal logic definition of tautology. Here’s another source on the definition of tautology. Check out the 1st defintion:

      tau·tol·o·gy (tô-tŏl′ə-jē)
      n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
      1.
      a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
      b. An instance of such repetition.
      2. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

    12. McMillan
      January 25th, 2014 | 12:40 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Is it a tautology to state the 2004-07 N.Y. Yankees were “unlucky,” as evidenced by the fact that they didn’t hit well with RISP, and that’s the reason Team Cashman won only one (1) L.D.S. – not because the starting pitching sucked? It’s nonsense, but it’s not a tautology.

      LOL.

    13. Evan3457
      January 26th, 2014 | 5:20 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      Is it a tautology to state the 2004-07 N.Y. Yankees were “unlucky,” as evidenced by the fact that they didn’t hit well with RISP, and that’s the reason Team Cashman won only one (1) L.D.S. – not because the starting pitching sucked? It’s nonsense, but it’s not a tautology.
      LOL.

      Laughing at your own…well, it’s not even a joke. It’s not even slightly funny.
      Here’s something to laugh about, just for you:
      http://img.costumecraze.com/images/vendors/fashion/255249-Jumbo-Clown-Shoes-large.jpg

    14. McMillan
      January 27th, 2014 | 6:30 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Again, this is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Either that, or your (sic) stating a tautology: the team that plays better in the series wins the series.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I wasn’t using the formal logic definition of tautology.

      It is not a tautology to state that a team that plays better in a series wins a series; it’s not even valid – it’s certainly possible for a team to “play better,” and to still lose a series.

    15. Kamieniecki
      January 29th, 2014 | 11:45 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      if it isn’t post hoc ergo propter hoc, then it’s a tautology. It is because it is.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh, I frequently have to repeat my explanations to the slow-track students, too.

      @ Evan3457:
      Oh, maybe you can get your slow-track students to explain the difference between post hoc ergo propter hoc and a tautology.

    16. February 21st, 2014 | 2:30 pm
    17. Raf
      February 21st, 2014 | 9:05 pm

      @ Steve L.:
      Meanwhile, Jesus Montero seems to have gained the weight CC lost…

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.