Racial composition of the 2023 Phils (split--posts not in order)

[Mac]

You keep asking for a burden of proof which is just a silly schoolyard argument.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

"I think this thing might be true."

"Ok, why?"

"I can't give you a specific reason why I think it's true, but it's possible."

"Then why do you think it might be true?"

"Please stop asking me to support the claim I just made, it's childish."

About 50+ times you have argued that the Phillies can't be racist because they do things like draft Crawford and trade for Segura. Which is all besides the point and the equivalent of the "I have a black friend so I can't be racist argument",

It's a bit wild that I have to keep saying this different ways, but here we go: my argument is not that the Phillies can't be racist because they have acquired players of color.

My contention is that your argument is empty because you have provided nothing in the way of meaningful evidence that unconscious racial bias is involved in the construction of this roster.

I noted this previously, but I guess it didn't take:

No, the lack of any potential bias in those two things doesn't exclude the possibility that bias was at play in Crawford's benching, I hear you on that and it's a fair point. But the inverse certainly doesn't make an argument for it being a factor either, especially when injuries are involved and the Phillies are notorious for making poor decisions with drafting and development. I'm pointing to Occam's Razor on this one.

The Kingery / Crawford / Segura item was purely emphasized because you thought it was a possible argument for bias - which I don't agree with when viewing "the big picture".

"It's possible" - yes, and it's certainly possible that your own biases have led you down this road of thinking despite a lack of supporting evidence.

[Mac]

The issues are more subtle, and far beyond the Phillies. But saying it would have been nice to see one member of the starting 9 be a person of color (i.e the "optics" comment) is not reverse racism, and saying it's bad that the fact that last year's Opening Day roster had no Black players is not the same thing as saying the Phillies did it on purpose

"It would be nice" - I certainly understand that.

But what I saw in this thread, and what I referenced earlier, was a poster wishing that the organization signed a less talented player purely for the optics.

That is another ball of wax entirely, because you're favoring optics over merit.

That's not strictly true. The Phillies made a decision not to sign Machado (and to not outbid the Padres for him even though he wasn't that expensive). Even at the risk of losing Harper (had he picked LA or SF). Middleton did not fly out to meet with Harper until Machado was already a Padre. Obviously they had decided Harper was their guy (arguably months before, after Middleton soured on Machado's Utley-like performance in the World Series, wink-wink) but Machado would have taken their offer.

Is that the case? I'm curious about this - correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Phillies met with Machado in Philly, Machado then went to San Diego and signed their offer. Why do you think Machado would've taken the Phillies offer? And wouldn't Middleton waiting until Machado was a Padre to meet with Harper indicate Machado was the preference?

I had read various accounts from people covering the team that the Phillies original preference was Machado because he played a premium defensive position of need.

[andyb]

But what I saw in this thread, and what I referenced earlier, was a poster wishing that the organization signed a less talented player purely for the optics.

That is another ball of wax entirely, because you're favoring optics over merit.

The original post (I really can't find it but I remember it distinctly) was about optics and was half joking that it would have looked better if we had signed Boegarts. Nobody EVER posted that we should have signed Boegarts because he was not white. So all 20+ of your responses are to a sentiment you elevated out of nowhere (kind of like Fox news does all the time).

This is a progressive leaning board I suspect, but there is also nobody here that would not want the Phillies to sign the best player (who happens to be Correa!) at this position regardless of race. Turner is great. He wants to play here. That is likely why they signed him. Still does not change the other arguments of course.

[zambonir]

I think Machado was Klentak's first choice and Klentak wound up being the third-most powerful decision-maker. Middleton supposedly soured on him as soon as the playoffs but he wasn't going to tell his baseball staff not to let the process play out. But if they wanted Machado they could have outbid San Diego (and he would have taken the money). The moment when they decided they preferred to chase Harper (and not outbid San Diego which they could have easily done) was also the moment Middleton took over the process. I think by the time they traded for JT (two weeks before Machado signed) they were already preferring Harper. Machado's meeting in Philly was two months before he signed with San Diego, they also could have taken him off the market earlier if they'd really wanted him. (But I also applaud they way they waited for the market to cool off, on Harper too.)

[Mac]

The original post (I really can't find it but I remember it distinctly) was about optics and was half joking that it would have looked better if we had signed Boegarts. Nobody EVER posted that we should have signed Boegarts because he was not white. So all 20+ of your responses are to a sentiment you elevated out of nowhere (kind of like Fox news does all the time).

I linked to it above, per your request, and I'll do so again here. Feel free to continue moving the field goal posts and accusing me of things that aren't true (like me claiming racism doesn't exist) - they aren't especially difficult to dismiss.

Racial composition of the 2023 Phils (split--posts not in order)

[andyb]

That still twists the meaning though. He says Turner is great and nothing is nefarious other than the optics. Yes the word "hope" is in there, but given the other parts of the sentence you are taking things way out of context. And certainly that exact sentiment was never repeated in the thread. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

[Mac]

But if they wanted Machado they could have outbid San Diego (and he would have taken the money).

I was under the impression Machado wanted to play on the West Coast and when the Phillies became aware of that, they pivoted - similar to Trea Turner wanting to play on the East Coast and turning down more money to do so.

Although, I could also certainly see Middleton getting involved + him souring on Machado after that playoff run. I don't remember it intimately, but I don't remember him putting up juicy numbers during that postseason.

To your point when it comes to contracts of that magnitude, that's an ownership decision all the way. Your baseball people might think X, Y and Z - but the man with the checkbook will have final say.

Honestly, all of these things could simultaneously be true and it still could've worked out the way it did - with Machado's (alleged) preference for the West Coast making it easier for Middleton to pivot to Harper.

I also wonder about the inclusion of the opt out in Machado's contract and how much that impacted the Phillies thinking, whereas Harper wanted an all-in commitment.

[Mac]

That still twists the meaning though. He says Turner is great and nothing is nefarious other than the optics. Yes the word "hope" is in there, but given the other parts of the sentence you are taking things way out of context. And certainly that exact sentiment was never repeated in the thread. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Sure - let's just dismiss what was clearly written in favor of your preferred reading.

Twists the meaning how? He literally said he hoped for Bogearts over Turner (a better player) for "that exact reason" - the exact reason being what the previous poster said - the lineup was "uncomfortably white".

The "optics" comment is actually directly refuting your unconscious racial bias argument - he's clearly saying he does not think there is any "nefarious" racial bias involved in the decision to bring Turner aboard and to construct an all-white lineup, but that the composition of said lineup is still not a good look optically, despite that.

Therefore, he had "hoped" it would be Bogearts over the superior player in Trea Turner.

Someone is "twisting meaning" indeed.

[andyb]

When you ignore 2 parts of the sentence to focus on 1 phrase you are twisting the meaning and certainly the intent. And when you post 20+ times about something that nobody really disputes you are clearly making a mountain out of a molehill.

Enough of this. You clearly don't understand how unconscious bias can exist, so probably worth ending this conversation.

[allentown]

The two raps on Abreu was that he was all too willing to take a walk with men in scoring position and leave the hard work of driving them home to other hitters and that he was too afraid of injury to dive for balls and shied away from the wall. I think he also wasn't rah-rah enough for Phillies, although it's difficult to be a vocal leader from the OF.

Yes, prior to Giles purchasing the Phillies, their DR operation was viewed as one of the very best in baseball, producing guys like Juan Samuel and George Bell (lost, tried to sneak him through Rule 5). Giles cut budget on everything MiLB related, but in true Giles fashion, when he reduced the DR operation he kept the administrator and sacked the super scout. Our DR pipeline ended.