National League Silver Slugger Predictions

by JohnBowen

Continuing in the awards fun are the silver sluggers, given to the best hitters at each position in both leagues. With less guess-work, this award is generally a better indicator of performance than the gold glove award, which this man once won playing designated hitter. Which is kind of like a silver slugger given to a pitcher. Speaking of which…

Pitcher: Daniel Hudson (Arizona Diamondbacks)

Stat Line: .277/.309/.369 (84 OPS+), 3 2B, 1 HR, 14 RBI

Always a fun award, the pitching silver slugger is always a fun one because the competition is so awful. Daniel Hudson led all National League pitchers with 14 RBI (a tribute to both his skill at the plate, but also the depth of the Diamondbacks order). If he wins this award, Hudson will have White Sox GM Kenny Williams to thank, since it was he who traded 6 years of Hudson to get 11 2010 starts of Edwin Jackson (and in fact, Hudson’s remaining 11 starts were better than Jackson’s).

Other Candidates: Carlos Zambrano (CHC), Yovanni Gallardo (MIL)

Catcher: Yadier Molina (St. Louis Cardinals)

Stat Line: .305/.349/.465 (126 OPS+), 32 2B, 14 HR, 65 RBI

Well known for his spectacular glove-work behind the plate, Yadier Molina put together the best offensive season of his career, setting career highs in runs scored, hits, doubles, homers, and RBI. His final home run of the year was no-doubt the biggest – a solo shot in an eventual 3-2 Cardinals victory that put the Red Birds 1 game back with 3 to play.

Other Candidates: Miguel Montero (ARI), Brian McCann (ATL)

1st Base: Prince Fielder (Milwaukee Brewers)

Stat Line: .299/.415/.566 (164 OPS+), 36 2B, 38 HR, 120 RBI

A feared presence in the Brewers lineup for the past 6 seasons, Prince Fielder will likely leave Milwaukee for a nine-figure deal elsewhere, but not before helping power the Brewers offense to their second-ever league championship series. The big man finished top-3 in the National League in total bases, homers, RBI, walks, times on base, and runs creates, while leading the league in Win Probability Added for the third time in five years.

Other Candidates: Albert Pujols (STL), Joey Votto (CIN)

2nd Base: Brandon Phillips (Cincinnati Reds)

Stat Line: .300/.353/.457 (119 OPS+), 38 2B, 18 HR, 82 RBI

With Philadelphia’s Chase Utley spending much of the past two seasons on the disabled list, Brandon Phillips has taken over the reigns as the National League’s best overall second baseman. This year, Phillips hit .300 for the first time in his career and placed fourth in the league with 38 doubles.

Other candidates: Rickie Weeks (MIL), Dan Uggla (ATL)

3rd Base: Aramis Ramirez (Chicago Cubs)

Stat Line: .306/.361/.510 (136 OPS+), 35 2B, 26 HR, 93 RBI

Aramis Ramirez has probably played his last game as a Cub, which is good news for fans of the other five teams in the National League Central. It remains to be seen whether or not Ramirez will be able to match his production away from the friendly confines of Wrigley Field, but he certainly gave Cubs fans something to cheer about, OPSing .887 in 9 years as a Cub, including .871 in 2011.

Other Candidates: Chipper Jones (ATL), Pablo Sandoval (SFG)

Shortstop: Jose Reyes (New York Mets)

Stat Line: .337/.384/.493 (143 OPS+), 31 2B, 16 3B, 7 HR, 44 RBI, 39/46 SB.

Jose Reyes won the batting title on the season’s final day (through questionable means, I might add) at a .337 clip, while also slapping a league-best 16 triples. With Reyes highly unlikely to come back to the rebuilding Mets, look for his name to be among the most highly sought-out free agents following his career year in Queens.

Other Candidates: Troy Tulowitzki (COL), Stalin Castro (CHC)

Outfield: Matt Kemp (Los Angeles Dodgers)

Stat Line: .324/.399/.586 (171 OPS+), 33 2B, 39 HR, 126 RBI, 40/51 SB

The National League’s best player by about a factor of 50, Matt Kemp had one of those seasons that most people can only dream about. Batting in the heart of a miserable Dodger lineup, Kemp led the league in total bases, runs scored, home runs, RBI, and OPS+ and finished just one dinger shy of joining the 40-40 club.

Outfield: Ryan Braun (Milwaukee Brewers)

Stat Line: .332/.397/.597 (166 OPS+), 38 2B, 33 HR, 111 RBI, 33/39 SB

The face of the Brewers franchise through 2020 or so, Ryan Braun placed first in the National League in slugging and became the first Brewer since Tommy Harper in the Brew Crew’s inaugural 1970 season to hit for 30 home runs and steal 30 bases. This will be his fourth consecutive silver slugger award, as his name has become synonymous with fear for NL pitchers.

Outfield: Lance Berkman (St. Louis Cardinals)

Stat Line: .301/.412/.547 (166 OPS+), 23 2B, 31 HR, 94 RBI

The best off-season move by any team in baseball was the buy-low move by St. Louis Cardinals General Manager John Mozeliak to bring in Lance Berkman for an eight million dollar deal. Back in the National League Central where has had thrived so long as an Astro, Berkman rebounded from a rough 2010 to place third in the league in on-base percentage, and fifth in slugging. The star’s bat came through in a big way in game 6 of the World Series, when he tied the game in the tenth inning, just 1 strike from elimination.

Other Candidates: Justin Upton (ARI), Mike Stanton (FLA), Matt Holliday (STL), Pence (HOU/PHI), Beltran (NYM/SFG)

Recent Posts

570 Responses to “National League Silver Slugger Predictions”

  1. JohnBowen Says:

    Silver Sluggers will be announced tonight; I’ll put my AL picks in the daily discussion.

  2. Dugout Central » Blog Archive » American League Silver Slugger Predictions Says:

    [...] « National League Silver Slugger Predictions [...]

  3. JohnBowen Says:

    The winners are being announced now:

    NL OF

    Matt Kemp
    Ryan Braun (4th straight!)
    Justin Upton

    As I wrote, I thought Berkman was a better candidate than Upton, but no biggee.

  4. JohnBowen Says:

    I’m just gonna do both leagues on this thread. Granderson, Ellsbury, and Bautista won in the AL. No surprise there.

  5. JohnBowen Says:

    Prince Fielder wins his second silver slugger in the NL.

    Adrian Gonzalez over Miguel Cabrera? That’s a load of crap.

    Miggy: .344/.448/.586
    AGon: .338/.410/.548

    Both terrific years, of course, but how is Gonzalez better than Cabrera?

  6. John Says:

    Cano and Phillips, at 2b. Both well-deserved.

    Phillips just threatenned to shank Harold Reynolds if he drops his trophy.

  7. John Says:

    Aramis Ramirez and Adrian Beltre at 3b.

    Would’ve gone with Longoria, but it was close enough.

  8. John Says:

    Tulo edges Reyes.

    Cabrera edged Peralta in the AL.

    McCann and Avila.

  9. Hossrex Says:

    Matt Kemp is a *string of indecipherable expletives*.

    That *adjective describing a person who performs fellatio* can *perform fellatio on me*

    I hate to sound like one of those old fart scouts (HI CHUCK!)… but who the hell cares how well Matty Kemp hits when it doesn’t matter? Who the hell cares that he can throw out a 171 OPS+ when the team is 20 games back… if all he can OPS+ is ONE-OH-FUCKING-SIX when the team is in contention?

    How can that be considered a good player?

    I don’t give a shit about theoretical skill, if it doesn’t help my team win 95 games.

    It drives me crazy to hear people (in real life, and on television) espousing how good he is, based exclusively on the back of his baseball card, without having ever watched the *person who performs fellatio* play?

    Oh… and Baseball Reference lists his stupid nickname as “The Bison”. I watched literally 150+ Dodger games per year in EACH of his first five seasons… and I have *NEVER* heard him called “The Bison”.

    By my crude estimation, I saw around 580 of his first 626 games played… seriously… the guy is over-rated, can’t play when the pressure is on, and all around doesn’t give two *copulations* about anyone who isn’t Matty Kemp.

    He’s the pinnacle of whats wrong with modern players. If baseball didn’t exist, he’d be a gang banger on the mean streets of “Midwest City” Oklahoma. Pimpin’ hoes, poppin’ caps, and raping elderly cancer patients…

    …and that’s the attitude he brings to the Dodgers.

    That of a person who forcefully fornicates with the infirmed elderly.

    In closing… I don’t really like him all that much.

    Totally deserved the bullshit Silver Slugger award though.

  10. John Says:

    Ok, so Hossrex apent the last year getting dumber.

    Welcome back, buddy.

  11. Cameron Says:

    So, Matt Kemp is to Hoss as Zack Greinke is to me. …I can totally get behind that.

  12. John Says:

    Matt Kemp won another silver slugger when the Dodgers won the NL West a couple years ago.

    As if any of this is relevence.

    Kemp’s 2011 was unfreaking believable.

  13. Hossrex Says:

    Matty Kemp

    2006: OPS+ 85, and 88 team wins (2nd place, lost in Division Series)
    2007: OPS+ 127, and 82 team wins (4th place)
    2008: OPS+ 110, and 84 team wins (1st place, lost in League Championship Series)
    2009: OPS+ 124, and 95 team wins (1st place, lost in League Championship Series)
    2010: OPS+ 106, and 80 team wins (4th place)
    2011: OPS+ 171, and 82 team wins (3th place)

    So…

    2006: He played poorly (albeit he was young), and the team made the playoffs.
    2007: He played fantastically, and the team played like shit.
    2008: He was slightly above average, and the team made the playoffs.
    2009: He was really good, and the team was also very good (the ONLY time he played at the same level of his team)
    2010: He was utter crap, and although the team finished in 4th, they were very much in contention well into August.
    2011: He was amazing, and (the modest amount of wins be damned) the team played shittier than they have since the early 2000’s.

    He’s shitty, and the team is good.
    He’s good, and the team is shitty.

    I couldn’t possibly be the only… or even the first… to have noticed this.

    Matty Kemp is why people like Chuck laugh at Sabermetrics.

    Ironically… Chuck probably loves Matty Kemp… but I wont hold it against him… he just doesn’t watch as many games as I do.

    Although in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t think I sat down to watch the entirety of a Dodgers game more than 10 times in the 2011 season (and by extension, explaining why I haven’t been around much).

    I don’t know how Cubs fans put up with is… fielding 25 sacks of crap aint a whole lot of fun to watch.

  14. Hossrex Says:

    John… you’re talking about game theory. That’s fine. I totally understand where you’re coming from (I’m in the process of re-reading Moneyball… I’d forgotten how much I enjoyed it).

    The problem is that you’re talking about theory, and I’m talking about a guy who doesn’t help his team win ballgames.

    Would you rather your team had a bunch of guys who look really good on paper, or make the playoffs?

    Explain to me… please… how Matty Kemp has the value for which you prescribe, if he CAN’T play well when it matters?

  15. Cameron Says:

    I think a guy hitting like THAT wins your team quite a few games.

    The problem was the Dodgers this year were Kemp, Kershaw, and 23 scrubs. Kemp could’ve been the second coming of Babe Ruth this year and it wouldn’t have done shit.

  16. JohnBowen Says:

    “Although in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t think I sat down to watch the entirety of a Dodgers game more than 10 times in the 2011 season (and by extension, explaining why I haven’t been around much).”

    Gotcha.

    “He’s shitty, and the team is good.
    He’s good, and the team is shitty.”

    How can you possibly believe that there’s any relationship?

    If Matt Kemp plays in 2010 like he does in 2011, the Dodgers don’t make the post-season.

    Also:

    “2008: He was slightly above average, and the team made the playoffs.”

    In 2008, he was slightly above average and his team WON EIGHTYFOUR games. He was slightly above average AS WAS HIS TEAM.

    So, twice in four full seasons, he’s actually played to the exact level of his team, which might be the worst mode of player evaluation I’ve ever heard of.

    “Matty Kemp is why people like Chuck laugh at Sabermetrics.”

    If Matt Kemp is the reason people laugh at sabermetrics, I’m glad I’m on the other team.

  17. JohnBowen Says:

    “The problem is that you’re talking about theory, and I’m talking about a guy who doesn’t help his team win ballgames.”

    Take Babe Ruth and put him on this year’s Orioles.

    The Orioles wouldn’t make the playoffs, not even close.

    Do you think that means Babe Ruth didn’t help the team win ballgames?

    The Dodgers won 82 games, and without Kemp and Kershaw, they likely would have lost 95-100 games. The fact that they didn’t help the Dodgers make the playoffs is on Ned Colletti for putting together a shit supporting cast, not on Kemp for not playing to his team’s level of play.

  18. Hossrex Says:

    Cameron: “I think a guy hitting like THAT wins your team quite a few games.”

    Except I just broke down his ENTIRE career, and demonstrated that he doesn’t. At least not when it matters… and I’ll ask again, since anyone who disagrees with me obviously finds the question inconvenient enough to ignore it… and who the hell cares how well a guy plays, when the team is buried?

    Hell… I’d RATHER Matty Kemp played like shit when the team was buried. A super-star who only plays well when it doesn’t matter just means he’s going to be more expensive to keep around on the off chance that he might, although seemingly unlikely, play well in a year that the Dodgers have a shot at a ring.

    You’re not talking about baseball. You’re talking about Rotisserie. Matty Kemp is probably a hell of a player in fantasy leagues… but I don’t care about one player. I don’t follow baseball because I really enjoy watching one player tally up statistics.

    I follow baseball because I want to win. Every March I start dreaming about the knockoff replica World Series ring I’m going to buy in November.

    Again… who CARES how well Matty Kemp plays… if he can’t play when it counts (which his career clearly demonstrates he can’t).

    Unless your hobby is math… who cares how well a good player performs when the team is in the shitter?

  19. Cameron Says:

    Well, that and trading away anything good in the farm system. Trayvon Robinson was given away pretty much for free and Carlos Santana is looking to be Cleveland’s savior and you got… Jamey Carroll?

    The Dodgers’ fuckups are on the fact the team’s run by dumbasses.

  20. JohnBowen Says:

    “Explain to me… please… how Matty Kemp has the value for which you prescribe, if he CAN’T play well when it matters?”

    Here are some splits for Matt Kemp in 2011:

    RISP: .335/.450/.652
    Tie Game: .323/.412/.607

    I’m also curious…how does Matt Kemp display selfishness?

  21. Cameron Says:

    Hossrex, all I’m gonna say is correlation isn’t causation. There isn’t some mystical baseball voodoo god that decreed that the Dodgers’ performance is going to be the inverse of how Matt Kemp plays. Quite frankly, believing that is kinda fuckin’ stupid.

    …And for the large part, I agree with the old-school thinkers.

  22. JohnBowen Says:

    “Again… who CARES how well Matty Kemp plays… if he can’t play when it counts (which his career clearly demonstrates he can’t).”

    You don’t think maybe he stepped up his game this year?

    Again…he won a silver slugger in 2009, when the team made the playoffs.

    And he had a pretty good year in 2008…without him, there’s no way the Dodgers make the playoffs.

    And (to continue in how ridiculous this argument is):

    Matt Kemp had a 106 OPS+ as a CFer in 2010 which is well above average, and his team was 80-82.

    So actually, “he’s (roughly) played to the level of his team” (which again, is not a relevant or meaningful quality for a ballplayer) in THREE of his FOUR years, the only exception being this year, his most recent, when he BITCHSLAPPED the national league.

  23. Raul Says:

    Billy passed the 3rd grade…oh what a glorious daaaay…
    Whoa! Passing 3rd grade….the Billy Madison waaaaay

  24. Cameron Says:

    106 OPS+ ain’t great for a player… But CF on the whole kinda sucked that year.

  25. JohnBowen Says:

    Right.

    I mean, CF is a defensive position, so the average OPS+ is probably more like 90-95.

    Now, you want a guy as talented as Kemp to do better than 106.

    But still…if you want to trade him to the Brewers for my boy T.Plush because T.Plush had a career year when the Brewers needed it…I’ll gladly accept that.

  26. Cameron Says:

    John, the voices you get in your head when you’re plastered don’t count as valid sources.

  27. JohnBowen Says:

    LOL, I don’t know what you’re talking about!

    Anyway, very loose rumors are that the Brewers are gonna bring back Yuni B next year…that the just declined his option to sign him for less money.

    Which is borderline psychotic.

  28. Cameron Says:

    Well, if you can’t pick up a shortstop, who the fuck you got? A 42 year old Craig Counsell?

  29. Raul Says:

    John’s not making any typos.
    He’s not drunk.

  30. JohnBowen Says:

    Honestly, I would rather just spend the money to bring Hairston back as the every day SS than let Yuni play another inning in a Brewer uniform.

    Every guy has his moments in a 162 game season.

    Yuni popped up like 300 times, which is a lot like striking out 299 times.

    “He’s not drunk.”

    Not now I’m not.

    The second I read a news report on Yuni B getting gainful employment as a major league SS with the Brewers, I intend to forget about it asap, and just write on my arm in sharpie “don’t ask why, but you’re not watching the Brewers this year.”

  31. Cameron Says:

    Okay, yeah, Hairston’s the much better option and can’t be much more expensive.

  32. JohnBowen Says:

    The way I look at it (and I’m gonna write an article about it),

    Prince Fielder was 15.5 million last year.
    Yuni Betancourt was 4 million last year.

    So, between those two positions, we’re spending 19.5 million dollars.

    Matt Gamel is going to make 400K next year.

    Why the hell shouldn’t we offer Jose Reyes 17-19M a year for like 4 years?

    That’ll be way cheaper than Fielder overall, and Reyes will represent more of an upgrade over Yuni than the downgrade suffered by replacing Prince with Gamel (particularly if Gamel can field first better than Fielder…no guarantee, since he was legendarily bad at third, but I think those were mainly throwing errors…anyway).

    I haven’t seen Gamel play in 2 years, but the guy OPS’d .912 last year (admittedly in the PCL, where the league OPS’d .807). Sink or swim time baby.

  33. Hossrex Says:

    Johnbowen: “How can you possibly believe that there’s any relationship?”

    Because it’s true for six of the seven years of his career? In the end, does it really matter whether there’s actually a DIRECT correlation? When the team needs him, he has historically played like shit.

    If it’s a coincidence, it’s an INCREDIBLY consistent coincidence, and even if the correlation isn’t direct, the result is the same… so… in practice (as opposed to theory), it might as well be true.

    Johnbowen: “If Matt Kemp plays in 2010 like he does in 2011, the Dodgers don’t make the post-season.”

    Yes. That’s my point. The Dodgers DO make the playoffs in 2010 if he played at his 2011 level.

    But he didn’t.

    Johnbowen: “In 2008, he was slightly above average and his team WON EIGHTYFOUR games. He was slightly above average AS WAS HIS TEAM.”

    They made the playoffs. The entirely fluky, broken baseball playoff system, where literally any of the 8 teams have nearly as much of a chance as any other.

    For your point to have weight, you’d have to be willing to say “I’d rather my team win 100 games and finish 3rd, than win 82 and make the playoffs.”

    Are you comfortable saying that?

    If not… you clearly understand that the Dodgers were successful (as a team) in 2008, while Matty Kemp was basically Alex Rios.

    Johnbowen: “So, twice in four full seasons, he’s actually played to the exact level of his team, which might be the worst mode of player development I’ve ever heard of.”

    I guess… unless you actually care more about winning than statistics.

    Johnbowen: “Do you think that means Babe Ruth didn’t help the team win ballgames?

    If you’re not going to make the playoffs, who cares that Babe Ruth is on the team?

    I can find players who DON’T get my team to the post season just about anywhere… and probably a lot cheaper than Matty Kemp.

    Cameron: “Carlos Santana is looking to be Cleveland’s savior”

    *muted whimper*

    Cameron: “The Dodgers’ fuckups are on the fact the team’s run by dumbasses.

    I disagree. That statement implies they were “run” at all.

    Johnbowen: “Here are some splits for Matt Kemp in 2011:”

    I’m already saying he was good in 2011. That’s what pisses me off. You’re not demonstrating anything by just repeating what was in my initial point.

    Oh… and just for shits and giggles… these are those same splits from 2010… when his stats might have actually mattered:

    RISP: .225/.307/.456
    (I couldn’t find the tie game splits… but I think the above speaks for itself pretty well)

    When it doesn’t matter his splits with runners in scoring position are: .335/.450/.652
    When it does matter his splits with runners in scoring position are: .225/.307/.456

    110 points of batting. 143 points of on base. ALMOST TWO HUNDRED FUCKING POINTS ON SLUGGING.

    Matty Kemp when it matters, versus Matty Kemp when it doesn’t.

    You’re making this points for me… the only problem is you’re more concerned with individual performance than team success… which strikes me as… somewhat… missing… ya know… the point of the “game”.

    Johnbowen: “I’m also curious…how does Matt Kemp display selfishness?”

    Meh. It’s just a vibe he gives off. I don’t have anything to really back it up, so I’ll back off the point… somewhat.

    Cameron: “correlation isn’t causation”

    Couldn’t agree more. But when the correlation is noticeably consistent, with predictable results… does it really matter whether it’s actually the cause of the problem?

    The end result is the same.

    I don’t care why he can’t hit when it matters… the fact remains… he can’t.

    Anything else is simply academic theory.

    Cameron: “There isn’t some mystical baseball voodoo god that decreed that the Dodgers’ performance is going to be the inverse of how Matt Kemp plays. Quite frankly, believing that is kinda fuckin’ stupid.”

    Whoa whoa whoa… be careful… with all the flames flying around this thread, if you’re not careful that strawman is going to be in trouble.

    I’m not saying it’s magic.

    I’m saying that the results are the same however you add it up, so whats the fucking difference?

    Johnbowen: “You don’t think maybe he stepped up his game this year?”

    Okay. Lets assume that’s true. Lets assume a player has the ability… with fierce determination and hard work… to “step up his game”.

    Why the fuck can’t he do it when it matters?

    Either the “stepping up” thing is bullshit… or he’s a sack of crap who can’t play when the pressure is on.

    Johnbowen: “Again…he won a silver slugger in 2009, when the team made the playoffs.”

    Yes… the year I admitted as an aberration in my supposition. You’re not doing anything to disprove me by repeating the points I’m making.

    Johnbowen: “And he had a pretty good year in 2008…without him, there’s no way the Dodgers make the playoffs.”

    You’re right… the Dodgers probably don’t make the playoffs in 2008 without Matty Kemp… or… Cody Ross… or… Ryan Church… or… Shane Victorino… or… a 38 year old Ken Griffey Jr… or… Hunter Pence… or… ‘Hard Hittin’ Mike Cameron… or… Chase Headly… or… Fred Lewis… or… Randy Winn… or… Connor Jackson… or… a 20 year old Justin Upton… or… any myriad of major league outfielders who posted an OPS+ of around 110 in the 2008 season.

    So… yeah… without Matty Kemp, or the dozens of other outfielders who had a similar 2008 (most of them either being cheaper than Matty Kemp at the time, or at least cheaper than Matty Kemp WILL become)… the Dodgers definitely wouldn’t have made the playoffs.

    Basically… if the Dodgers decided to run out 8 men instead of 9, and left a gigantic hole in centerfield… they probably wouldn’t have made the playoffs.

    Johnbowen: ““he’s (roughly) played to the level of his team” (which again, is not a relevant or meaningful quality for a ballplayer)”

    Except… in the end… the result is the same… so who cares?

    What does it matter if the team doesn’t make the playoffs?

    Johnbowen: “T.Plush had a career year when the Brewers needed it…I’ll gladly accept that.”

    You’re starting to scare me man.

    You’re really starting to sound like you’d rather win 100 and finish 3rd than win 82 and play through October.

    I know this is an insulting question… but please take it with the earnestness from which it’s proffered… you would rather make the playoffs… right?

    October…
    …or…
    …100 wins.

    Which would you… John Bowen… prefer his team finish?

  34. Hossrex Says:

    Errrr… sorry about that… :p I honestly didn’t mean to write that much.

    I honestly don’t expect anyone to read it, and I actually do apologize for that. I stand by what I said, but it’s so long winded that even I don’t care to review it (as I always do).

    My bad. :p I get passionate about baseball.

  35. Cameron Says:

    It’s alright Hoss. If you were mellow and chill about baseball, you wouldn’t be a very good Dodgers fan.

    Though you’d be a great Giants fan, and I should know. I’ve got a family full of ‘em.

  36. Hossrex Says:

    Cameron: “Though you’d be a great Giants fan, and I should know.”

    Okay… John called me stupid like a dozen times… and I was able to brush that off… but… seriously bro… why you gotta get all insulting up in here?

    I didn’t say ANYTHING that warranted you being so… MEAN… about it.

  37. Hossrex Says:

    And it’s kinda funny… in real life I’m the most mellow and chill guy you’d ever meet.

    I imagine we’d all be pretty surprised about each other if we actually got together for that beer.

    Even Chuck’s probably less of a wanker once he’s out from behind the computer (JK! LOVE YA CHUCK! *SMOOCHES*)!

  38. JohnBowen Says:

    “Because it’s true for six of the seven years of his career? In the end, does it really matter whether there’s actually a DIRECT correlation? When the team needs him, he has historically played like shit.”

    Really? You’re going to count his first season, where he played like 50 games and was 21? You think that’s meaningful in any way?

    “Yes. That’s my point. The Dodgers DO make the playoffs in 2010 if he played at his 2011 level.”

    Actually, they probably don’t. You’re asking one player to deliver an additional 12 wins to your team’s total, which even 2011 Kemp wouldn’t have provided.

    “They made the playoffs. The entirely fluky, broken baseball playoff system, where literally any of the 8 teams have nearly as much of a chance as any other.

    For your point to have weight, you’d have to be willing to say “I’d rather my team win 100 games and finish 3rd, than win 82 and make the playoffs.””

    So what? The Dodgers won 84 games. They played in a weak division. They weren’t really above average. They were about the 14th best team in baseball. And Matt Kemp was like the 7th best CF, so your larger argument is incorrect. And without Kemp, the Dodgers would’ve watched the 82-80 Dbacks in the playoffs.

    “Oh… and just for shits and giggles… these are those same splits from 2010… when his stats might have actually mattered:”

    You know the Dodgers won more games in 2011 than in 2010, right? And finished one place better? And were a half game closer to first?

    “I don’t care why he can’t hit when it matters… the fact remains… he can’t.”

    Or, he totally can, as evidenced by 2008 and 2009, two years in which he played well and helped his team reach the post-season.

    “Why the fuck can’t he do it when it matters?”

    Matt Kemp is an unclutch player because he didn’t build a fucking time machine to 2006.

    “So… yeah… without Matty Kemp, or the dozens of other outfielders who had a similar 2008 (most of them either being cheaper than Matty Kemp at the time, or at least cheaper than Matty Kemp WILL become)”

    Who the hell cares how cheap Matty Kemp WILL BECOME as related to his performance in 2008?

    That makes no sense.

    In 2008, Matt Kemp made 406K and provided a 110 OPS+ as a CFer in 155 games.

    You’d rather have Mike Cameron do the same thing in 30 fewer games for 20x as much cash that year? Be my guest.

    Oh, and he was 23 years old in 2008. Obviously, as a 26 year old in 2011, he had a better year. You’re really going to say he was unclutch because he was less good in his third big league season than he was during his physical prime?

    “October…
    …or…
    …100 wins.”

    I’d rather see my team in October.

    That has NOTHING to do with Matt Kemp being clutch, unclutch, or anything else.

    In his young career, he has had TWO realistic opportunities to contribute solidly to a post-season teams (you can’t seriously be pissed off that he didn’t OPS+ 171 as a 21 year old rookie…) and BOTH TIMES, he came through with good years to put his team in the post-season.

    Which is the whole crutch of your argument.

    Which is silly to begin with.

    I’ll ask again:

    Nyjer Morgan had a career year in 2011 to help the Brewers get to the post-season.

    Matt Kemp had probably the greatest season ever by an NL CFer not named Willie Mays in 2011, and he only got his team to 82-79.

    If you get Ned Colleti’s job in 2012 (because, let’s face it, he sucks at it), are you going to trade Matt Kemp for Nyjer Morgan?

  39. JohnBowen Says:

    Wait, ok.

    “Errrr… sorry about that… :p I honestly didn’t mean to write that much.”

    Ok, now I know what’s going on.

    The Hossrex I remember would never use emoticons like that, or say “smooches,” even ironically.

    Something’s up.

  40. Hossrex Says:

    Johnbowen: “Really? You’re going to count his first season, where he played like 50 games and was 21? You think that’s meaningful in any way?”

    Which is why I drew attention to that exact point.

    Besides… if it’s consistent with the rest of his career, how is it unfair to mention what a guy did when he was young? I might not care that Willie Mays stunk his rookie year… but I think it’s perfectly reasonable to mention that Steve Sax hit .277 his rookie year.

    Johnbowen: “Actually, they probably don’t. You’re asking one player to deliver an additional 12 wins to your team’s total, which even 2011 Kemp wouldn’t have provided.”

    So you’re saying a team doesn’t play differently when they go into September six games back, versus going into September 12 games back?

    This emphasizes your difficulty in grasping this. It demonstrates that you… appear to… think psychology… “make up”… and anything else not on the back of a baseball card doesn’t matter.

    It’s not “everything”, as saber people like to pretend “traditionalists” believe… but it can absolutely mean the difference in whether a group of guys go into a game confident or not.

    Johnbowen: “So what? The Dodgers won 84 games. They played in a weak division. They weren’t really above average. They were about the 14th best team in baseball. And Matt Kemp was like the 7th best CF, so your larger argument is incorrect. And without Kemp, the Dodgers would’ve watched the 82-80 Dbacks in the playoffs.”

    So what.

    The Dodgers make the playoffs… and you’re saying “so what”?

    That’s the ENTIRE POINT OF THE GAME. To win. To make the playoffs. To put your team in a position where a little luck will mean a World Championship.

    THAT’S THE POINT OF THE REGULAR SEASON.

    And you’re saying “it doesn’t matter”. You don’t think they won enough games to be considered successful (that’s the word I used which caused you to disagree… so don’t think you can get away with saying “I didn’t use the word successful).

    You very clearly don’t understand the point of baseball.

    Johnbowen: “You know the Dodgers won more games in 2011 than in 2010, right? And finished one place better? And were a half game closer to first?”

    Again, you’re demonstrating why your general position isn’t as sound as you suppose. The 2010 season was much closer for the majority of the season, until the Dodgers hit a nose dive in August and September… which you’d know if you’d watched the games like I did… which… get this… gives me a perspective on the game that you pretend doesn’t exist.

    The Dodgers finished 2 games under 500, so it must have been a shitty six months.

    Right?

    Well… no actually…

    On July 11th… after 88 games… the Dodgers were 10 games over 500, a very respectable 49 and 39… in 2nd place, just two games back of the Padres.

    This is something I know… off the top of my head (not the exact numbers obviously), because I observed the events.

    You did not.

    In exactly the same way that I possess a perspective on this subject which you simply CAN NOT, because of my observations… I similarly possess a perspective on Matty Kemp that your records misrepresent.

    How much money do you spend for a player that doesn’t help you make the post season?

    Why?

    Johnbowen: “Or, he totally can, as evidenced by 2008 and 2009, two years in which he played well and helped his team reach the post-season.”

    One of those years I’ve granted from the beginning… in the other he was basically one of a dozen guys… most of them cheaper than him.

    That doesn’t impress me.

    Johnbowen: “Matt Kemp is an unclutch player because he didn’t build a fucking time machine to 2006. “

    Or… because… he doesn’t hit when it matters.

    Definitely one of the two.

    Johnbowen: “Who the hell cares how cheap Matty Kemp WILL BECOME as related to his performance in 2008?”

    Because his reputation, and standing in the baseball community which is in question?

    If I’m saying “Player ‘A’ is dramatically overrated”, I’m absolutely within bounds to say “other similar players are cheaper”.

    Johnbowen: “You’d rather have Mike Cameron do the same thing in 30 fewer games for 20x as much cash that year? Be my guest.”

    I’m curious why you would make a point for which you know, with absolute certainty, doesn’t represent my point of view in any way.

    Johnbowen: “You’re really going to say he was unclutch because he was less good in his third big league season than he was during his physical prime?”

    No. I’m saying he’s “unclutch” because he has historically failed to produce when the games “matter”.

    Considering that’s basically the exact definition of clutch (a word you’ve used twice now, even though I’ve not used it once, other than in responding to your use of it), I’m not sure why you’re having trouble understanding my usage of it.

    Johnbowen: “That has NOTHING to do with Matt Kemp being clutch, unclutch, or anything else.”

    I agree. I’m simply responding to bizarre statements you’ve made intimating that making the playoffs isn’t a big deal… but one player putting up impressive individual statistics IS a big deal.

    Johnbowen: “you can’t seriously be pissed off that he didn’t OPS+ 171 as a 21 year old rookie…”

    You’re focusing on that season FAR more than I am. All I’m saying… and I’ve said it several times… is that while I understand he was very young (which I *DID* mention IMMEDIATELY upon making the point the first time), that year represents a trend.

    It isn’t that I’m pissed off that he didn’t OPS+ 171 as a 21 year old… I’m pissed that… and I’ll say it again (why not)… historically he doesn’t hit well when the games matter.

    That’s my entire point, and you’re doing a hell of a job dancing around the point… but anything else is secondary. Primarily his superior years have come in seasons where the Dodgers under performed, while also primarily his weakest years have come in seasons where the Dodgers performed admirably.

    Without knitpicking individual at-bats, the above generalization is true.

    Of course there are aberrations. Of course there are outliers.

    Outliers don’t completely invalidate a theory… especially one so admittedly nebulous.

    I’m not saying “why” it happens. Simply that it does.

    Matty Kemp hits like shit when it matters.

    Johnbowen: “If you get Ned Colleti’s job in 2012 (because, let’s face it, he sucks at it), are you going to trade Matt Kemp for Nyjer Morgan?”

    Am I making strawman arguments against you without realizing it? If I am, please point them out as I make them, instead of simply wasting my time by strawmanning me.

    I’m not saying I would trade Matty Kemp for Nyjer Morgan. That’s ridiculous.

    I’m saying that AFTER THE FACT… without necessarily holding predictive power… that Nyjer Morgan was more valuable to the Milwaukee Brewers than was Matty Kemp to the Los Angeles Dodgers.

    I find that inarguable.

    Who cares how good Matty Kemp was in 2011? The Dodgers sucked, and finished 3rd.

    Whereas the Milwaukee Brewers were literally a lucky bounce from going into a World Series where the American League team ultimately lost. I’m in no way saying that means the Brewers WOULD have won the World Series (obviously), but it’s not unreasonable to suggest that it’s not unlikely.

    I wouldn’t trade 2011 Matty Kemp for 2011 Nyjer Morgan… but I would trade the SEASON that the Brewers had over the SEASON that my Dodgers had.

    Do you see the part there where *I* care about the team, and winning… while you seem to only care about individual performances (not a strawman, simply an observation. Please correct me if I’m wrong, and explain how the two positions aren’t mutually exclusive).

    Johnbowen: “The Hossrex I remember would never use emoticons like that, or say “smooches,” even ironically.”

    lulz… then you remember me with more dignity than I probably deserve.

    How many Dugout COMMENTERS (not authors) have ever posted 2,000 word comments?

    I would imagine no further evidence would be required.

    OMG.
    WTF.
    BBQ.
    :)
    !11!!!

    And I used to smooch Chuck all the time. When Chuck and I first began our common discourse, and people would come away (quite understandably) with the impression that I *REALLY* hated Chuck… which just wasn’t true.

    I’d kill to have the experiences in the game Chuck has had. I feel he has the experience necessary to PROPERLY utilize the EFFICIENCY that science can bring to baseball… but sadly he rarely does that.

  41. Raul Says:

    I just about cried @ Post #36

    John @ Post 32…interesting idea.

  42. Raul Says:

    Rex…

    I’m out on the west coast now up in Glendale (surrounded by track suits and cologne, if you know what I mean).

    When those Dodgers start off 0-6 next year, I got the first round of drinks.

  43. brautigan Says:

    Hoss: Why the hostility for Kemp? He is one of the nicest guys I have met. After games up in Portland, he would hang outside of the dugout chatting it up with Dodger fans and anyone else that would stop by.

    Secondly, did you notice the other Dodger starters this year? Loney keeps underwhelming at the plate (especially for a first baseman). Rod Barajas had a good year, but jesus, he’s 35 already. And the starting lineup included guys like Juan Uribe, Jamey Carroll, and Tony Gwynn Jr. If you think that group is going to win games………

    I don’t know, your venom towards Kemp seems misplaced, but it also seems if he hit 15 homeruns and batted .230, you wouldn’t be ripping him today.

    Nice to see you back. Your ears must have been burning.

  44. brautigan Says:

    Carlos Santana wasn’t traded for Jamey Carroll, it was Casey Blake (and Jon Meloan was thrown into the deal with Santana).

  45. Raul Says:

    Casey Blake was a fine player but I don’t know about that trade.

  46. JohnBowen Says:

    I hadn’t realized that Casey Blake had played so well in 2009. Just completely slipped my radar.

    Indians still won the trade, but this is hardly one of Old Ned’s worst moves.

  47. Raul Says:

    Born today:

    Ed Kranepool
    Jerry Remy
    John Denny
    Jeff Blauser
    Henry Rodriguez
    Jose Offerman
    Nick Punto
    Darwin Barney
    Mike Stanton (the young one)

    Henry Rodriguez came up in 1992 at the age of 24. In 824 plate appearances from 1992-1995, Rodriguez hit 21 home runs.

    In 1996, he hit 36 in 576 plate appearances.

    Of course, I don’t have any syringes with Henry’s DNA on them and Rodriguez wasn’t in the Mitchell Report, so my good friend Mike Felber will just have to give him the benefit of doubt that he did it clean.

  48. brautigan Says:

    Weird stat of the day.

    Stan Musial had 1815 hits at home.
    Stan Musial had 1815 hits on the road.

  49. Raul Says:

    Sounds to me like he wasn’t Stan the Man. He was Even Steven.

  50. Lefty33 Says:

    “Of course, I don’t have any syringes with Henry’s DNA on them and Rodriguez wasn’t in the Mitchell Report, so my good friend Mike Felber will just have to give him the benefit of doubt that he did it clean.”

    Good luck with that. LOL

  51. Raul Says:

    I’m reading up on Sports Illustrated and it looks like the Marlins and Brewers are making a run at Jose Reyes.

    Boston is after Carlos Beltran.

  52. Bob Says:

    Yeah, Beltran will not cost a draft pick, and it may allow them to let Ortiz walk for a couple of picks. Also lets them see if there is a market for Kalish or Reddick.

  53. Cameron Says:

    And if there isn’t one, Reddick isn’t a terrible RF sub.

  54. Bob Says:

    Speculation on my part.
    They ( the Sox) sign Beltran to a 3-year feal, he plays right field 1n 2012 then dh’s.
    They sign Matt Murton to a 1-year deal as the 4th outfielder.
    They trade one of Reddick or Kalish, the one who is not traded heads to AAA.
    Come 2013, one of those two is the full-time guy.
    Ortiz is very interesting, as I know Toronto likes him, yet I just wonder about the wisdom of the Jays giving the Sox a couple of picks. If he departs, Youk is a possibility for DH in ‘12.

  55. Bob Says:

    I also think Cuddyer stays in Minnesota or stays with Lefty.

  56. Raul Says:

    Matt Millen crying on air. Not sure if over Joe Paterno, or setting back Lions franchise 20 yrs.

  57. Cameron Says:

    I’m going to say… Yes.

  58. brautigan Says:

    Message to readers: Consider retiring before you are forced to wear depends.

  59. Raul Says:

    Herman Cain says there’s not an ounce of truth to these claims.
    He uses the metric system.

  60. Cameron Says:

    Yes, to both of… Wait, there’s four of them now? Fuck’s sake, Herman, I know the line “Wanna see Godfather’s special sausage” probably sounds good to you but keep it in your pants!

  61. JohnBowen Says:

    Mitt Romney has 999 problems, but Herman Cain ain’t one.

  62. Cameron Says:

    Didn’t know you were a Jay-Z fan there, John.

  63. Bob Says:

    Cameron, it was a play on Cain’s tax plan.

  64. Cameron Says:

    Ah… Sorry, 99 Problems is an awesome song and I just went there by default.

    And the 9-9-9 Plan. Not only proof that Herman Cain plays SimCity, but sucks at it.

  65. Mike Felber Says:

    Well that is a funny tweaking Raul, I really do appreciate it. But there is no good reason to even think Rodriguez was likely juicing. The caveat being that anyone from the era may have done it, at least at a certain time. But many did not at all. The specifics:

    1) He had few appearances per season, but the RATE he hit them was not through the roof, or way inconsistent with what he had done before. Or at all out of line for a player coming into his prime, or a career year. 21 in 824 PA, vs. 36 in 576 PA. That rate of increase, or partial years then a full one with a better rate, can be found with zillions of clean players since after the dead ball era.

    2) There is no actual evidence, right? Neither being healthy after several years nor increasing your productivity like that is a startling contrast.

    Show me he improved by a great deal, preferably somewhat more than he did in AB/HR, & that he suddenly got much bigger, I will say it is likely. Add that he did this in his mid 30’s or later, then I will say, very likely indeed. Not a young player staying healthy 7 hitting a natural peak.

    Anyway, it is good to see seemingly good natured debate reinvigorated. I will check out the Kemp?unkempt discussion later. Now, time to see some Burlesque!

  66. Raul Says:

    Well, I can’t compete with the burlesque, that’s for sure.

    Haha.

  67. Chuck Says:

    “I hate to sound like one of those old fart scouts (HI CHUCK!”

    Holy crap. What’s up, Hoss?

    “Ok, so Hossrex apent the last year getting dumber.”

    It took, what, two sentences for you to realize you have something in common?

    “Matty Kemp is why people like Chuck laugh at Sabermetrics.”

    No, John and Shaun are.

    “Ironically… Chuck probably loves Matty Kemp… but I wont hold it against him”

    I don’t, but that’s not really the question. And speaking of fellatio, how about that Andre Ethier?

    “Even Chuck’s probably less of a wanker once he’s out from behind the computer.

    What the hell is a “wanker”?

    “You’re really starting to sound like you’d rather win 100 and finish 3rd than win 82 and play through October.”

    We’ve all said basically the same thing to him, and yet, every time he gets backed into a corner, John’s biggest insult is “I guess you don’t like things that win ballgames.”

    Like stolen bases and walks win ballgames.

    “Nyjer Morgan had a career year in 2011 to help the Brewers get to the post-season.”

    Newsflash..the Brewers make the post-season without Nyjer Morgan.

    “ou very clearly don’t understand the point of baseball.”

    Haha..someone who hasn’t posted in a year figured John out in five minutes.

    Shocking.

    “I’m curious why you would make a point for which you know, with absolute certainty, doesn’t represent my point of view in any way.”

    Yep, we get a lot of that too.

    “I’d kill to have the experiences in the game Chuck has had. I feel he has the experience necessary to PROPERLY utilize the EFFICIENCY that science can bring to baseball… but sadly he rarely does that.”

    I’ve tried, but it’s like Bill Gates explaining the concept of Microsoft to Mrs. Doubtfire’s third grade class.

    If it doesn’t have “WAR” or “ERA+” or some other nonsensical acronym attached, it’s like standing on a street corner in Afghanistan asking for directions to the US Embassy.

    “But there is no good reason to even think Rodriguez was likely juicing.”

    Did you not understand ANYTHING I said the other day?

    Just stop, Mike. Like Cameron said, you’re just making an ass of yourself and your credibility goes down with every comment.

    You’re one of the third graders being lectured to.

    Holy crap.

  68. Mike Felber Says:

    I have a few minutes before the show to read. Know what is convincing, by degrees? When you get a certain # of people coming forward, & willing to be IDed by name, claiming criminal conduct or sexual harassment. It becomes increasingly unlikely that all of them, especially when some are making their identitities public, are lying. Even when Cain started shifting his explanations: it COULD be that he just lacks intellectual rigor, & is sloppy with the facts. That is worrisome in itself. And the media alerted him 10 daaaaze before the 1st charges became public, still he seemed utterly unprepared with a coherent story. \

    But getting basic facts wrong, changing your explanation, makes it all the more likely he is lying. Rather than an elaborate conspiracy theory. With 3 different campaigns/sources blamed for the charges!

    Crosby & Nash played OWS today. Saw them years ago in Ca.

  69. Chuck Says:

    Herman Cain woke up this morning and thanked God he isn’t Joe Paterno.

  70. Bob Says:

    Actually, I saw Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young at Pine Knob about 14 years ago. In the summertime of course. Awesome

  71. Bob Says:

    LOL at 69.

  72. Cameron Says:

    So… Something bizarre happened today.

    You see, before football season started I lost my internet briefly and couldn’t attend the draft for a fantasy league. I asked to be dropped, but they kept me since they needed to fill roster space.

    I just found out I got kept now, at Week 10. …And I’m leading the league with an 8-1 record.

  73. Bob Says:

    You stud you. Although you will not go undefeated. Have a good night.

  74. Chuck Says:

    RIP Smokin’ Joe.

    Four career losses, two each against Ali and Foreman.

    Twenty-seven knockouts in his thirty-two wins.

    Easily an all-time great, and, yes, Mike, Frazier would have wiped the floor with your boy Tyson.

  75. Cameron Says:

    I’ll agree. Tyson was fast, Tyson could hit, but Frazier had enough raw power and agility to keep up and knock him the fuck out.

  76. Cameron Says:

    …What.

  77. Mike Felber Says:

    Chuck, make an actual argument. I understood all you said, which does not say whether it is valid. Assuming you read the post to know we were not talking about A-Rod, say something substantive please. You objected when I said nothing objectionable, that I bet folks did not know that Schilling was 2nd all time in K/BB, & to a pitcher who payed 1874-18884. A harmless statement. Yet you patronize me not only before, but INSTEAD of making an actual case!

    How about some facts & avoiding the gratuitous, irrational condescension. Thank you.

    We went through Frazier-Tyson before Chuck. I would love it if you were right, but restating a premise absent evidence is not a case. Love Smokin’ Joe. But at his peak, Tyson was clearly faster & more elusive, more muscular, & a very good boxer. Joe had more heart & a better left hook. They both had a great chin at their peak, but as Foreman showed, Joe could be overpowered.

    They would be fairly evenly matched. Tyson likely would win if he could do it early, Joe after the middle rounds.

  78. Mike Felber Says:

    Mays was very good in ‘51, won rookie of the year. A 120 OPS +, & an excellent glove already.

    About Kemp: even if he tended to be worse in a few years when the Dodgers were better & vice versa, we gotta inquire as to whether a few years this way might be chance-& that likely is the case. It is very clear that almost nobody is better than their usual performance in “clutch” situations-when a large enough sample size is considered. This is true for most supposed “chokers” too. We discussed this at length recently.

    Now Hoss cited relevant stats re: RISP. This & late & close, over a season means something-but to be confident that it is a pattern of causation, take late & close & RISP over a career, vs. normal production. You see Kemp is significantly worse in these stats then-you have something to comnlain about!

  79. Chuck Says:

    “Chuck, make an actual argument.”

    What?

    “I understood all you said, which does not say whether it is valid.”

    Of course it does. You’re here to learn, not to teach.

    “Assuming you read the post to know we were not talking about A-Rod, say something substantive please.”

    What?

    “You objected when I said nothing objectionable, that I bet folks did not know that Schilling was 2nd all time in K/BB…”

    Everyone knows that, and yet you act like Santa finally gave you the bike you’ve always wanted.

    “A harmless statement. Yet you patronize me not only before, but INSTEAD of making an actual case!”

    See above.

    “How about some facts & avoiding the gratuitous, irrational condescension. Thank you.”

    I always present facts, you’re just don’t have the knowledge to notice.

    “Tyson was clearly faster & more elusive, more muscular, & a very good boxer.”

    Your lack of knowledge about baseball is only superseded by your lack of knowledge on boxing.

    Tyson COULDN’T box, which has always been the premise.

    Tyson dominated one of the worst eras in the heavyweight division in history. Being champion was because of that, not because he was a great fighter, but because there’s more tomato cans on his resume than on the shelf at Stop & Shop.

    It is what it is.

  80. JohnBowen Says:

    “Like stolen bases and walks win ballgames.”

    They do.

    Pay attention sometime, instead of marveling at how nice ballplayers look in their uniforms.

    Also, I love how ERA+ is a nonsensical acronym.

    People have been using ERA since forever.

    ERA+ is just a way of quantifying how pitching in Coor’s Field is a tad different than pitching at Petco Park.

    Or comparing players across era’s.

  81. Chuck Says:

    “Pay attention to a sometime, instead of marveling at how nice ballplayers look in their uniforms.”

    Some players do look nice in their uniforms, although, unlike you, I don’t marvel at them nude.

  82. JohnBowen Says:

    It’s just that sometimes I wonder about you, buddy.

    I like seeing how good these guys are at baseball.

    I could care less if they “look like ballplayers.”

  83. Raul Says:

    Some look like ballplayers. Some look like steroid users.

  84. Chuck Says:

    Jeez, John, I like to think of myself as being worldly and all, but your infatuation with ballplayers in their uniforms is making me somewhat uncomfortable.

  85. JohnBowen Says:

    “I like to think of myself as being worldly”

    LOL.

    Look, Chuck: if you think Derek Jeter has a “spankable” ass, just go ahead and admit it. We won’t judge.

  86. Raul Says:

    Gonna watch the Thrilla in Manila on Youtube.

  87. Cameron Says:

    I don’t think he has a spankable ass. He does have a punchable face, though.

    And Chuck, you think the heavyweight division was bad then, look at it now. Hell, as a whole, I can name THREE active boxers off the top of my head, all welterweights.

  88. JohnBowen Says:

    Oh, and glad to hear about your fantasy team, Cam.

    I’m also 8-1, but I’ve actually been doing stuff. Rocking the waiver wire…I’ve made two trades…I got Frank Gore and Jeremy Maclin for Ryan Fitzpatrick, and two weeks later, I packaged those two and Steven Jackson for Ray Rice (and Brandon Marshall and Julio Jones). So, ultimately, I traded my back-up QB to upgrade from Steven Jackson to Ray Rice, and also my WRers. I have a weak WR core overall though…I picked Reggie Wayne before Manning’s surgery happened. Coulda had like a Mike Wallace caliber player also…

  89. Cameron Says:

    For fun, here’s the team that got auto-drafted for me. The WR is so weak I’m amazed I did this well.

    QB – Michael Vick
    WR – Mike Williams (TB)
    WR – Brandon Marshall
    RB – Arian Foster
    RB – Maurice-Jones Drew
    TE – Jimmy Graham
    W/R/T – Felix Jones
    BN – BenJarvus Green-Ellis
    BN – Willis McGahee
    BN – Austin Collie
    BN – Jay Cutler
    BN – Aaron Hernandez
    K – Neil Rackers
    K – Garret Hartley
    DEF – Pittsburgh

    …I actually have no idea why I’m doing so well.

  90. JohnBowen Says:

    I’m surprised you got both Foster and MJD…Foster was a #1 overall pick more often than anyone else and it’s hard to believe MJD AND Vick were falling to later rounds.

    How many people are in your league?

    Oh, and I’ve got Jimmy Graham too…that dude’s been fucking money all year. Great story too.

  91. Cameron Says:

    Ten-man league. It was hard to get guys to join, so I was kept on auto-draft to pad the numbers.

  92. Cameron Says:

    Also, one of my buddies is gonna go on a fire sale if he loses this week and goes 1-9. I’m circling his roster like a hawk.

    That and the waiver wire. Julio Jones and Torrey Smith are the only WR that aren’t total shit on there.

  93. JohnBowen Says:

    Julio Jones had a big day for me on Sunday. 50-yrd and 80-yrd td catches.

  94. Cameron Says:

    Still not worth five draft picks.

  95. JohnBowen Says:

    Oh yeah, that was absolutely silly by Atlanta.

    Good move by Holmgren to set the Browns up for the future.

  96. Cameron Says:

    Yeah, but Holmgren isn’t exactly a draft wizard…

  97. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 55 – He can have my spare bedroom anytime.

    (As long as he’s playing in Philly. If not then crap on him.)

  98. Mike Felber Says:

    Fist off Chuck, let me quote John McEnroe about your “You are here to learn, not to teach”. You cannot be serious.

    I would not accept that childish peeing attempt at dominance even if I just came here, as opposed to contributing for years. So that is enough insulting foolishness. You should be above that.

    Next, you often do NOT supply an argument. Pretty much anyone here can testify to this, or I can go back & show innumerable times when you assert a premise, or reassert it, without evidence.

    You took a puzzling patronizing shot at me re: one Rodriguez. And again made no case. By all means, feel free to enumerate at any length why you feel I am dead wrong. But to say just stop, you are a third grader, etc…Why do you feel compelled to act mean when nobody else is?

    Maybe I should quote the anger management icon again: “you cannot be serious”.

    Fact check: Cameron did not say I was making an ass of myself. He did say my credibility is shot if I or anyone thought Big Mac was clean. I called him on that at length, & he then retreated & said hindsight is 20-20. Saying that all who do not agree with you have no credibility is a dangerously intolerant position to take-unless you say something truly nuts like Ueker was the greatest ever-& I have shown for years how I know folks who have been clean & huge, some have that potential…And modern medicine has many ways to make a guy healthy.

    but that was not even brought up above. I do not know why you are saying “what”. It is clear you responded to my comment in #77, when i showed how a particular player’s increasing his HR % at his peak by a certain amount was not at ALL unusual.

    Why do you think everyone knew Schilling was #2 all time in k/bb? I trust folks here. Who knew that? Now will you say everyone knew who is #1?

  99. Hossrex Says:

    Raul: “When those Dodgers start off 0-6 next year, I got the first round of drinks.”

    Hold ya to it bro.

    Braut: “Loney keeps underwhelming at the plate (especially for a first baseman).”

    Loney’s like that brother you love, who just can’t hold a job. We don’t really talk about it… and for some reason cut him a LOT of slack which we certainly wouldn’t were he a free agent acquisition.

    I would be the first to admit the stupidity in that inefficiency… but… meh… baseball is sometimes an emotional game.

    Braut: “it also seems if he hit 15 homeruns and batted .230, you wouldn’t be ripping him today.”

    I wouldn’t have had such a visceral reaction if I didn’t know what the bastard was capable of… no.

    Why shouldn’t that be taken into consideration?

    Wasn’t there an entire chapter of Moneyball (of all things) about how one of the great myths in baseball is that “everything evens out?” About how, as much as we’d all like to think it was true, luck just doesn’t always swing both ways.

    It was a constant struggle for Beane.

    With that in mind… why NOT pay attention to which players perform well when the team is in the thick of things?

    Braut: “Your ears must have been burning.”

    Was I the topic of conversation when I wasn’t around? You know that gives me a hardon, right?

    Raul: “Casey Blake was a fine player but I don’t know about that trade.”

    Again, perspective. Even at the time, we know we were making a mistake in the long game… but we were a team in serious contention with the guy holding LITERALLY the lowest OPS+ in the game playing the hot corner (don’t remember that?).

    We NEEDED to do something, and when you’re forced to make a move, you’ll always make it poorly.

    “Whaddya gonna do?”

    Braut: “Stan Musial had 1815 hits at home.
    Stan Musial had 1815 hits on the road.”

    I love how much that implies about the guy.

    Most of it probably, awesomely, true.

    Chuck: “Holy crap. What’s up, Hoss?

    I was half-way through reading the comment AFTER Chucks comment, before I realized that I had *NOTHING* to say about what Chuck said. That isn’t an insult… just only comment when I disagree (which is why I seem argumentative).

    That was literally the first time Chuck has written more than ten words, when I didn’t disagree with SOMETHING he said.

    I think I’m starting to understand Chuck… 33 doesn’t suit me.

    Mike: “Mays was very good in ‘51, won rookie of the year. A 120 OPS +, & an excellent glove already.

    Well… dagnabbit… who the hell was I thinking of?

    Johnbowen: “ERA+ is just a way of quantifying how pitching in Coor’s Field is a tad different than pitching at Petco Park.

    Except when you read about how park factors are created. I accept OPS+ and ERA+ as “probably” the best SINGLE stats (in that they AREN’T a single stat)… but park factors are bullshit.

    Just do me a favor. If you’ve never read about them… go read about how they’re figured… you SHOULD be able to see the problem pretty quickly.

    (notice how they weight a particular park, and consider that weight with the BEST offense on one side versus the WORST offense… it’ll appear that park is batter friendly, when all that’s actually happened is the Florida Marlins have decided to pay for decent players again.

    Evidence? Who needs it right?

    Luckily I have it.

    Joe Robbie Stadium:

    One year batting factor (over 100 favors batters):

    1993: 101
    1994: 108
    1995: 98
    1996: 96
    1997: 98
    1998: 92
    1999: 92
    2000: 95
    2001: 95
    2002: 100
    2003: 97
    2004: 96
    2005: 92
    2006: 94
    2007: 100
    2008: 98
    2009: 105
    2010: 104
    2011: 99

    If you have a head for numbers, you literally get FUCKING WHIPLASH imagining that charted on a graph… and yet it’s all the same park. Those numbers SCREAM OUT every handful of years as Loria decides he needs to put a little money into the team to remind everyone they still exist.

    Those numbers also represent the cornerstone of one of THE most important statistics.

    How do you rationalize that to yourself? Did you know any of this?

    If you didn’t know any of this… would you admit it?

    If you did know… how do you get around the INSANELY inaccurate data point?

    Mike Felber: “So that is enough insulting foolishness. You should be above that.

    Holy shit… this place is EXACTLY the same as the last time I was hear. The same people. The same arguments. The same sides.

    I love it!

    It’s like missing a season of ‘House’… and then “BAM!” Start of the next season, you’re there, and he’s still out being a curmudgeonly diagnostic MACHINE!

    It’s refreshing.

  100. Hossrex Says:

    Regarding the Casey Blake/Carlos Santana deal… I was wrong. Casey Blake didn’t have the LOWEST OPS+… he had:

    Fire Joe Morgan: “Of the 30 men listed as “3B” on Yahoo!’s sortable stats page, only two have OPSes lower than Blake DeWitt’s: Marco Scutaro (who really plays shortstop) and Jack Hannahan (who is Jack Hannahan). So Blake DeWitt, despite being “a ballplayer” (whatever you want that to mean) and “play[ing] the game the right way” (also borderline meaningless) is probably, objectively speaking, the worst or second-worst offensive third baseman in the major leagues.”

    lulz… “and Jack Hanahan (who is Jack Hannahan)”. Funny stuff.

    http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search?q=dewitt

    Check out that link, and do a “cntr-F” for “DeWitt”. This was the third baseman on a team underperforming to 36-4, who went on to win the Division (84-78), and lose to the steamroller Phillies in the NLCS.

    Against typical playoff competition, we could reasonably have expected to, at least, make the world series.

    If Casey Blake had helped win a world series, no one would be TOO upset about losing Santana (it WOULD still sting, of course).

    But… we didn’t.

    So… it’d sure be nice to have Santana back. :p

  101. Hossrex Says:

    Whoops. HTML error. The stuff after the single quoted paragraph shouldn’t be bold.

    My bad.

  102. Mike Felber Says:

    Now I am going to stress how you are causing needless ill will with an untenable & provocative statement.

    Disagree with me all you like. But it is irrational & worse than “irascible” to claim I know almost nothing about boxing due to the argument you make.

    Most boxing experts, & I’ll bet you most all or ALL here, will agree with me about Tyson being great at his peak. According to your logic, they ALSO MUST be ignorant about boxing.

    I dunno, maybe you blew a gasket because somehow you took it personally that I jokes about “it is what it is” as a sports cliche. Instead as unrelated to you & just a riff on cliches.

    Go down to a serious gym or talk with some boxers in the game for years & see how much currency you haver with your truly outlier idea that Tyson could not box. He had great movement, bobbing & weaving, good combinations, set up folks, threw from many angles, was a real student of old boxers & watched tons of fights, under the tutelage of Cus D’Amato…I linked a video of Tyson’s great defense.

    The fact that he was very fast, supplied relentless pressure, instead of jabbing & just counter punching, is NOT a shot against him. As a very powerful but short heavyweight he used the most effective strategy, & his talents should not be counted against him.

    When you said the 1st 30 guys he fought were terrible, i supplied 5 clearly skilled & powerful fighters-you had no response. Now there IS some truth to the HW division being not great then: but that is said seemingly 80% of the time. While it was NOT like it was in the early & mid ’70’s, they were not all bums, you have a very strong bias towards the older guys.

    Look I do not know if anyone here will agree with you about Tyson. But I am SURE that all who you ask with say it is not an intelligent statement, nor sportsmanlike or peaceful, to suggest someone is ignorant about the whole sport if they do not agree with you that Tyson was not very good & could not box.

    It is almost like you are trying to make more room & credibility for your unpopular position by saying that all who disagree with you are crazy.

    At least make your highly controversial argument without demeaning of all who disagree with you. That will help you get along-show respect & get it.

  103. Mike Felber Says:

    I like the way you address things systematically Hoss. At least I always know that you consider all points & do not duck any argument, & rarely miss anything. Whether I agree or now.

    Actually, the park factor argument is a very basic one that most miss. They should either wholly ignore the home team’s production, or better yet weight their production by using their road offense as a guide. Because while it does not wholly invalidate them, when the home team is particularly good or bad at at the bat, it makes them very inaccurate. So that would suggest that someone like Ruth was actually a bit underrated.

    Where have you been? Mrs. rex dragged you away from guy stuff?

  104. Hossrex Says:

    Boxing and football suck.

    And I the only one here with extensive baseball knowledge who doesn’t watch ANY other sporting events?

    Am I the only one who spends is friday nights playing Dungeons and Dragons, and all my poop time reading comic books?

    It’s odd being a video game obsessed fat kid, with a father who not only knows EVERY FUCKING THING that’s ever happened in baseball (individual batting averages of each of the 25 cubs during a ten or twenty year stretch in the 50’s-60’s). You sorta pick it up be default.

    Baseball is my Yiddish. It’s the intimate language I use when socializing with my father.

    It’s weird being around a group of guys, speaking fluent baseball… and then needing a fucking translator when ANY other sport comes up.

  105. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “They should either wholly ignore the home team’s production, or better yet weight their production by using their road offense as a guide.”

    Errrr… my thoughts exactly.

    This isn’t a condescending question… but why don’t they do it that way? It would seem like even if you’re lazy, just using the visiting teams offense (a MUCH more diverse, and thus accurate metric) would be JUST AS EASY… and yet simultaneously MUCH MORE ACCURATE.

    If they could do that… I would have sex with OPS+ (maybe with a .75 multiplier worked into SLG somehow… if you wanted to be ambitious about the whole thing).

    Mike: “Where have you been? Mrs. rex dragged you away from guy stuff?”

    Actually… kinda. I have been spending a shit ton of time with the woman. I dunno why. Facebook has (in a REALLY pathetic way) sullied me on the internet a bit… and couple that with the Dodgers being the literal joke of the National League… hadn’t really had much ambition to check you guys out.

    My loss.

    I miss all of you guys.

    Ummmm… “Not Gay”.

  106. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “So that would suggest that someone like Ruth was actually a bit underrated. “

    Is it just me… or do you get a little tingly when you notice a new way to appreciate a legendary player, that few have likely really thought about?

    It always makes me feel like I understand the game a little better than I did before… and that makes me jizz in my pants.

  107. Cameron Says:

    “Am I the only one who spends is friday nights playing Dungeons and Dragons, and all my poop time reading comic books?”

    …*raises hand*

  108. Mike Felber Says:

    Anyway, I’ll end with a defusing musing. Marciano vs. Frazier: who would win? I really do not know.

    Similarities are many. Small HWs, both were relentless, swarmers, never ever backed up. Each came in & took a few shots to give bombs. Both were done early.

    Records: Rocky’s was undefeated & clearly better. But Joe was better as an amateur, an Olympic gold medal,clearly fought better guys. I would call this a draw.

    In their prime: both had about the same # of few years as the best around. That Ali was forcibly barred was not Joe’s fault-he lobbied for Ali’s reinstatement & even refused to participate in a big tournament to find the replacement champion.

    Another draw. Size: About same height, Joe had longer reach, & was about 20 lbs. heavier. This likely would have limited advantage-both always fought to come inside. Slight edge Frazier.

    Punching: both threw bombs, Marciano more so with both hands. Edge to Rocky.

    Taking a punch: both were knocked down, Frazier a bit more in a shorter pro career. But fought better guys. Only Frazier stopped, & only by Foreman twice. Even, arguably Marciano had the edge in chin.

    Boxing skills: both could be underrated, but Frazier was more elusive with a bob & weave style Futch helped develop for him. Advantage, Frazier.

    I dunno. What do y’all think?

  109. Cameron Says:

    Oh, there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin ’bout boxing, a white man got to pull Rocky Marciano out they ass. That’s their one, that’s their one. Rocky Marciano! Rocky Marciano! Let me tell you something, once and for all–Rocky Marciano was good; but compared to Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano ain’t shit.

  110. Mike Felber Says:

    From “Do The Right Thing”. Then there was the answer to Rocky beating Lewis that Lewis was “122″ years old! Lol. And it is true that tribal loyalties, certainly for whites looking for the next Great White Hope, have not been very inspiring. I recall all the celebrities pulling for Cooney against Holmes. Lewis had a much loner & more impressive reign, I do not know if he would have the firepower in his prime to withstand Rocky-he admitted that he did not like swarmmrs, he was a boxer-slugger hybrid, & I read he did not think he would take Rocky-though he said Rocky had limited skills, but devastating power. Rocky did get better after Louis, but was never the most technically skilled.

    I do think it overstated to think with those limitations of size 7 skills that he was the best ever. And I really do not know who to pick between him & Frazier.

  111. Mike Felber Says:

    Ya don’t need a “no homo” disclosure Hoss: I missed you to.

    I joke that getting into art is good ’cause the competition for grrrrls is less, & if I jus’ perfect my “gay ray”, have 85% of the NYC Metropolitan area happily huggin’ & buggering each other…Then my stock will soar with the ladies! Law of supply & demand. But more soberly, an art guy mistaking me for gay ( one of those guys who counts everyone gay), got me on “Gay FX TV, later discovered on youtube, to promote my arts festival, so color me lavender!

    Anyway, 2 confessed nerds? Nothing wrong with that. Hoss, I must ask some folks in the know why they do not make those simple Park Factor adjustments. Reminds me of a problems with DIPS (defense Independent Pitching). Sure, measure all that they directly control, Ks, BB, HRs…But you also have to see how efficient a pitcher is in preventing runs being scored after with however many men they put on board!

    Appreciating the greats is always invigorating. I have linked a couple of youtube videos of Babe’s swing. Amazing intuitive skills: this was way before any modern technology & endless video study. Back elbow cocked, great area of impact/bat flat in K zone, weight shifted perfectly, lead with hip: I especially love how he “walks away: from his hands to produce maximum power.

    Wanna really enjoy a great read with impressive research? Bill Jenkinson is the eminent baseball Historian who wrote “The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs”. (Hypothetical if his ‘21 blasts were struck in a modern park). More recently he wrote “baseball’s Ultimate Power. Microfiche, interviews, physics, satellite photography..He charts all the great blasts in history, rates guys in DISTANCE.

    I can give another synopsis of his conclusions, but he also does throwing distance & speed, to a lesser extent. A great read & tribute to the old guys who had no access to modern training, nutrition, a grueling schedule/travel, no PEDs…Many of the conclusions are likely to surprise.

  112. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “an art guy mistaking me for gay ( one of those guys who counts everyone gay), got me on “Gay FX TV, later discovered on youtube, to promote my arts festival, so color me lavender!”

    Dude?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arPPf_nP5uw

    Dude?

    I mean… I’m cool with it and all… but unless this is a HILARIOUS coincidence… color ME Lavender.

  113. Hossrex Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz7tauT-PW4

    Holy shit… Mike… you MUST watch that. lulz… its even almost three years old.

  114. Mike Felber Says:

    That was not the video I was referring to (artistsinthekitchen), but that absolutely is me! A friend wanted to tape me fooling around at a Governor’s Island Arts festival. Not well edited, me unabashedly acting somewhere between demented & lighthearted nut, but I forgot about that one. Never thought it seems gay, not that I would care, just hyper-silly.

    Though running around with a pretty hula hoop girl on my shoulders-guess it could be interpreted as a “beard” if’n pink shirts on men are considered gay!

  115. Hossrex Says:

    I can’t help but feel like I owe something now… so… enjoy.

    Just keep in mind that I was 340lbs when the video was recorded, and I’m down to 250lbs now… so… “put the fork down” comments are still appropriate, but not nearly so.

    Now you notice the hairline before the waistline… so… yeah?

  116. Hossrex Says:

    Whoops… forgot the link.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/hossrex#p/u/13/sB67ywCyn9c

  117. Hossrex Says:

    lulz… you can see my Dodgers beer coolie.

  118. Mike Felber Says:

    Whaaa? I am familiar with the meme. I wonder why they used this last name in this version? My paternal grandparents, who died in the concentration camps while Dad was sent all over Europe as a small child before being sent to live with his Uncle Sam in Ohio, must be a-spinnin’ in their-oh wait, of course they do not have graves. Well, you get the idea.

    I don’t mind. Hitler stuff is intrinsically funny. The family favorite movie was “The Producers” since I was a kid.

  119. Mike Felber Says:

    Yeah, I recall that & you getting needless shi-ite for it. Nothing wrong with a little fun time reversal irony! I have been rocking a bushy 1/2 beard since Halloween weekend. Has a couple more days before I get tired of it.

    G’nite Hoss, thanks for the links.

  120. Mike Felber Says:

    Alright, good show on a big weight loss! I recall thinking that weight lifting could be very good for you, someone who naturally easily puts on weight & muscle. I’ll suggest some tips if you like. Given your old stories of native strength & bone structure, bet if you did it regularly for 6-12 months your strength would clearly surpass mine. ttyl man.

  121. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “My paternal grandparents, who died in the concentration camps while Dad was sent all over Europe as a small child before being sent to live with his Uncle Sam in Ohio”

    Oh… dude… I understand that you’re not mad… but I could totally understand that you COULD be angry (although a brother who works for Bill Maher suggests to me you wouldn’t be)… so I apologize either way.

    I also find Hitler jokes pretty funny… but I’m certainly not expecting that to be in universal agreement (I love the original Producers).

    I close with this: http://www.cracked.com/video_18315_ralph-last-guy-to-wear-hitler-mustache-in-america.html

  122. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “Given your old stories of native strength & bone structure, bet if you did it regularly for 6-12 months your strength would clearly surpass mine. “

    I would look like one of those “Worlds Strongest Man” dudes… but my arms would be like tree trunks.

    I hate being an endomorph… but at least I never have to worry about strangers fucking with me (I usually have a couple weeks growth on the beard). :)

  123. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 98 – Yes Mike it’s pretty common info that Schilling is #2.

    Your choice of thousands of Baseball/HOF/Red Sox websites have had that information of their sites since the day he announced his retirement and the premature debate on his HOF chances began.

    As to Tommy Bond being #1, seeing as he pitched in the 19th century who knew and who cares. The way walks were calculated then as to now is not comparable as the mound distance was different and pitchers were mostly throwing underhand or sidearm.

    Just because Schilling is #1 in a obscure B-List stat does not make his HOF chances any better or any more relevant.

    It just goes back to John’s tired argument of where you cherry pick the stats, no matter how insignificant, that a player was best at and then turn around and make that the argument for his candidacy.

    That same all-time list has such studs in the top 20 as Doug Jones, Jon Lieber, Ben Sheets, and Zack Greinke.

    Out of the top 100 on that list only 18 are HOF pitchers.

    Big deal.

  124. JohnBowen Says:

    Hossrex: “With that in mind… why NOT pay attention to which players perform well when the team is in the thick of things?”

    Because, at the end of the day, these guys are professional ballplayers, and I don’t think they get to where they are by cracking under pressure.

    If it seems like they are “cracking under pressure” (as ARod has been accused of, time and time again) it’s because

    a) The sample is too small to be statistically significant (once the 2009 playoffs happen, ARod doesn’t seem like as much of a choker)
    b) You’re letting your expectations as a fan overwhelm logic (Kemp can’t hit 1.000, can he?)

    So with Kemp, you’ve got:

    2006 – 50 bad games in his first cup of coffee, which happened to be during a playoff race
    2007 – 90 good games while the Dodgers were out of it, helping secure his place on the roster.
    2008 – A solid overall season in his first year as a big leaguer to help get his averageish team over the hump and into the post-season.
    2009 – A silver slugger season where he helped the Dodgers win the West, again.
    2010 – A step back (but still, ok season) during a season where the Dodgers were competitive for a bit but ultimately won just 80 games.
    2011 – A fantastic season while the Dodgers were a mess.

    So, a total sample of 6, at the very beginning of his career, when he’s developing as a ballplayer. 2 of those years weren’t full seasons, another 1 he totally played awesome in helping his team get there. 2008, we disagree on, but I feel like I would take a season like that for a first full year, regardless of the circumstances.

    I don’t see anything scientifically damning there.

    Just doesn’t seem like it’s worth caring about too much. If the Dodgers miss the playoffs by a game next year with Kemp hitting .252/.333/.401, you might have something. But for now, it seems like you’re grasping at straws, because the team felt competitive in 2010, and you wanted this season a year earlier.

  125. JohnBowen Says:

    …and now I know how Hossrex prepares for a date. Haha.

    “That same all-time list has such studs in the top 20 as Doug Jones, Jon Lieber, Ben Sheets, and Zack Greinke.”

    All of whom have way fewer than 3200 IP.

  126. Chuck Says:

    “Facebook has (in a REALLY pathetic way) sullied me on the internet a bit…”

    I don’t have Facebook, but I’m “sullied” a bit too.

    Once my AFL responsibilities have been fulfilled, probably by Thanksgiving, I’m going to pull a Hossrex or Thomas Wayne and disappear for awhile.

    Admittedly, life has started to throw hard stuff up and in and I need to get away for awhile, hopefully it’s temporary.

    PS: Jose Reyes has a deal with the Marlins.

  127. Mike Felber Says:

    Well we will miss you Chuck. But the off season is the best time for a break.

    Lefty, I do not think one stat that is not pretty comprehensive, absent context, makes a strong HOF case. Though you cannot simultaneously argue that it is obscure & it is commonly known. Forget the xaggeration of “thousands” of these web sites. Most surveyed, even baseball fans, would not be able to answer who is #2 all time. I do agree that the 19th century pitchers, at least before modern distance in ‘93, are not a relevant comparison.

    Why it does matter that a guy is # 2 all time in this stat:

    1) It is 2 of the 3 main things a pitcher can control-some argue the only things. So if your HRs/9 is even decent for your era (an important qualifier), it is very hard to not be efficient enough with the men you leave on base to be HOF worthy, certainly over 3261 IP.

    2) Being top 100 is totally different than being # 2 all time! Especially when you do not consider HR/(, or as John indicates, weight for IP! Most of those guys you mention are not even near Schilling’s K/BB ratio.

    If we compared #2 on any statistical list you like with the top 100, even IF they all had the same background context, # of chances (PA, IP…) It would be a joke to think those down on the list were remotely comparable to #2 (or #1 modern times).

    God is in the details. HOW high is your ratio in these important stats? How many IP? I am not even accepting the higher fangraphs WAR for Schilling. Though the truth may be somewhere between there & B-R.com.

  128. John Says:

    Can you imagine if other statistics were held to that kind of scrutiny?

    Hank Aaron for the Hall of Fame? Why, cuz he’s second all-time in HR? Like that’s important, for a category where Shaun Green, Dave Kingman, and Chili Davis are all in the TOP HUNDRED!

  129. Mike Felber Says:

    Nine Nine! I have Nine kids! You know who you sound like now? I could see the swastika coming…It is “just” an old Buddhist symbol. COntext really is everything.

    Well you would not be WSM big absent drugs Hoss. Though if you had remained very fat + put on more muscle, you may have created that impression!

    The thing is about Kemp…Even if he was good & bad most of the time when the Dodgers were not, that really only counts as a few seasons sample size. Especially when a couple were partial seasons, one as a rookie. Run 1000 guys through simulations, they will be all over the place in how they do-weighted towards more success in their late 20’s or so. But if you show a guy did significantly worse in RISP & late & close over a few seasons, THAT would be very damning.

  130. Mike Felber Says:

    Yes! Even better: The comparison was made to a rate stat. Kingman is not only high up on the HR list, but tied for 14th all time in HR/9! And for context, he played in part in a pitcher’s era, & all before the steroid era-& largely in pitcher parks.

    The point being that even though HRs are very important, if a guy is below par or poor in literally everything else, he is not likely to be a HOF man. As the better stat of OPS + (115 over a very moderate length AB/career) reflects.

  131. Chuck Says:

    “Well we will miss you Chuck.”

    I’m not totally disappearing like Hoss did, but most free time will be spent on more productive things.

    Not entirely my choice, but life happens and you have to deal with things sometimes.

  132. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 125 – Lots of guys have as many innings or more inning as Schilling and they are no where near the HOF.

    3200 innings means nothing.

  133. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 126 – I hope whatever needs to work itself out does so and quickly for you Chuck.

    Don’t forget that just like a zen laxative: All Things Must Pass

  134. Lefty33 Says:

    “Can you imagine if other statistics were held to that kind of scrutiny?”

    They already are.

    What do you think the save is?

    Hoffman will make the HOF simply becaue he’s #2 all-time and the first to 600.

    A great pitcher? No

    A great compiler? Yep

  135. Bob Says:

    Chuck, hope all is well and that you enjoy your holidays with that special-flavored egg nog.

  136. Chuck Says:

    I got a lay-off notice.

    I have 60 days to find a job.

    Sucks, but whatever.

    Thankfully that’s all it is, health is good, just when I sign on now I won’t be debating nonsense like WAR or MVP votes, but filling out job applications.

  137. Lefty33 Says:

    “Forget the xaggeration of “thousands” of these web sites. Most surveyed, even baseball fans, would not be able to answer who is #2 all time.”

    It’s no “exaggeration” Mike.

    If you Google Curt Schilling and Hall of Fame and troll through the first 50 sites that are of a debate nature the majority of sites where the writer is pro-Schilling will rest some portion of their argument on the SO/BB number.

    So again you’re out of touch with reality and any fan that has an interest in the HOF or in Curt Schilling’s HOF chances will likely know that stats because it’s one of the pro-Schilling talking points.

    Most casual fans wouldn’t know #2 or about SO/BB because they don’t give a shit about SO/BB.

    Most fans could give you a majority of the top 20 in things like HR, Wins, RBI, and Saves. But things like SO/BB, WAR, RAR, and Rrep? Who cares.

    Sometimes Mike you are so full of yourself and wonkish it’s truly astounding.

    “Though you cannot simultaneously argue that it is obscure & it is commonly known.”

    I’m not.

    The all-time SO/BB list is not well known.

    Wthout looking there is no way anyone on this site could guess half of the top 20.

    What I said is that Schilling at #2 is a well known number if you follow the debate on his HOF chances because most people who are pro-Schilling use that number as a cruch to bolster his chances.

    Like I’ve told you many times Mike, you can keep beating your head into a wall over and over about “worth” and “value” all you want but like presidential politics it’s not always about who is worthy or the best it’s about who is electable.

    And the thing that you and Saber-boy keep forgetting is that you cannot quantify that with one of precious acronyms that you hold so dear.

    Truly this topic has been beaten to death and needs to be done, forever.

  138. Lefty33 Says:

    “Thankfully that’s all it is, health is good,”

    That’s all that matters.

    “I won’t be debating nonsense like WAR or MVP votes,”

    That might be better for your long term mental health.

  139. Raul Says:

    On baseball reference, his most similar pitchers are:

    1. Kevin Brown
    2. Bob Welch
    3. Orel Hershiser
    4. Freddie Fitzsimmons
    5. Milt Pappas
    6. John Smoltz
    7. Don Drysdale (HOF)
    8. Dazzy Vance (HOF)
    9. Jim Perry
    10. Pedro Martinez

    Two guys are in the HOF but highly debated. And Pedro is a lock.

    So Schilling was a juicer.
    …and voters likely hate him.

    Chances are, if he ever does get in, he’ll wait a while.
    BTW, you take a look at that list of Career Leaders in Strikeouts/Walks?
    It’s not as impressive as you think.

    1. Tommy Bond
    2. Curt Schilling
    3. Pedro Martinez
    4. Dan Haren
    5. Mariano Rivera
    6. Jim Whitney
    7. Cole Hamels
    8. Roy Halladay
    9. Trevor Hoffman
    10. Doug Jones
    11. Jon Lieber
    12. James Shields
    13. Bret Saberhagen
    14. Monte Ward
    15. Ben Sheets
    16. Mike Mussina
    17. Johan Santana
    18. Roy Oswalt
    19. Zack Greinke
    20. George Bradley

    Some fine pitchers, I suppose. But HOF-worthy? None of them except Pedro.

    Rivera and Hoffman get in, but mostly for Saves. And even then people highly debate whether closers should be in the HOF.

    Mussina, Halladay? Borderline, if they get elected at all.

    Christ…Brad Radke, Shane Reynolds and Javier Vazquez crack the top 26.
    Give me a break.

  140. Mike Felber Says:

    You got a lot of things wrong Lefty. here we go!

    1) Disagreeing with you does not make me full of myself, neither are you just differing with me.

    2) Chuck said everyone knows Schilling is #s in k/BB. Now so. You presented a Straw Man when you said that many sites use that as evidence for him. That is shifting to argue against something I did not dispute. The stat remains obscure to most, that you got correctly.

    3) You debate that I said 1000’s is an exaggeration: then use as an example 50 Web sites. That is a tiny % of “thousands”.,

    4) Nobodies mental health need be compromised if they take things with equanimity & act with consideration & decency. Folks can & should be able to differ forever absent it effecting their stability. Those it does have an issues-maybe a whole subscription-to start with. No, I am not thinking of anyone in particular, I am speaking in general principles.

    5) I knew what most folks roughly know re: stats, you assumed I did not.

    6) ANOTHER straw man: electability. You ACT like I am arguing it, &/or am unaware of it. by turns. Nope, I just think you are a little to pessimistic about when he will get in. But we are not so far apart on that. I have been discussing how worthy he is. Doing this does not suggest anything negative about what I know re: his electability, any more than you having often chosen to discuss only the latter does not show you do not know their “true worth. You once said you only discussed electability. Luckily for the sake of engaging folks, you did not stick to that.

    7) John meant that someone cannot be dismissed JUST for being #2 on a list. And that #2 is not REMOTELY comparable to all in the top 100. That does not suggest either of us says that just being #2 in any stat is enough. We need to see how meaningful the stat is, & context: like all 3 of us agree that the combination of IP & quality of them does not mean HOF deserving for Hoffman.

  141. Mike Felber Says:

    raul, several problems with your reasoning.

    1) You provide no evidence Schilling was a juicer. We went over this in detail. If he is, then he is a reprehensible hypocrite. Many who do not like comeone assume a cavalcade of bad things due to anger issues. Maybe he was a dog rapist too.

    2) Most similar scores are not a great way to see who is HOF worthy. They look at the accumulated raw #s. That certainly does NOT adjust even those for pitching a whole career in the steroid era, let alone what parks, or looking at rate stats.

    3) You are mostly right about who is HOF worthy, except Mussina clearly is, & some others might be when they finish their career. But why oh why oh why would you use the same broad, crude, undiscerning indices absent addressing any of the qualifiers I gave?

    Which are chiefly IP & how similar their BB?K ratio is. Even that does not consider a several important things, chiefly ERA +. But my POINT was that with a certain # of IP & an extremely high BB/K ratio, & at least a moderate HR/( relative to era (using park too even better):

    It is highly likely a guy with these characteristics deserves the Hall. You went back to using all, when I pointed out that so many did not sniff Curt’s 3261 IP/were relievers.

    So if almost none do, your example does not deal at all with my claims. Someone like Saberhagen is a good comparison. He likely WOULD be HOF worthy, in most folks eyes & in mine, if he created his AVERAGE career value over the virtually exactly 700 more IP that Schilling had.

    Even though his K/BB rate was more than slightly lower, with a bit lower HR/9 rate (with slightly more favorable era).

    Oh, Curt is above the average HOF guy in black & gray ink too.

  142. Chuck Says:

    ” Chuck said everyone knows Schilling is #s in k/BB. Now so”

    Come on, Mike, do you think baseball’s a hobby for me?

    I knew Schilling’s numbers and rankings when he was ACTIVE, along with everyone else.

    You act like your accidental internet discovery is some massive unknown, when in reality it was only unknown to you.

    Context.

  143. Chuck Says:

    Watching MLBNetwork during the off-seasson is like a big nerd-fest.

    Watching Ken Rosenthal arguing with Jon Heyman about whether the Mets trade David Wright is almost as bad as Rosenthal and Brian Kenny using race as a reason to put Minnie Minoso in the HOF.

  144. Chuck Says:

    Reality check.

    Nationals catcher Wilson Ramos has been kidnapped from his home in Venezuela.

  145. Cameron Says:

    Holy shit. What?

  146. Chuck Says:

    Watching Heyman and Rosenthal together makes me very uncomfortable, I know they’re both married, but so was Brian Giles.

    Yechh.

  147. Cameron Says:

    Just got a look at Sanchez in his new uniform.

    …He looks like a Royal, man.

  148. Raul Says:

    Curt Schilling is a juicer in my mind because his career trajectory is suspicious and there were widespread rumors he juiced. The guy also credited Roger Clemens for turning his career around in the 90s and I’m pretty sure The Rocket wasn’t giving him pointers on where to land his front foot.

    Circumstantial? Sure.
    Would it hold up in court? Not a chance. But it doesn’t have to. That’s your problem. You hold up things like McGwire’s suspected use as lacking any concrete evidence until he admits it himself. Even though everyone knew it. It’s obvious that Schilling more than likely juiced and he was a jerk and even with everything, he’s still borderline.

    If you can’t acknowledge that he’ll have a hard time getting in, you’re lying to yourself.

    Whether you think it’s worthy is a completely different discussion (originally) than what Lefty and others were debating.

  149. Cameron Says:

    I dunno Raul, when did he credit Clemens? Clemens juiced the second he got off the plane in Toronto and Schilling’s turnaround started to happen around ‘95 or ‘96.

    Just saying.

  150. Raul Says:

    I think Mike Mussina will get elected.
    I kinda think he deserves to be elected.

    But I also think he’ll wait a long time. And it wouldn’t shock me one bit if he never gets in.

    My position has always been that Mussina and Schilling PROBABLY will get in.
    But if anyone deserves to be elected between the two, it’s Mussina.

  151. Cameron Says:

    I think Schilling will probably get in before Mussina. …I also think Schilling’s the better of the two. Both were great in their time though.

  152. Raul Says:

    “He underwent surgery for a career-threatening torn labrum after the 1995 season and has come back better than ever, a tribute to his recuperative powers and his work ethic. Schilling also credits a conversation he had with Roger Clemens, who instilled in him the importance of hard work and preparation.”

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_11_61/ai_92521919/

    1995. I’m sure that’s what Clemens said…among other things. When Clemens was pitching his fat ass out of Boston.

  153. Cameron Says:

    Yeah, he also didn’t know who the fuck Brian McNamee or any other of his connections were back then. If he was just showing Schilling the same stuff he used to get guys out back when he was in his prime, I can call that a clean turnaround.

    Clemens’ mind was still sharp on the mound, but the flesh was fat, spongy, and unwilling to cooperate with his mind.

  154. Raul Says:

    A torn fucking labrum, Cameron.

    I’m sure pitchers come back from that shit aaaaalll the time.

  155. Cameron Says:

    I’m not saying that coming back from a labrum tear like that is easy, but I’m also saying that by all accounts Roger Clemens didn’t have any connections in Boston. If he did, his ass wouldn’t have been shipped out. It’s circumstantial where the circumstances don’t add up.

    …You know, like a Glenn Beck theory.

  156. Raul Says:

    You’re absolutely right.

    Two guys who were friendly and on their way out of baseball in 1995…for them to possibly decide…”fuck…everyone is juicing…i’m going to juice too”…is exactly like Glenn Beck calling Obama a fucking Nazi.

  157. Cameron Says:

    “Marlins Interested In Albert Pujols”
    “Marlins Interested In Prince Fielder”
    “Marlins Interested In Jose Reyes”
    “Marlins Interested In CJ Wilson”
    “Marlins Interested In Mark Buerhle”
    “Marlins Interested In Yoenis Cespedes”
    “Marlins Interested In Carlos Beltran”

    MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS!!!!

  158. Cameron Says:

    Rocket didn’t have a dealer then, man. It’d be like me saying, “Hey, I wanna start doing cocaine. …Fuck, I don’t know anybody.”

  159. Cameron Says:

    “Wilson Ramos’ Venezuelan Winter League team, the Aragua Tigers, confirmed on Twitter that the Nationals catcher has been kidnapped. Four gunmen approached the 24-year-old near his home and took him away, according to El Nacional. The kidnappers have not yet contacted the family, but they were in touch with the police. Hopefully Ramos has a safe and speedy recovery.”

    …How the FUCK do you recover from being KIDNAPPED!?

  160. Raul Says:

    lol @ 157

  161. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 139 – But if Vasquez pitches two more years he’ll have around 3200 IP and then I guess we can start debating his 105 ERA+ or that great ‘02 season in Montreal where he led the league with 243 hits allowed or the fact that multiple teams have paid him over $100 milloin dollars to be a pitcher with an ERA over four for his entire career.

    Oh that just gives me goosebumps waiting for that one.

  162. Lefty33 Says:

    You got a lot of things wrong with you Mike. Here we go!

    1) I never said that you disagreeing with me makes you full of yourself. For someone that likes to come off as cerebral your skills at reading comprehension suck at best.

    It’s how you choose to come off as a condensing asshole all the time with your comments always telling people how they can’t argue a certain way or that they can’t use a stat a certain way or that only YOU know the right way when more often then not, clearly that’s not the case.

    Your use of the term “straw man” is obviously highly offensive to people which is why at some point or another everybody who is a regular on this board, all five of us, have taken a swing at you with some colorful adjectives or terminology because when you are going to call someone’s argument a sham and rarely offer anything other than highly circumstantial acronym laden Saber-crap as a reply well then expect less than civil treatment.

    The difference is that if I say Raul, for example, has a shit argument he simply tells me the same equivalent and then redoubles his efforts on reinforcing his argument.

    You on the other hand will spend the next week writing 500 posts about how the word shit shouldn’t be used on this site and whine and cry about ad hominem this or attack that when obviously no body cares.

    Like I said to you before Mike, it’s your attitude sets people off. I understand that over a website you cannot denote meaning behind statements the way you can in person but at least on this site you come across as an arrogant, pompous, ass.

    3) “You debate that I said 1000’s is an exaggeration: then use as an example 50 Web sites. That is a tiny % of “thousands”.,

    Gee Mike you think I don’t know that is a tiny percent of thousands?

    I guess only you can do math now too.

    First off thousands is not an exaggeration and I only used fifty as a just a random generalized number. I’m sure even you’re smart enough with your lack of reading comprehension to understand that.

    5) No I did not assume that.

    6) Electability is not absurd.

    Look at other recent inductees with borderline resumes and major character issues in Rice and Blyleven. Schilling if he’s lucky will wait as long as they did.

    If he does get inducted it will only be because of the watered down talent coming up on future ballots and not his actual record the same way how Blyleven snuck in this year.

    Ever since the train wreck year of ’96 the BBWAA has had an informal policy of no longer inducting no one and they writers will and do collude amongst each other to a point every year to “put a finger in the wind to see which way it’s blowing” particularly in years without an outstanding candidate.

    Schilling may get a gimmie on that at some point down the line. But again that doesn’t make him deserving and worthy that just makes him lucky as he certainly will garner more than enough votes to hang around.

    If he wants to help his chances he would seriously keep his mouth shut and consider toning things down a lot or maybe take a role like Larkin on the MLB Network where is visible, looks smart, and comes across as likeable.

  163. Chuck Says:

    I remember Gus Polidor, I knew him a bit when he played AA with the Angels.

    He lived in Caracas, one day he had picked up his son from school and he got ambushed by drug dealers who tried to car jack him in his driveway. He wouldn’t get out of the car until his son ran into the house, then started to fight with the two guys, who shot and killed him in front of his house.

    Big business in those countries.

  164. Lefty33 Says:

    “Watching MLBNetwork during the off-seasson is like a big nerd-fest.”

    They should bring in Triumph the Insult Comic Dog to do what he did for the Star Wars premiere.

    A lot of his comments then could be used for them now.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zWNJHS9PBE

  165. Chuck Says:

    Baseball America coming out with a breakdown on this Cespedes character tomorrow.

    Scouts are less than impressed, video is edited bullshit by his agent.

    Geez, a big Cuban “prospect” who turns out to be a piece of crap?

    Wow, color me surprised.

    Aroldis Chapman on line one.

    He wants to know if he can defect back.

  166. Raul Says:

    LOL @ that Triumph clip

  167. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 152 – That weight room encounter between Clemens and Schilling where Clemens bitched at him about preparation and work ethic happened in ‘91.

    “Clemens famously dressed down Schilling in 1991 during a chance weight-room encounter, telling the younger pitcher that he’d never amount to anything if he didn’t change his work habits. Schilling, who idolized Clemens at the time, counts the conversation as a turning point in his career.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/pitchers-8217-duel/7494/

  168. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 166 – It’s one of my favorites.

    I’ve watched it a bunch of times and I still piss my pants every time.

  169. Raul Says:

    I made that comment when I was only 7 minutes into it but it was hilarious.

  170. Lefty33 Says:

    Triumph could recreate the same scenes at the SABR analytics conference in Mesa, AZ coming up in March.

  171. Raul Says:

    LOL

    That would be fun to watch.

  172. Mike Felber Says:

    I said most did not know that stat Chuck. I did not question your honesty nor your general knowledge of stats. Lefty pretty much said the same thing when he said it was obscure to most.

    Jeez. Listen some of y’all. Given the tendency some have to project there own motivations upon others, you may assume that I am saying this ’cause long lost Hoss & I were BSing & exchanging stories last night. But SINCERELY I admire his ability to follow what the other guy says & answer with intellectual rigor. I am NOT talking about agreeing with me, just following the details of what someone says & answering it specifically. I’ll get to Lefty with his unkind & senseless conflation of something wrong with “you”, rather than the facts, next.

    Raul, you are a big guy. And are being polite. So you will not mid when i use some of your statements as an example of me having to retype many things when you do not grasp what i have indisputably claimed. So we are having a measningful discussion.

    1) WHY do you think I cannot acknowledge Schilling will have a hard time getting in? I said again recently that I think Lefty is being a little pessimistic about when he will get in, not that he will float in. And that he was not way off. So you fought a Straw Man there.

    2) The argument I have been making is his worthiness. I only mentioned likelihood tangentially, & the former is what was being engaged: until the terms are shifted AS IF. I said he will get in easily.

    3) I Again said recently that I though Big Mac was juicing when he failed to testify before Congress. You said I only admitted it when he confessed.

    4) Everyone did NOT think Big Mac was guilty. Most here did. Thinking otherwise shows the revisionist nature of memory (not saying people, or most, would lie).

    5) I guess I gotta say again: any of these guys could be guilty. Lefty suggested some factors, though I think none are so unusual, or say “say it ain’t Sosa-like, that in combination I think it is likely.

    6) In Schillings particular case, the rabid critique of PEDs over a period of time does make me think it is less likely he is guilty. I have heard no good evidence that he is a liar. COULD be, but not in evidence.

    7) I don’t usually sep[arate quotes & paste them back up Raul, but this one is so far gone from what I was saying, it is not just a Sraw Man, it is like you just came back from Burning Man!

    “Two guys who were friendly and on their way out of baseball in 1995…for them to possibly decide…”fuck…everyone is juicing…i’m going to juice too”…is exactly like Glenn Beck calling Obama a fucking Nazi”.

    You can guess now, right? That I do not think that is so unlikely. Nor do I think it is likely or there is evidence for it. Proximity is not guilt.

    The last p[art of what you said is utterly off the hook. You compare me being allegedly naive with a huge demagogue making a vicious statement about the President? They are NOTHING alike in substance, intent or effect. I know YOU better than say you are a demagogue, but that was a major brain lapse.

    Not so hard to keep a guys repeated claims straight. OK, now going beyond having to backtrack with corrections & repetitions of the position I hold:

    I went over at length why he is well beyond a borderline candidate. Defense independent #s, relative ERA, & career & peak value. Mussina? More consistent, lower peak, both clearly worthy.

  173. Raul Says:

    That Glenn Beck thing wasn’t directed at you, Mike.
    And it was a sarcastic comment.

  174. Lefty33 Says:

    “I’ll get to Lefty with his unkind & senseless conflation of something wrong with “you”, rather than the facts, next.”

    Thanks I can’t wait to be gotten to, Yawn.

    Here I’ll save us both some time.

    Post #175:

    Long winded pedantic post from Mike on the supposed parliamentary rules of life, the internet and DC.

    More chastising from Mike about how I should only do things his way and how no other way is the right way and how he’ll tell me what I should say; when I should say it along with the context I should say it in.

    Throw in a few more subtle intellectual bullying points about the Schilling debate about he and Acronym Boy are right and I’m wrong and about how I should be civil even when he is condensing and eternally acting intellectually superior to anyone and everyone at all times.

    BS BS BS BS BS Blah Blah Blah Blah for another 1000-1500 words.

    Post #176:

    I remind how full of shit he is again while apparently also an egomaniac and an intellectual supremacist at best.

    A few more sly and snarky remarks about how Mike should go and read some William F. Buckley or go and relax with a wine cooler (pinkie up of course) and then I go to bed while Mike stays up until 4am making multiple posts trying to psychoanalyze my every word when in fact 98% of what I say to him is just to wined him up because in my time on the internet I’ve never seen somebody so in need of a constant ego stroke where if you say one word against him you get an unnecessary shit storm torrent of crap in return.

    There Mike now let’s save the dramatics seeing as we both know how this turns out anyway.

  175. Mike Felber Says:

    Alright Lefty, that was a very funny clip. By the huge movie palace The Ziefield, 10 minutes or so walk from me. Great place to see a movie. So in tribute to the satire, I will be…kind as possible.

    1) My reading comprehension is excellent. You did not give any reason why I was supposedly full of myself, what i suggested was plausible.

    I did not suggest that only I know what is offensive. I SHOWED how folks can be abusive sometimes, & NAMED folks who have left the board here because of it. Like Brautigan. And I did NOT suggest it is that bad towards me by most. I did not get personally wounded by stuff, & speak usually about how others are treated.

    Saying something is a Straw Man is an innocuous claim that someone has set up & knocked down an argument you did not make. Maybe you are not aware that it does not even imply that it is done consciously-could be, but usually folks just do not pay attention.

    Not that anything like this would justify meanness. And most have been better when called on things.

    I have ENDLESSLY said that it is not the language itself. Your understanding of what I mean is limited Raul: & that is not being condescending. Again, it is the intent & how it effects folks.

    I will reiterate that folks do not get set off much by this: I have spoken up after folks have gotten nasty: & more often not even to me. But sometimes me.

    Sorry that you see advocating for non-PC civility as arrogant & pompous. You assume the worst, when i am trying to prevent this site from suffering more & becoming like the worst, most abusive, flaming aspects of the Internet. Some agree with me-some who did already went bye bye!

    You skipped #2 above, omitted. Next point was #3. Harmless, no need for sarcasm, it still seems like 1000’s of Web Sites doing that is an exaggeration.

    I do NOT say that electability is absurd. Just that this was not the point I was making at length, & you are acting like it is. I think you are a little too pessimistic about how soon he gets in. Not way off, & not what I have been arguing.

    Well, with your last 5 paragraphs I agree with most all of that. Except if you say that he will be lucky to get in as soon as Rice & Captain Bly, I will say no, I’ll bet you he gets in during the teens. how about we wager a steak dinner? Also, major character issues is an overstatement for B.B. I know his reputation, he was not accused of anything terrible. His career & peak value has always been criminally underrated, partially due to his W-L record/short of 300 wins. Due to context, as i have spent 1000;s of words describing.

    I never suggested whether he makes it shows whether he is worthy. W ejust disagree on that argument, which is no problem in itself.

  176. Mike Felber Says:

    Your predictions were completely off Lefty. And your assumptions about my motivations are too, saying more about you than anything.

    1) I did not give a detailed argument about just how you should behave, far from it

    2) Why on earth would you presume that I argue at length due to ego OR that making a detailed argument is “intellectually bullying”? So anyone who is detailed must be ego attached & passive aggressive? That is just utterly false Lefty.

    You assume the worst, & i do not want to speculate why.

    3)I don’t need to stay up ’till 4 to respond. though since I am upo late, work or play, I make my own schedule & it is a late one.

    4) Most telling is whan you say 98% of what you say is to wind me up. You very understandably think I am, ’cause most who go into long discourses ARE bothered, & that is likely what you would do.

    Nah, I am usually a write-aholic!

    But if you really are doing that, all YOUR sincerity is in question. Plus though you are not personally upsetting me, the INTENTION to do so is a cruel streak.

    I don’t mind if you say a million words against my arguments. And when you get personal I will respond with my seemingly 1 million. Does not mean I am hurt by you. I like to argue, & IF someone gets ad hominem, of course I want to stop that. Does not matter if it is directed at me.

  177. Chuck Says:

    Schilling is second all time in K/BB.

    HOW MANY OF YOU KNEW THAT?

    In caps, you’re emphasizing the fact you believe you know something we don’t.

    This isn’t BR.

    You didn’t discover Amelia Earhardt.

    It’s common knowledge, except to those lacking knowledge.

    Get over yourself, Mike.

    If you believe Schilling HOF worthy, it’s your opinion.

    We’re not trying to change your mind.

    Just open it a little.

  178. Cameron Says:

    Mike, I think it might be possible you give too much of a fuck about winning the “good-natured debate” you try to encourage. Kinda makes you look like a prick sometimes.

  179. Lefty33 Says:

    “Saying something is a Straw Man is an innocuous claim”

    Of course it is Mike.

    When you say it of course it’s innocuous but when I or someone else says the same thing with different verbiage then it’s time to call out the PC police.

    “Your understanding of what I mean is limited Raul: & that is not being condescending.”

    Maybe to YOU but it can also very easily be perceived as you, in a more metaphorical way telling Raul that he’s too stupid to follow what you’re saying.

    No different than me saying to Raul that he’s an idiot for not following along.
    (Love you man, it’s just an example.)

    You come to the same end point just in different ways.

    The other difference is that I’m not going to blow smoke up someone’s ass by trying to be “innocuous” with my comments when it’s pretty clear that trying to be “innocuous” is a great cover for telling someone something and then
    going “Boo-Hoo you’re being uncivil” when they fires back.

    Not everyone plays like you Mike. Get used to it and deal with it.

    “I will reiterate that folks do not get set off much by this”

    Sounds like a Straw Man if I’ve ever heard one.

    “Sorry that you see advocating for non-PC civility as arrogant & pompous.”

    Don’t be sorry, just accept what you either are or at least how you come across and either accept it and move on but don’t blow smoke up my ass that it’s not true because it is.

    “You assume the worst”

    I don’t assume anything.

    “Some agree with me-some who did already went bye bye!”

    Then they did, big deal.

    “Also, major character issues is an overstatement for B.B. I know his reputation, he was not accused of anything terrible.”

    Blyleven on several occasions ripped the BBWAA, both directly and indirectly, on the air and in print about him not being inducted.

    He stopped that and subsequently his vote totals spiked up until he got in.

  180. Mike Felber Says:

    I never objected to substantively saying someone used a straw man. You can see I am not PC when i consider intent & how folks get along, “take the piss out of each other”. But nobody here will deny some have gotten nasty Lefty.

    So it depends on the spirit behind calling someone an idiot. But of course IF someone is not following points, they should be told so, that is not talking down or even at all unkind. I NEVER mind if you tell me I am made a mistake: whether I agree or not. It is a matter of intent & how words are received.

    If we could not call each other on mistakes in what we ourselves said, there would be no way to have a coherent, civil debate. Most all understand that is not intrinsically patronizing.

    You assume I am being secretly hostile man. I. Am. Not.

    There is no straw man: you said I complain when others lash out at me. I told you this dynamic is not the major one, nor is it conduct to me I mostly focus on.

    Saying “don’t blow smoke up my ass” can only imply I am being dishonest. Now i can see how some can take critiques of others comments as pompous. But it is YOU who is arguing at length re: how I come across. You do not speak for all, & most here know my intention & are not so cynical about it.

    By definition when you say I am all these negative things-beyond how you assume I come across to others-those are assumptions. Unwarranted.

    Yup, it is a big deal both in terms of the health of this place & how we treat our fellow man (jeez, imagine if we ever got a woman!), that folks of the decency & intelligence not to mention baseball experience as Brautigan were driven away.

    I would just politely disagree with you re: Bly. NOT doubting that his ripping the BBWAA caused his totals to decline. I just cannot see that as at all a major character issue. Effects can be huge when something unwise is done-does not make him, say a gambler on his team.

    By the way, I did not know that his statements had this effect-I take it on faith you are right. When i corresponded with him a couple of times he was gracious.

  181. Mike Felber Says:

    Cameron, I agree that this interpretation could be made. But being persistent in engaging folks-who respond often-is not being at all a prick. Loving to argue does not support the idea that it is all about Ego: though for many it is.

    Chuck, I have no serious beef with your last statement. Just that we are all trying to convince the other, though few change there minds-& the fact that we do not does not necessarily mean we are close minded.

    Those CAPS-especially in the context of the silly-giddy short post-was excitement about discovering the fact. Now I really was ASKING who knew, & have no indication most here did. But yeah, though Lefty mentioned the stat as obscure, it was no great, wholly unknown discovery at all!

    Well, except for me. :-) I mean it seemed neither wildly original, nor likely to be known by most.

  182. Lefty33 Says:

    “though Lefty mentioned the stat as obscure,”

    As a whole yes.

    Schilling’s number, no.

  183. Mike Felber Says:

    So maybe it was more commonly known than I thought. Though wondering about it & explaining the significance of it re: being connected to supporting his run limiting skills taken with HR/9 in his era is valid.

    I did not know that Saberhagen was #1 all time for a season either. Though in only 177.1 IP, it was a strike shortened season, & still very impressive.

  184. Lefty33 Says:

    Saberhagen was a model of control and efficiency.

    He’s top 30-40 all time in BB/9.

  185. Lefty33 Says:

    Paterno = Fired

  186. Cameron Says:

    Fuck =/= Given

  187. Mike Felber Says:

    Given the era, even better than being #16 all time in K/BB.

    I feel bad for Paterno. But he was just clueless. This was an accused rape of a child in their shower. At least he should have followed up to make sure they investigated, if he did not know to go to the Police.

  188. Raul Says:

    I don’t feel bad for Paterno one bit.

    He’s a fucking asshole.
    Your assistant gets caught molesting some kid you fire him on the spot and you call the cops.

    And all these idiots supporting him are no different than the jerkoffs who prance around the streets wearing “Free (Insert Rapper Who Committed Crime Name)” T-shirts.

  189. Mike Felber Says:

    He heard the accusation from someone who said he witnessed it. He did not know if it was true. He should have called the cops, but he did report it. There are times one is falsely accused, though I think there is little doubt that most accused are guilty, some are falsely accused for all kinds of reasons. He made a bad choice indeed.

    Many of those T-Shirt wearers are mindless. But many convince themselves their idols are innocent.

  190. Raul Says:

    Pretty sure that “I just saw your assistant ass raping a child” is a bit more serious than “I just saw your assistant pocketing a practice jersey”.

    Short of being told someone was being murdered, there probably is not a worse thing one could tell another human being. So yeah, you should tell the cops. Not your fucking school President or whatever.

  191. Cameron Says:

    I refer you to #186

    I’m not gonna waste breath on this dumbass.

  192. Mike Felber Says:

    I just heard an NPR report about it. A caller alleged he told a District Attorney, & that guy disappeared. The last thing they said was the station confirmed the DA disappeared. Who knows if he did this.

    Maybe Paterno could not deal with a 23 year Assistant maybe being a child rapist. But the school was by far more negligent. They met about it & did absolutely nothing. Did not even ID who the child is, let alone report it to the Police.

  193. Hossrex Says:

    Pujols has to be hating the Dodgers situation. With Tex handcuffing the Yanks, Prince Fielder acting as a safety net for the league, and one of the big buyers (my Dodgers) completely out of the market for ANYTHING right now (even if they didn’t have a chance at him, they would have helped drive up the market)… he’s going to have trouble getting his 300 million dollar contract.

    Pujols was insane to not test the market when he was first on the market, as a 27 year old already considered the best player of the last 50 years.

    He might as well just stay in St. Louis for the rest of his life and settle for never paying for anything… ever.

  194. Lefty33 Says:

    “But the school was by far more negligent. They met about it & did absolutely nothing.”

    Well said and spot on.

    This idea of Paterno being a “dumbass” or an “asshole” is ignorant beyond belief.

    Could he have done more? Of course he could have.

    Did he cover things up and bury them like Curley, Schultz or possibly Spanier himself? No.

    The State Police have cleared him of any wrong doing and have already said that he fulfilled his legal obligation in the matter.

    You want to call someone a dumbass reserve it for the people who knew about the matter first hand and did nothing like Curley, Schultz, and Spainer.

    The move against Paterno is simply a business decision and has nothing to do with ethics or legality.

  195. Raul Says:

    Disagreed.

    Indifference or lack of action is by itself criminal.
    Paterno was given some heavy information. For him not to go to the police makes him an asshole.

    Kind of reminds me of that old Desmond Tutu quote:

    “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

    Paterno might not have been completely neutral, but he was pretty damn close in not reporting that shit to the police.

  196. Lefty33 Says:

    Paterno followed the chain of command like he was supposed to do.

    After that it got squashed by people at the university higher than him.

    They are the assholes. He didn’t pull a Curley/Schultz and do nothing.

    It’s not pretty damn close or else the State Police would be after him the same way they are after them. He’s already been cleared of any wrong doing.

    He’s being made a symbolic scapegoat in a business decision to protect the school no more no less.

    I guess we’ll agree to disagree.

  197. Raul Says:

    When you are told some child is being sexually assaulted, the chain of command is the police.

    End of story.

  198. Chuck Says:

    “I SHOWED how folks can be abusive sometimes, & NAMED folks who have left the board here because of it.”

    Like Hoss leaving last year because of you?

    Pot, Kettle.

    Kettle, Pot.

  199. Chuck Says:

    Paterno’s as guilty as everyone else not name Jerry Sandusky.

    I guarantee you he gets sued just like the University and McCreary and whomever else had knowledge.

  200. John Says:

    Paterno’s responsible for everything that happens under his watch.

    He had more power and influence on that campus than anyone else. He had a moral obligation to do more.

    Maybe he met the legal minimum, I’m not sure. But that’s not good enough.

  201. brautigan Says:

    The Sandusky case is interesting.

    What I do know is that if someone reports child abuse to me, and I report it to my supervisor and my supervisor does nothing, I am still a responsible party to make a report to law enforcement.

    Perhaps the Penn State people did as they were supposed to do, but somewhere in the chain of command, no one contacted the police. That is negligence, plain and simple. As to who should be fired, I leave that, and all the commentary that goes with it, to those in the know.

  202. Mike Felber Says:

    Hoss left because of me? He is free to say if this is the case. I do not know if there is any truth to this, (again, not doubting your sincerity, but I do not know if it is accurate). But it would not be a pot/kettle conundrum, since I was never abusive to anyone.

  203. Chuck Says:

    He did.

    Go back and look at the archives.

    “But it would not be a pot/kettle conundrum, since I was never abusive to anyone.”

    His definition is what matters, not yours.

  204. Mike Felber Says:

    Sure, tell me where & when this occurred. Or give me a general idea of when it was if you can. I really doubt he even called me abusive, though I recall him complaining about me expressing dismay that he was then acting angry/macho all the time, absorbing the brittle zeigeist that sometimes has held sway here amongst many.

    Everyone’s definition matters. But people’s memory of even their OWN conduct & what events happen to them is often flat out wrong. Tons of studies show how fallible memory is, how deluded or flat out mistaken we are. Memory itself is a game of telephone, there is no original inviolate memory. From eyewitness reports in crime, to studies of what a group of folks report IMMEDIATELY after an event they introduce reports.

    We all should challenge our perceptions. I have recently often showed factual errors about what I claimed, & should/will test whether this applies to myself.

  205. Chuck Says:

    It’s not important, Mike, I have a hard enough time remembering things I say, much less anyone else, but I do recall Rex saying something about that.

    The point being, you don’t have to call someone an idiot or worse to be abusive.

    There’s not one person on this site, now or ever, who hasn’t been.

    Including you.

    And John Q.

    So him blaming me for leaving for the way I talked to him is as hypocritical as anything else, and he doesn’t get a hall pass for it.

    You don’t like it here, screw off.

    Plenty of choices out there.

  206. Cameron Says:

    inb4″No evidence so it didn’t happen you simpleton.”

  207. Lefty33 Says:

    “There’s not one person on this site, now or ever, who hasn’t been.”

    I don’t know Chuck.

    When deNNis was around he WAsn!t aLL fat Baad.

  208. Chuck Says:

    :)

  209. Chuck Says:

    Boom…

    Grand Salami.

    Grant Green.

    Boo-yah..

  210. Cameron Says:

    Still have no idea why they’re trying to make him an outfielder when they have enough outfielders to fill an entire roster and their shortstop is Cliff Pennington.

  211. brautigan Says:

    Cameron: You needed to see Green play shortstop. In fact, that is all you needed to do…………………….

  212. Chuck Says:

    “Still have no idea why they’re trying to make him an outfielder when they have enough outfielders to fill an entire roster..”

    Really?

    Number of outfielders on Oakland’s 40 man roster;

    4

    Jai Miller
    Cedric Hunter
    Ryan Sweeney
    Michael Taylor.

    I’m thinking of coming out of retirement.

  213. Cameron Says:

    Oh right, Willingham and DeJesus walked, Rajai Davis is in Toronto, and Chris Carter’s a first baseman now.

    …And Taylor’s on the 40-man? Nice.

  214. Cameron Says:

    Only time I really saw Green at shortstop was at the Futures Game. Dude was a beast.

  215. Chuck Says:

    Green played second in the Futures Game, Cam.

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/futures-game/2011/2612051.html

  216. Cameron Says:

    Oh yeah. See, my memory resembles a good swiss cheese, so it’s hard to recall small details. I do remember Grant making an awesome play in the shortstop’s zone though.

  217. Bob Says:

    Nebraska wants more security for its players this weekend.

  218. Cameron Says:

    It’s fucking Nebraska, who’s going to attack them, the children of the corn?

  219. Raul Says:

    Pirates sign Barajas to a 1 year deal for 4 million with a 3.5 million club option for 2013.

    Listen. I defended the Royals signing Jason Kendall. He wasn’t an offensive force at the time either. But he was better than Barajas defensively and was very durable and come in as the starter.

    Barajas is a bench player and always has been. He better hit for power in Pittsburgh.

    I mean if they wanted a defensive catcher they could have gone after Jose Molina for less.

  220. Chuck Says:

    “Pirates sign Barajas to a 1 year deal for 4 million with a 3.5 million club option for 2013.”

    Translation: Tony Sanchez sucks.

  221. Cameron Says:

    Or just isn’t ready yet.

    Still, they were platooning Ryan Doumit and Chris Snyder last year. This has to be an upgrade.

  222. Chuck Says:

    Right, Cam.

    Just like your boy Kila.

    The guy could be a 30 year minor league veteran and you’d be saying he “just needs another year.”

    He’d be the first dead guy to win Rookie of the Year.

  223. Cameron Says:

    Hey, if Bob Uecker can win minor league player of the year two years into the majors, anything can happen. =P

  224. Cameron Says:

    Also, predicting 2018’s rookie of the year is a pretty ballsy move, Chuck. Kudos.

  225. Bob Says:

    Cam, please do not let your poultry get rancid again.

  226. Raul Says:

    Chuck’s been wrong about some guys (Tim Alderson comes to mind, perhaps Brett Gardner).

    And right about some guys (Stanton performing better than Heyward, Alex Gordon breaking out, Aroldis Chapman being overrated).

  227. Chuck Says:

    In five years, Manny Banuelos will be the Royals closer, and Jesus Montero will be running a sidewalk taco stand in Caracas.

    With his new business partner, Bryce Harper.

  228. Cameron Says:

    Yankees fans, help me out, does Gardner still bat in the ass end of the order? Last I checked, Gardner usually bats ninth with Jeter leading off and Grandy behind him.

    If Gardner’s legs were leading off, the dude would be scoring 120 runs a year and New York would love him.

  229. Cameron Says:

    Please, you can keep Banuelos. I’ll take Jeffress.

  230. Bob Says:

    Well then. In 5 years, who will be making more money, Montero and Harper, or Banuelos? Taco’s are big business

  231. Chuck Says:

    “Yankees fans, help me out, does Gardner still bat in the ass end of the order.”

    Hell, yeah.

    I may be wrong about him now, after two years, but when his CAREER is over?

    I’ll be spot on.

    You watch.

    I’d bat him tenth.

  232. Chuck Says:

    Harper’s already got ten million in the bank, Bob.

  233. Cameron Says:

    I’m not saying the guy’s a great hitter. A singles hitter shouldn’t hit .250. However, he’s making base at a decent clip and fuck can that kid run.

    You don’t need to be a good hitter to bat leadoff, just good enough to get on base and stretch bases out of the stuff the real hitters give you. Jeter can’t really do that anymore.

  234. John Says:

    Jeter fist pumps and he has calm eyes and he wears the uniform the right way.

    THATS WHAT A LEADOFF MAN IS FOR

  235. Raul Says:

    Don’t you have some comments about Yuniesky Betancourt or Ryan Braun’s defense you can mention?

  236. Cameron Says:

    I do. Ryan Braun should never be allowed near an infield again and Yuniesky Betancourt sucks more than a five dollar Taiwanese whore.

  237. Cameron Says:

    And it seems the first real contender is coming forward to make a bid for the Dodgers. Tom Golisano, former owner of the… Buffalo… Sabers…

    Yeah, the Dodgers are fucked.

  238. Chuck Says:

    A day can’t go by without John mentioning his infatuation with ballplayers in their uniforms.

    You were born 25 years too late, dude.

    You missed the polyester knit era.

    Would have lost your mind watching Tim Raines in his knitties.

  239. Mike Felber Says:

    With respect Chuck, you correctly confess a not great memory, & only have a vague recollection of Hoss “saying something like that”. And you tend to average everything out, when there are some real distinctions. Even amongst individuals: you have veered sharply towards being judicious & calm. So while I do not think you are accurate-& it would take maybe hours to look through many long threads to find what you may have referred to accurately was-I will let Hoss speak for himself should he choose to. I’m open.

    But nah, not everyone is abusive. Even a little rude? That is a different thing, but I do not know that, say, Brautigan has ever been nasty. Yes, “bad” language is not the only way to be so. And it need not be a pissing match over who was “good”. But calling folks on bad conduct & correcting errors 9which we all do), can FEEL insufferable, at least to those called out. But is not bad conduct.

    And even amongst who we have recently, I do not see that everyone has been

  240. Mike Felber Says:

    …Whoops, I meant not all have been nasty or abusive. Brautigan for example. Always a class act. IF there was an exception, it likely was minor.

    John Q. acknowledges not liking how he was becoming. No hall pass for anyone. There just was a bullying mocking tone by several towards one often: & some eventually responded in (un)kind, like your favorite whipping boy.

    Anyway, things are definitely better here. Time to expand the contributions & work. I should reach out again as I had mentioned/did before the B-R Blog died/transformed. For the record, many folks debating one or two, that is the disagreement itself, is not at all wrong. Tell me forever why you do not like Schilling for the HOF, I will never object.

  241. Raul Says:

    Ok, after watching the fights, here is what I’ve decided.

    Joe Frazier beat Ali in the 1st fight.

    Ali beat Frazier in the 2nd, although the ref really screwed Frazier by letting Ali hold and grab Frazier’s neck.

    Joe Frazier beat Ali in the Thrilla in Manila. Unfortunately, Futch called the fight.

    So yes, I am saying Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali twice.

  242. Mike Felber Says:

    That seems fair Raul. I might say that due to all the cheating in #2 Ali did not legitimately beat Frazier. For #3, I need to look more closely at what the scoring legitimately was. Though a couple of observations: Ali seemed to falter win the middle rounds when he tried the rope a dope, so successful for him against Foreman the year before. Also, Frazier really took punishment towards the end-though both were damaged, arguably permanently.

    Both had remarkable fighting spirits & chins. I have no idea what would have happened in the last round. Frazier was at the greatest risk, almost blind, he may well have been knocked out. Though no knock against Ali, nobody had Frazier’s heart. So who knows.

    But though both were clearly past their prime, they gave the best HW fight ever. Arguably the best boxing match ever.

  243. brautigan Says:

    I don’t know about that Mike, I’ve thrown some barbs Hossrex’s direction before. And I was really an asshat with some guy who came in here spouting rightwing nonsense……………….but really, to me it boils down to: I love baseball….and besides, it is a game. We’re supposed to have fun with it. And I do.

    But I appreciate the feedback.

  244. Cameron Says:

    ” And I was really an asshat with some guy who came in here spouting rightwing nonsense………………”

    For some reason, I vaguely remember that, and he had it coming.

  245. brautigan Says:

    Ali said that he has never been closer to death than he was at the end of round 14 in Manila. He was so exhausted, he could barely celebrate. If Frazier could have been able to see, I think Ali doesn’t finish the fight.

    Raul: Here is a fight for you. This guy, Ray Lampkin is a Portland fighter. I’ve met him a couple of times. He gave Duran everything, and Duran ended his career in this fight. It is a great fight. enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yl0aARBNiI

  246. brautigan Says:

    Mike: Here is one. John Tate is beating Mike Weaver all night long. Watch the 15th round: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L80hSwXc9LM

  247. Raul Says:

    Thanks Braut.

    Gonna watch in a bit.

    I’ll concede that Ali clearly battered Frazier in the 13th and 14th rounds. He won them without a doubt.

    And had the fight gone to the 15th, I think Ali probably wins the fight — because Frazier couldn’t see and Ali would have landed more shots. And taking the final 3 rounds would have tipped it in his favor in the eyes of the refs and fans.

    Hell of a fight. I guess I have to keep in mind that it was 125 degrees or something. And the heat doesn’t really translate well in the old footage. It must have been so hard to fight in that kind of temperature.

  248. Raul Says:

    I meant “tipped it in his favor in the eyes of the judges and fans”

    Not refs and fans, lol.

  249. Cameron Says:

    Hey man, if you can’t see you can’t fight.

  250. Mike Felber Says:

    Thanks Cameron, I will look at it later.

    Ali was exhausted, but he was firing heavily until that moment, both were really tired in the extreme heat, but both rallied all night long. It is impossible to know, but Frazier absorbing the worst of it & the way he walked back to his corner & with minimal sight would have made it even harder for him. But again that transcendent Heart…

    Well you are very honest Brautigan. But you have been overwhelmingly gracious.

  251. Cameron Says:

    Why thank me? That other fight was Braut too. I know K-1 and MMA, boxing’s a bit fuzzy for me.

    Unless it’s Rocky, then I can give you details to a T. Mr. T to be precise.

  252. Raul Says:

    Mike,

    It was reported (and in the documentary Thrilla In Manila) that Ali asked to have the gloves cut before the 15th round, but Futch called the fight first.

  253. Cameron Says:

    If that fight went fifteen…

    I dunno, if both guys drop dead at the same time, is that a draw or a no contest?

  254. Mike Felber Says:

    Lol! Y’know, i 1st had written Brautigan, but then “corrected” it, out of habit from your other kind referrals.

    Yes Raul, I have heard that a few times. Some cry BS, but it seems convincing that he was arguing to quit-& Frazier was arguing to continue.

    It was an insane, fascinating fight, the culmination of so much that Ali had set in motion. Here is a really discerning book review piece, & it is also very worthwhile to hit the classic SI article link there.

    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7208921/re-examining-ghosts-manila

  255. Raul Says:

    Thanks Mike.

    I came across that article the other day but I was working and forgot.

    I didn’t realize this…I guess it just slipped my mind…but supposedly the reason Futch called the fight was because he’d personally seen a number of fighters die in the ring and really felt Frazier was on his way to being another one.

    I do know that Frazier had said he was willing to die that night.

  256. Mike Felber Says:

    Yes, it seems unbelievable, but I recall he said 8. He never regretted his decision. Cannot blame him: he did not know that Ali was likely about to quit.

    Most all guys just talk tough like that. Frazier meant it on every level.

  257. Hossrex Says:

    I encourage debate. I enjoy forming ideas, expressing them, and exposing them to scrutiny.

    I WANT people to disagree with me… I just demand that you explain why.

    What pisses me off is a fallacious argument, and/or intellectual dishonesty (usually “and”).

    As long as you’re coming from a place of open honesty and take a rational approach to the idea… I’ll humor even the biggest idiot.

    But if you’re going to mislead or misdirect a point that you know is weak, with the intention of convincing others instead of the intention of finding the truth… I’m going to have a problem with you.

    Pretty much… I’ve had a problem with everyone here.

    Myself included.

    I might have had a problem with Mike at the time of my sabbatical… I might even have said something to the effect of “WAH WAH! MY VAGINA HURTS! I’M NEVER COMING BACK HERE BECAUSE OF MIKE!”… but the truth really is simply that it made my heart hurt to think about my Dodgers (on and off field), and I wanted to spend a year strengthening my relationship with the Ms (which worked surprisingly well).

    So…

    Chuck? Mike?

    GROUP HUG!

    If all of you people agreed with everything I’ve ever thought or said, I wouldn’t have stayed here a week. I think that’s probably true of everyone here. Sometimes I forget that, and I think it’s important to step back keep that perspective.

    I’m at the Ms.’s parents house right now, and her father is certifiably insane, and making me want to rip my eyeballs out. I gotta go.

    Pray for me.

  258. Cameron Says:

    If you can deal with a board that can tolerate my crazy ass, you’ll live. Walk it off there, slugger.

  259. Mike Felber Says:

    Much respect Hoss. Few folks are so fearlessly introspective. I hope I often am as insightful as to my own conduct.

    Funny thing about people’s honesty & rationality though. It gets to be a gray area in terms of their intentions. It is hard to know thyself.

    In Buddhism, there are “3 poisons.” Visualized as a Rooster, Pig & Snake devouring each other. Two are exceedingly familiar in the Western Cannon, Greed & anger/hate. But the last is not a 7 deadly sin type of infamy.

    It is ignorance. Which i always did not like the semantic ambiguity of in English: it does dual duty as prejudiced, usually implying hateful, & just not knowing. In eastern traditions it means just not knowing. And the awareness is focused on not being aware of the fundamental nature of reality, impermanence, emptiness, dependent origin, the nature of suffering & clinging aspects of desire…

    All going afield from what is the central internal aspect of ignorance. Sometimes the term used is delusion, & this better implies the aspects that relate to understanding our own psychology.

    The relevant call back to my initial point is that it is ambiguous how much someone is consciously eluding or eliding the truth. Even & especially to OURSELVES we may deny what we are doing & why.

    Also the tradition encourages us to consider our worst “enemy” our greatest teacher & benefit. Showing us how we are emotionally triggered, limited, our Egos are handicapping our healthy functioning…A difficult in-law or the single equivalent is a CLASSIC challenge.

    I still sometimes must remind myself not to be upset with difficult, irrational & nasty folks. Not implying anything about folks here: personal contacts when things & situations are at stake arer more challenging.

    You lost 90 lbs. Hoss, & have a great relationship with your girl. And came back happier & kind-hearted, but still with passion. You must be doing some things very good.

    Now if you can only find something to bond with cuckoo Dad with…Maybe there is something you can ask his expertise in, to show fealty & bond? Often if you create a pattern of common interest & the person feels honored, even the nutty will calm & seek more peace to maintain that positive reinforcement.

  260. Mike Felber Says:

    Chuck: I am very sorry about the lay off. Not your fault, & I am sure you have conquered much worse, but tough as a family man. Makes businesses reneging on agreements to store my mags appear the mere nuisance it is.

  261. Hossrex Says:

    The thing is though… Ms. Rex’s Pappa LOVES me.

    We aren’t enemies… and we occasionally do things together.

    He wasn’t upset with me when I called him insane… he was literally just being insane… when the Missus was away for an hour or so… and I was the only person there to listen to the ramblings of a madman.

    I didn’t use “insane” as an insult… simply as a descriptor.

    An honest descriptor.

    *sigh*

  262. Chuck Says:

    “Tell me forever why you do not like Schilling for the HOF, I will never object.”

    That’s kinda the point, you ALWAYS have to have the last word.

    You’ve been given more reasons why he’s NOT than you have provided why you think he IS, and yet here we are a week later still washing the same shorts.

    Once again, for your listening pleasure;

    Lefty and I agree Curt Schilling will likely end up in the HOF someday, but will need an “off-year” ballot to get in and “possibly” will have to wait til the Veteran’s Committee.

    Other than the magic 3000 strikeouts, he is WOEFULLY short in comparison to his peers such as Maddux, Johnson and Martinez, who blew his ass out of the water while pitching in the SAME steriod era.

    Your mindless spouting of bullshit sabermetric “acronym” stats DOES NOT make him a more worthwhile candidate, nor does his postseason record.

    Comprende’, amigo?

  263. John Says:

    “Other than the magic 3000 strikeouts, he is WOEFULLY short in comparison to his peers such as Maddux, Johnson and Martinez, who blew his ass out of the water while pitching in the SAME steriod era.”

    Well, I think we can all safely agree on that.

    I think Billy Williams was blown out of the water by Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Frank Robinson while playing in the same era. Doesn’t mean he isn’t HOF worthy.

    For the record, all those guys also blow Schilling out of the water in WAR too:

    Clemens: 128.4
    Maddux: 96.8
    Johnson: 91.8
    Martinez: 75.9 (in 2800 innings, which is incredible)
    Mussina: 74.8
    Schilling: 69.7

    He is, however, just ahead of Glavine, which I guess you might take issue with.

  264. Chuck Says:

    John,

    email , want to run something by you.

    Probably won’t get to it til the weekend, but before I forget.

  265. Chuck Says:

    I never looked at Glavine as an all-time great, and the sabermetric argument of pitching wins not holding much value individually really applies to him.

    He has 90 more wins in TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX MORE career starts than Schilling.

    If you look at their 162 game averages, they are pretty similar.

    Looking at Glavine’s numbers doesn’t change my mind on Schilling, it’s actually the other way around.

    I wouldn’t vote for Glavine, either.

    Take away 20 wins, and he’s not even as good as Kaat or John.

  266. John Says:

    Glavine is a 2-time Cy Young winner.

    Also impressive: he made basically every start +/- a couple every year from 1990 to 2007.

    I’d vote him in; despite the WAR difference, I think he’s a much better candidate than Schilling.

  267. Chuck Says:

    I agree 100% on Glavine being better than Schilling, but in the hierarchy of pitching, it just knocks Curt down another notch.

  268. Mike Felber Says:

    No CHuck, I do not always have to have the last word. Check the record, on things like the Paterno matter. But you asked me to give you a reason for Schilling absent ERA +, I did, you did not respond substantively then. You did not say use no acronyms, but I used the most basic components of pitching-walks, K’s & HR’s per game X IP. And how it effected the runs he allowed to score.

    These are NOT BS saber stats. They are the basic building blocks of performance.

    I gave far more reasons he belongs in the Hall. And why do you think you need to repeat your & Lefty’s position on when he will LIKELY be inducted? Can you not see i keep saying I know, & just that it is a little pessimistic? I just think that off year will come this decade.

    Moose only beat Schilling in WAR by about exactly 5 points John, & Shcilling wins on the DIPS based fangraphs. but of cours eyou are right that to hold these guys to the all time tippy top nest standards is absurd. Glavine is worthy too, they are close in value. No way I can see either are much better than the other.

    Wins continue to be an absurd measure of skill for any individual in a team sport. When we look at guys like Palmer, Morris & Catfish, they are massively over rated by runs support. Often also defense & park factors help a lot too.

  269. Chuck Says:

    Who cares about Joe Paterno?

    “They are the basic building blocks of performance.”

    LOL..funniest thing you’ve ever written.

    Haha.

    “…” they are massively over rated by runs support..”

    And Schilling isn’t??!!

  270. Raul Says:

    W/L
    David Cone – 194-126
    Curt Schilling – 216-146

    Innings
    David Cone – 2,898.2
    Curt Schilling – 3,261.0

    ERA
    David Cone – 3.46
    Curt Schilling – 3.46

    Games Started
    David Cone – 419
    Curt Schilling – 436

    HR Allowed
    David Cone – 258
    Curt Schilling – 347

    Strikeouts
    David Cone – 2,668
    Curt Schilling – 3,116

    WHIP
    David Cone – 1.256
    Curt Schilling – 1.137

    ERA+
    David Cone – 121
    Curt Schilling – 128

    Top 5 Cy Young Finishes
    David Cone – 4
    Curt Schilling – 4

    Cy Young Awards
    David Cone – 1
    Curt Schilling – 0

    I just wanted it on the record that at the very highest level…Curt Schilling was marginally better than David Cone (if indeed he was).
    In 2009, David Cone’s first year on the ballot, he received 3.9% of the votes and fell off the ballot.
    David Cone was universally liked by players and voters throughout the league.

  271. John Says:

    Gee, those ERA+, WHIP, and IP numbers kinda make it look like he’s way worse a candidate than Schilling.

    Far better than Jack Morris though.

  272. brautigan Says:

    Jacoby Ellsbury has 390 career starts in CF and has played 498 games in the OF.

    He has two errors.

  273. brautigan Says:

    Of course, I suppose you could argue it was the two balls he got to.

  274. Cameron Says:

    Ha, Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame. Good one.

  275. Chuck Says:

    #273…LOL!!!!!!!!!!

  276. Chuck Says:

    For those who have MLBNetwork or an MLB.TV subscription, AFL game tonight at 8EST.

  277. Chuck Says:

    Dilemma.

    My plans for tomorrow are an AFL game at 12:30, followed by heading home and entertaining some friends for dinner.

    I can go next door and watch Mike Trout and Bryce Harper against hometown Surprise, or I can make an 80 mile round trip and watch Gerrit Cole and David Phelps in the Mesa/Phoenix game.

    The drawback with option two is the drive, but also because of my evening plans probably can’t stay for the whole game.

    The drawback with option one is it’s “reserve” day, meaning it’s 50/50 one out of Harper/Trout won’t play, and possibly both.

  278. Cameron Says:

    I’d still go with option one just because it’s a shorter trip, you can stay the whole game, and you can prepare more for your guests once all’s said and done.

  279. Raul Says:

    “Gee, those ERA+, WHIP, and IP numbers kinda make it look like he’s way worse a candidate than Schilling.”

    Then you clearly don’t know how to read statistics.

  280. Raul Says:

    Watch Trout and Harper.

    Cole crapped the bed last time out and he’s not worth an 80 mile drive.

  281. Raul Says:

    I didn’t know the Florida Marlins will be renamed the Miami Marlins

  282. Cameron Says:

    Raul, I ain’t calling 500 strikeouts “marginally” better.

  283. Cameron Says:

    Yes they are Raul. Complete with this fabulous new logo.

    http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/2253612/2011-9-21-MarlinsLogo_large_large.jpg

  284. John Says:

    “Then you clearly don’t know how to read statistics.”

    Well, that 128 of Schilling’s appears to be tied with Bob Gibson, while that 121 of Cone’s is tied with Kevin Appier.

    That 1.137 of Schilling’s ranks just ahead of Greg Maddux, while that 1.256 of Cone’s appears to be slightly worse than…Ted Lilly.

    But it’s cool, because Cone had freakish longevity. Ok, well actually pitched like 15% fewer innings than Schilling.

    So really, this is the most unclose contest of all-time, and a ridiculous comparison.

    But Cone was a Yankee, and we all know THAT MEANS SOMETHING.

  285. Chuck Says:

    “I didn’t know the Florida Marlins will be renamed the Miami Marlins”

    They were going to call themselves the “Cokeheads”, but Dave Parker, Keith Hernandez and Tim Raines filed a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement.

  286. Raul Says:

    @ 284

    Further proving the supremacy of your idiocy.

  287. Chuck Says:

    Figures John missed Raul’s point.

    Tough to read with your head up your ass.

  288. Cameron Says:

    Unless that Cy Young from ‘94 was supposed to mean something. I love a Royal winning a Cy, but it’s an award Bartolo Colon and Eric Gagne has won. Hardware =/= Great Pitcher

  289. John Says:

    LOL @ Chuck

  290. John Says:

    Ok, Raul.

    Curt Schilling is basically David Cone.

    If we ignore goodness.

  291. Raul Says:

    Marlins meeting with Pujols.
    Looks like the new Marlins stadium won’t be any smaller than the old one. Gonna take a whole lotta cuban hookers to tempt hitters to sign in South Florida.

  292. Cameron Says:

    @285

    I’m assuming Vida Blue is too broke to afford a copyright lawyer these days?

  293. brautigan Says:

    Go with option one. You never know when I-10 will be hit with exploding milk trucks.

  294. Raul Says:

    Curt Schilling basically IS David Cone. Perhaps slightly better.
    Except Cone didn’t juice and Cone wasn’t a jerk. And Cone didn’t pitch as long to accummulate as much.

    And Cone wasn’t anywhere near a HOFer. People like you think a guy who was MARGINALLY better than Cone (who got 4 percent of the vote) is a slam dunk candidate? LOL.

    Cone being a Yankee has nothing to do with it. He was also a Met, a Blue Jay and a Royal.
    For years now you keep trying to take shots at former Yankees when literally no one who posts on this site subscribes to that Yankee legend garbage. It’s a very old act at this point.

  295. Cameron Says:

    I dunno, making fun of Derek Jeter for being a “true Yankee” is still a valid crack to me. I still hear that shit, and it got old years ago.

  296. Chuck Says:

    “Cone wasn’t a jerk..”

    So, the bleach in the water gun incident with, I believe, Carl Everett was what, boys being boys?

    And let’s not the forget the…

    Never mind, not going there.

    Don’t want to listen to another 100 comments from Felber looking for “evidence.”

  297. Cameron Says:

    Just tune Mike out Chuck, this one sounds good.

  298. John Says:

    “Cone wasn’t a jerk”

    Holy fuck, no one cares.

    Curt Schilling sees the ballot in 2013, do you really think he sees FOUR percent of the vote?

    He won’t get in on the first try, but he’ll easily be in the range of 30-40%.

    There’s nothing marginal about the difference between Schilling and Cone. You quoted statistics which PROVE that they aren’t even close.

  299. Mike Felber Says:

    Many care about Paterno, it is top news. But context is everything. I cited that as evidence of your (perhaps projected, maybe because I am long winded) mistaken conceit that I needed the last word.

    You also gave zero evidence about my saying pitchers giving up runs, mostly through the things they have at least by far the most control over-walks, Ks, & HRs-being the basic building blocks of performance. I doubt anyone here would agree with you that this extremely basic & conservative statement is correct.

    It is hard to believe you do not know that. Saying it is laughable? Whaa?

  300. Raul Says:

    Sure John.

    They aren’t close, according to your definition.

  301. John Says:

    Looks like the Phillies just signed Jonathon Papelbon. So much for Ryan Madson.

  302. John Says:

    “They aren’t close, according to your definition.”

    My definition is how good a guy is at pitching.

  303. Raul Says:

    LOL
    I bet.

  304. Cameron Says:

    In 17 less starts, Cone pitched 363.1 fewer innings and struck out 448 less batters. That’s not close. At all.

  305. Cameron Says:

    4 years, roughly fifty million. …Still overpaying, but he deserves that a lot more than Ryan Madson does.

  306. John Says:

    That’s my reaction.

    Ridiculous money to pay a closer.

    But I’d rather pay 12% more per season and get Papelbon over Madson.

  307. Raul Says:

    You realize that much of the difference is made up because Schilling had more relief appearances, right, Dickhead?

  308. Cameron Says:

    Especially since Paps has been getting more hittable the last couple of years. Who knows though, maybe a change of scenery and getting out of that clubhouse might do him some good.

  309. John Says:

    @307, Schilling had 3079 IP as a starter, so really not that much of a difference.

  310. Raul Says:

    Exactly.

  311. Mike Felber Says:

    Raul, ya gotta use the most fair & meaningful stats. I love my avatar, but I cannot use his unadjusted ERA to show he was the best pitcher ever. And must consider he did much better at his pitcher’s park. He still is a strong candidate for best ever-at least relative to his peers-but using stats that are massively dependent upon context, like not only wins, but raw stats that take NO NOTICE of the average performances in that era & home park, is a misleading & innacurate way to make comparisons.

    Clearly Schilling is better in the adjusted #s of what they actually did. Forget about Cone’s bullpen & whatever other incident Chuck may have heard of, or Schilling’s personality.

    IF Cone had 700 more IP at his same average level of performance, you could call it close. I think you would still have to favor Schilling, since even before the post season is considered, he had better WHIP, & ERA +. You can decide to balance out the K & HR allowed #s, but Curt’s K/BB ratio made him better per IP.

    So John, IF you consider like I do Cone good enough for the HOF if he had 3 more of his average years, & IF you find Schilling much better than Cone in rate stats AND he had 700 more IP…

    It seems like you have to upgrade your assessment of Schilling to an HOF man, beyond borderline not even considering the post season.

    Is this a valid logical syllogism to you? Is the 1st premise correct?

  312. Raul Says:

    I think we’ve already discussed park factors and why they are BS…

  313. John Says:

    Raul must think that Dante Bichette was really really good.

  314. Cameron Says:

    …Jesus, I just realized this is Tim Raines all over again. Can we change the topic? This shit is getting old, no one’s gaining any ground, and I couldn’t give any less of a fuck either way now.

  315. John Says:

    “Park Factors are bullshit. Everyone was saying Adrian Gonzalez was going to be all good when he got to Fenway Park. Fucking nerds”

  316. Raul Says:

    I think Dante Bichette had a fantastic name.

  317. Cameron Says:

    And his kid is going to be your third baseman of the futHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! …You could’ve gotten a pitcher.

  318. Raul Says:

    Teams adjust the stadium dimensions every year.
    I bet…

  319. Chuck Says:

    Man, Mike Trout really sucks.

    In 101 plate appearances, he only has five walks and three RBI.

    Cut him

  320. Cameron Says:

    And the Twins are going to kick-start losing the core of their offense by going out and signing powerhouse bat… Jamey Carroll.

    Oh dear. They really think this is gonna solve their problems?

  321. Mike Felber Says:

    Eh, ground does not have to be won to make exchanging ideas interesting Cam. That would be an Ego based goal. And you can always read what you like. The interest in anything else, such as what you might introduce, will not be effected.

    Park factors have a major flaw, but having them still gets you closer to the truth than not. Especially with an outlier stadium Like Co. The biggest problem is that they do not consider how a good or bad home team’s production can distort them. I do not know why they do not just use the home team’s road record or some other adjustment.

  322. Chuck Says:

    “IF Cone had 700 more IP at his same average level of performance, you could call it close”

    LOL..it’s close now.

    700 more innings and Cone is already IN the HOF.

    Wow.

  323. John Says:

    “LOL..it’s close now.”

    No, it isn’t.

    “700 more innings and Cone is already IN the HOF.”

    I love how you say that like it’s nothing.

    “Hey, if Shaun Green just hits 300 more HR, he’s probably in the HOF too!”

  324. Mike Felber Says:

    Cone does not have the same rate stats: the difference in ERA + even in Cone’s shorter career have no mitigating defensive or park factors.

    700 more IP is 3 very full seasons by modern standards. If Cone produced his average career value for them, he would have enough career value, by WAR or just most people’s wholly non-acronym related reckoning. Though it may be debatable or borderline just because those would be good years indeed, but no additional peak years.

    Either way, as I urged John to consider, logically if Schilling is significantly better than him, he is a HOF man.

  325. Raul Says:

    If you need park factors to tell you that Dante Bichette was not a superstar player despite his numbers, you’re an idiot who lacks common sense and no stat are going to help you understand baseball better.

  326. Chuck Says:

    #271

    For a guy who likes math, you sure suck at it.

    Schilling won more games and lost more.

    He pitched two more years than Cone.

    He had a lower winning percentage than Cone.

    They had the same ERA

    Cone pitched 11 of his 18 seasons in the AL.

    Schilling pitched 13 of his 20 seasons in the NL.

    Over his career and in prime seasons, Schilling compares most favorably to Kevin Brown and Scott Sanderson.

    Over his career and prime seasons, Cone compares most favorably with Dwight Gooden and Randy Johnson.

    The two year advantage in their careers gives Schilling better stats.

    Doesn’t make him a better pitcher.

  327. Cameron Says:

    It’s 11/11/11

    …Who wants to go watch Spinal Tap?

  328. Raul Says:

    Just saw that Curt Schilling has a higher WAR than Jim Palmer.

    If Jim Palmer woke up and had Curt Schilling’s career, he’d kill himself.

  329. Chuck Says:

    ” love how you say that like it’s nothing”

    There’s a 361 inning difference between the two, the arbitrary 700 number was Mike’s.

  330. Mike Felber Says:

    Amendment: it does appear Schilling had a bit better defenses. Though is DIP #s are still higher, & over a lot more IP.

  331. John Says:

    “The two year advantage in their careers gives Schilling better stats.”

    Also the better WHIP and ERA+ and K rates make Schilling have better stats.

    BECAUSE HE WAS A MUCH BETTER PITCHER.

    I guess when he gets 10x as many votes as Cone next year, that’ll work as proof.

    “If you need park factors to tell you that Dante Bichette was not a superstar player despite his numbers, you’re an idiot who lacks common sense and no stat are going to help you understand baseball better.”

    Traditionalist thinking writers saw the HR and RBI’s and batting average in 1995 and made him 2nd in the MVP voting.

    Which makes sense, because if you evaluate players with RBI, you’re an idiot who lacks common sense.

  332. Raul Says:

    Cameron — THANK YOU.

    ONE LOUDER!

    “Play a little slow number for me so I can dance”

    …..

    “Working on a sex farm….”

    LOL

  333. John Says:

    “If Jim Palmer woke up and had Curt Schilling’s career, he’d kill himself.”

    You’re an idiot.

    You never saw Jim Palmer pitch.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about.

  334. Chuck Says:

    “If Jim Palmer woke up and had Curt Schilling’s career, he’d kill himself.”

    No he wouldn’t, all he’d do to make himself feel better is look at his right hand and see his big, bright, shiny Hall of Fame ring.

  335. Cameron Says:

    John, Juan Gonzalez is a two-time MVP. I think that proves that sportswriters in the 90s thought RBI were sexy as hell.

  336. Raul Says:

    “You never saw Jim Palmer pitch”.
    Funny coming from a guy who never saw Curt Schilling or Tim Raines play.

  337. Mike Felber Says:

    MY MISTAKE. That undermines the supreme ease with which i could convince John that Schilling was an HOF man. I accidentally used Saberhagen, sorry.

    Still, if someone like John sees/says that Schilling was significantly better per IP, AND had about 2 years more IP, the underlying argument is valid.

    Palmer was overrated-by a lot. Run support, era, & those great defenses made Palmer seem much better than he was. Still deserving of the HOF, but not one of the best pitchers ever, not near a Tom Seaver, who suffered in run support relative to Palmer & park factors.

    True, Palmer & most would not trade the conventional #s & PERCEPTION of his degree of greatness. But without those supporting conditions Plamer would be much poorer in 20 win seasons. And total wins.

  338. Raul Says:

    Schilling did not have a significant difference in IP.
    He defines “significant” as 4 innings.

  339. Mike Felber Says:

    The #s in post 326 do not provide any context. How good was a guy compared to his peers & considering run support, team, parks? League differences are considered in adjusted #s. As are more years pitching in the steroid era.

    No way was Cone comparable to Gooden at his very peak-Gooden just had a very short peak. Neither does he have NEAR the career or even peak value of Randy Johnson. Very few did.

    Schilling is even better in fangraphs.com WAR. But you do not need WAR at all to make a good case for him heading to Cooperstown.

  340. John Says:

    “John, Juan Gonzalez is a two-time MVP. I think that proves that sportswriters in the 90s thought RBI were sexy as hell.”

    ALL YOU NEED IS RBI’s.

  341. John Says:

    Schilling, top 5 seasons by WAR: 7.3, 6.8, 6.4, 6.0, 6.0
    David Cone, top 5 seasons by WAR: 6.7, 6.6, 6.1, 5.8, 4.6

  342. Mike Felber Says:

    The better part of 2 full seasons, or 2 slightly light in IP seasons, of very good production is very significant.

    Baseball is famously a game of inches. If you are adding up value, that is not inconsequential. Even if they did have the same rate stats that are meaningful. Which they do not.

    Add up two things like this with moderate significance it makes a big difference.

  343. Raul Says:

    As Starters (because you people are idiots and need everything spelled out like you’re goddamn 5 year olds…)

    W/L
    Cone – 191-125
    Schilling – 206-134

    ERA
    Cone – 3.44
    Schilling – 3.45

    Innings
    Cone – 2,830.2
    Schilling – 3079.1

    K/9
    Cone – 8.3
    Schilling – 8.6

    WHIP
    Cone – 1.249
    Schilling – 1.125

    It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
    They were close as f*ck.

    You’re just being a d*ckhead with your ignorance over some pathetically insignificant BS stat called K/BB — which might be the single dumbest f*cking reason to elect anyone to any Hall of Fame ever.

  344. Mike Felber Says:

    Or Schilling top 5 seasons by WAR: 9.7, 8.6. 8.6, 7.6, 7.3.

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=73&position=P

  345. Chuck Says:

    “The #s in post 326 do not provide any context”

    Of course not, because they prove you’re full of shit.

  346. John Says:

    Ok, Raul.

    First of all, pitchers want to strike out guys, and not walk them. Just thought I’d make that clear.

    Secondly, how is their WHIP even remotely close?

    Among pitchers with 2500 IP or more, Schilling ranks SEVENTEENTH all-time.

    David Cone Ranks 83rd. He’s behind Javy fucking Vazquez.

  347. John Says:

    “W/L”

    Seriously, that’s the dumbest fucking statistic of all-time.

  348. John Says:

    Who wants to make a bet that Schilling gets 10x as many votes as Cone? Anyone?

  349. Mike Felber Says:

    Methinks you are getting kinda mean there now, big guy.

    You made a few mistakes. Notice I am not profanely calling you a @#$%!^@&* idiot, or assuming that someone is being an a**hole because they sincerely disagree. And your not knowing things does not necessitate saying you are ignorant.

    1) I hardly used K/BB above, meaning in MANY posts I used total K’s, BB’s, HR’s per 9, & ERA + as the basis of my argument. before that I DID use K/BB heavily, which combined with HR/9 & IP is a GREAT case for the HOF. BETTER when you consider era played, better still with an accurate view of home parks.

    2) I need things spelled out” Too paraphrase Hoss’s style:

    But, but, buuu…WHAA? You are effectively “misspelling”. Did YOU not see how irrelevant W-L are for any kind of accurate view of how good a pitcher is?

    2 a) Did you not see that ERA depends greatly on context, & that Schilling is significantly better in ERA +?

    3) WHIP is not that close. And of course there should be at least a small adjustment for context. Which effects walks & hits.

    4) You could point to Cone’s better HR/9 rate. by .2. But why in the world would you avoid referencing their BB/9 rates?

    Schilling, 2.0. Cone, 3.5.

    Ks, BBs, & HRs allowed are of massive significance. They are the only things a pitcher has great control over effecting. How those are combined means how many runs are allowed. But just looking at total rates in these 3 stats, adjusted for context, tells you most of the story of how good a pitcher is.

    Add in about 2 seasons of IP to better rate stats, career value is not close.

  350. John Says:

    Mike, walks don’t matter! They’re like a tie!

  351. Raul Says:

    Shaun 2.0.

    This guy hasn’t learned a damn thing.

  352. John Says:

    Why would I want to learn from you?

    Seriously, what do you think you could possibly teach me about baseball? That walks don’t count? That strikeouts don’t matter? That Oprah is hotter than Megan Fox?

  353. Raul Says:

    “They are the only things a pitcher has great control over effecting.”

    You really think a pitcher controls whether something is a single or a double?

  354. Raul Says:

    John, you don’t know anything about the game that isn’t on a computer spreadsheet.
    When you can identify a hole in a player’s swing or a mechanics flaw in a pitcher’s delivery, I’ll be glad to learn from you.

  355. John Says:

    “You really think a pitcher controls whether something is a single or a double?”

    Actually, I think Mike’s saying that that’s as much up to the defense as anything else.

    Hence why he’s looking at DIPs, and fWAR, which look at the things under a pitcher’s control…which show Schilling to be a slam-dunk.

  356. Mike Felber Says:

    That is my point Raul. Many say a pitcher only controls (with contexts effecting rates) k, bb, & hr. What I said means that the type of non-HR hit is not controlled.

  357. Mike Felber Says:

    Thank you.

  358. Raul Says:

    The issue isn’t who was better, dumb ass.

    It’s that the difference isn’t much.

  359. Mike Felber Says:

    Well we have showed at length that better per/IP + more IP = significantly better.

    We can agree to disagree absent dumbass statements.

    Time to get me some exercise. My gym is offering 11 cent shakes, & I have not eaten today in anticipation of having at least one!

  360. John Says:

    Schilling was closer to David Cone than he was to Roger Clemens.

    So I guess you got us there.

    Then again, Al Kaline was closer to Larry Walker than he was to Hank Aaron.

  361. Chuck Says:

    “WHIP is not that close.”

    The difference between the two is .119.

    If Cone had the same amount of innings as Schilling, he would have allowed 43 more baserunners.

    Twenty years.

    3200 innings.

    43 baserunners.

    What’s that work out to, 2 per season.

    Good call, Mike.

  362. John Says:

    Ah Chuck.

    I think you might have to do that math again, buddy.

    You’re off by around an order of magnitude.

  363. Chuck Says:

    Of course I am, John.

    That’s what a third grade edyoukashion does for you.

  364. John Says:

    I’m approximating here, but the difference between Schilling and Cone in WHIP is around the same as the difference between the all-time record and Schilling…as well as the approximate difference between Cone, and league-average.

  365. Cameron Says:

    Chuck, try 388 more baserunners over the same IP.

  366. Chuck Says:

    It’s one baserunner per nine innings, not one baserunner per inning.

  367. Cameron Says:

    No, WHIP is Walks and hits per inning pitched, not walks and hits per nine.

  368. Chuck Says:

    Oh, shit, you don’t divide, dumbass, you multiply.

    Ten minutes to cocktail time.

    You can tell, right?

  369. Chuck Says:

    I decided to go to the Surprise/Scottsdale game tomorrow.

    As a fan.

    No press pass.

    I’m going to try and see if I can get Harper and Trout to sign some stuff.

    Braut..you in?

  370. Cameron Says:

    And just to show I’m not pulling that number out of my ass, let me show my work to normalize walks and hits over Curt Schilling’s IP total of 3,261.

    Curt Schilling
    -
    WHIP*IP = 1.137*3,261 = 3707.757

    Rounding up, that’s 3,708 walks and hits allowed.

    David Cone
    -
    WHIP*Curt Schilling IP = 1.256*3,261 = 4,095.816

    Rounding, that’s 4,096.

    4,096 – 3,708 = 388

  371. Cameron Says:

    If you can find ‘em Chuck, see if they can. Might be a good early gauge on how friendly they’ll be to fans when they actually get famous.

  372. Cameron Says:

    And Pittsburgh wants Ramon Santiago as their everyday shortstop.

    One step forward, two steps back with these guys, huh?

  373. John Says:

    Chuck…seriously?

    You think a stat with “per inning pitched” in it – typically between 1 & 1.5 – is per 9 ip?

  374. Raul Says:

    Cut the man some slack. Sometimes people just have brain farts.
    Like that time you thought Tim Raines was a HOFer.

    :)

  375. Chuck Says:

    See, John, even when you think you got one of us by the nuts, someone else bitch-slaps you back to reality.

    It would be nice if you’d pick up the comment thread after you and the boy-toy grab some afternoon delight.

    Thirty-five minutes isn’t that long, really, either between comments or the sheets.

  376. Cameron Says:

    Chuck, you just made me remember The Starland Vocal Band exists. Pray I never find where you live.

  377. Raul Says:

    Wilson Ramos found alive.

  378. Mike Felber Says:

    Well its nice you boys are having fun. Least-wise I hope this is all a happy time donnybrook, like the filmed version of “The Quiet Man”. And math probelm properly adjudicated. Seems I do not need to chasten anyone here, since you seem to be enjoying yourselves, not much bitter & mean. See, context is everything. ;-)

    And recall that the WHIP is not adjusted, so a guy playing his while career in the steroid era gets a small handicap. I would not make it too big, ’cause it does not distinguish types of hits.

  379. Hossrex Says:

    my ipod broke… so im reading and typing on my playstation portable… please excuse the punctuation and lack of capitalization.

    i just wanted to take an hour or two to type out a thought i had about mikes post 299.

    its kinda weird that early in the book lewis talks about the revelation that contrary to conventional reasoning, batters should be credited for their walks since walks not only avoid outs but also makes the pitcher work more, and obviously puts a man on and forces runners over.

    cont…

  380. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 306 – Totally disagree.

    The extra 12% just compounds what’s already a bad deal.

    Possible five years and 60 million?

    There is no way that Papelbon will still be an effective pitcher at 35 when that deal could finish up with him being a one pitch guy.

    Madson was a much better pitcher than Papelbon in ‘11 and ‘10 and if he can stay healthy he could very easily be very Hoffman-esque with his 95+ heat and what is one of the best changes in the game.

    Madson at 4/44 or 5/57 may have been bad but Papelbon at 4/50 or 5/60 is worse.

  381. Mike Felber Says:

    Sure Hoss, though I would be particularly interested in your feedback to my post #259, besides the last paragraph. Though I am curious what brand of insanity he represents…

  382. Hossrex Says:

    Okay. Wow. Fuck that. Using the internet on the PSP sucks.

    My point was…

    Weird that Lewis would make a large point out of the discovery that batters should be credited for their number of walks, because it forces the pitcher to work more, puts a runner on (and forces others over), and avoids an out.

    Makes sense.

    But later, and for the entire book, he talks about which pitching stats matter, and which shouldn’t. He repeatedly makes the point that the best pitching stats were those made exclusively of components that only the pitcher can effect. Hits allowed aren’t the best stat, since (according to the book) with few exceptions the pitcher has little influence on HOW a ball is put in play. Supposedly, once the ball leaves the pitchers hand, luck so dominates the equation that any attribution to skill is marginal enough to nearly dismiss outright. So, the book says, the best stats are the ones only influenced by the pitchers skill. Walks. Home runs. Strike outs.

    Makes sense.

    But wait… when you take those components together…

    We see that a walk should be a positive credit for a batter, because the batter (more so than any other player) is primarily responsible for creating that walk… while simultaneously, walks allowed is one of the absolute best pitching statistics, because the pitcher (more so than any other player) is primarily responsible for creating that walk.

    Can someone straighten that one out without winning an Olympic Gold Medal for Mental Gymnastics?

  383. Raul Says:

    A batter has never created a walk.
    Ever.

    Unless you think standing there and not swinging the bat is “creating”.

  384. Mike Felber Says:

    Technically yes. Though a batter can do a lot to get more walks.

    First, hitting with power will tend to get you more IBB, but the vast majority of walks are from being pitched carefully or the pitcher having limited control.

    Mainly, if a batter lays off of marginal or bad pitches, he will draw more walks. Smaller things like fouling off pitches help. And how about working the count in the sense of how many strokes you get? A batter has a large part in them via whether he misses a lot of pitches, effecting how likely a pitcher is to throw a strike, or try to make a batter chase a marginal or worse pitch.

  385. Hossrex Says:

    re 346, and john

    your snide comment is illconsidered.

    why dont we take other random stats and put them on top of others?

    you cant just take two arbitrary numbers and turn them into a fraction.

  386. Cameron Says:

    Actually you can take any two numbers and turn them into a fraction. Most of the time, it just won’t make any fucking sense.

    And Raul, hitters RARELY walk mostly on their own. I’ve seen plenty of old Reds games where Pete Rose would start fouling shit off trying to find something to hit, but he drew a fair amount of walks. Those are walks I can credit to Rose forcing the pitcher to work more than the pitcher fucking it up.

    And Hoss, I can sum it up clearly. Michael Lewis done fucked up. Walks are good for hitters and pitchers consider walks to be death.

  387. Mike Felber Says:

    There is a pretty sophisticated discussion of starter vs. reliever value going on at the blog Andy from B-R.com started after there great one had the plug pulled. It discusses the value of different leverage indexes, 7 what this means re; the skills vs. value of a player & certain roles.

    http://highheatstats.blogspot.com/2011/11/best-war-per-inning-pitched-in-2011.html#more

    I also just asked an open question about a concern of mine when just suing DIPS (defense Independent Pitching). Because I do not see how that measures a central aspect opf pitcher efficiency, namely the variation in how many guys might be allowed to score even given the same Ks, BBs & HRs.

    I used Schilling as an example, soliciting opinions on which WAR system best translates his true value. I’ll look forward to checking what folks have to say by Saturday afternoon.

  388. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “a batter can do a lot to get more walks.”

    So then it shouldn’t be considered one of the primary pitching statistics, right? If hits aren’t a good indicator, because they’re effected by variables independent of the pitcher, then walks aren’t a good indicator, because they’re effected by variables independent of the pitcher… right?

    True of false: You would consider it a… at least loose… axiom that walks, strikeouts, and homeruns are the best pitching statistics, because they’re the only pitching statistics independent of outside factors.

    (Don’t cheat. Put your mind out of the context of this thread, then ask yourself the above question. Try not be influenced by the outside knowledge of which option makes your point seem stronger)

    Then…

    True or false: You would consider it an axiom that a properly skilled/talented batter can greatly increase the likelihood of the walk result in relation to that of a similarly skilled/talented player who simply hasn’t made that aspect of hitting a priority.

    Would you say false to either?

    If so… why?

    If not… how could walks be such an important statistics (for the reasons given), if a applicably skilled/talented batter can so influence the result?

    It would seem the only possible objection would be: “Yes, the batter can influence the walk result, but no one is saying the Walk is a perfect statistic, just that it’s better and more accurate than measuring his Hits.”

    To which the reply would be: “So yes… it then comes down to a matter of degree. *HOW* influential on the result of an unbatted out is the pitcher. *HOW* influential thus is the batter?”

    Which is where you would BY NECESSITY get into trouble.

    Is it 60% for the pitcher? Than if it’s only 40% the batters responsibility, how can you possibly mark that as a credit in his column? He’s less than half responsible for the result. I would say a pitcher is more than half responsible for whether a batted ball is placed for a hit, or shot right at a guy. Since the batter gets credit for 40%… shouldn’t the pitcher get the same?

    Is it 60% for the batter? Than if it’s only 40% for the pitchers responsibility, how can you POSSIBLY say it’s one of his most important statistics? The whole point of choosing those three key stats, is because they’re as independent as possible on anything outside of the pitchers control. Does it make sense to add a statistic to the list of “good stats” because it seemingly fits one prerequisite (fielding independent), while completely ignoring the audacity of drastically failing another seemingly important consideration (i.e. how much he has to do with the whole damn thing in general).

    Is it 50/50 both ways? Can something be a PRIMARY, AND MOST IMPORTANT statistic, if an individual is only responsible for HALF of it? A batter is MOST ASSUREDLY responsible for more than half of the real work in earning an RBI, no (would you really say the batter was less than 50% of an RBI?)? If RBI is a shitty stat because it doesn’t tell us enough about what the BATTER did… how could walks be a good stat for EITHER the pitcher or the batter, if it isn’t even as dependent on the player in question than it would be if we were assigning credit for an RBI?

    True or False: It’s logically impossible for the causation of one statistic to be the primary responsibility of both (at the same time) the offensive and defensive teams in a sporting event.

    Yet… that’s what you think.

    Why?

  389. Cameron Says:

    It’s not an even split Hoss, nto even close. I’d call it about a 95/5 split on how often walks are given up by the pitcher compared to walks that the hitter actually works for as a byproduct of stretching an AB.

  390. Hossrex Says:

    I’m really hoping someone who disagrees will respond. :p

    I’ll pick up the first round at the “First Annual Dugout Central John Q Memorial Barbecue and International Wet T-Shirt Contest” if any dissenter actually addresses the crux of what I’m saying, instead of just dancing around the periphery, nit-picking insignificant minutia.

  391. Mike Felber Says:

    Tell me if I understand & am addressing your discerning inquiry Hoss.

    First, I believe you meant that we are not measuring the types of hits, because we measure the frequency of them & this is a relevant batting skill.

    But I do not think we need to know just how much a pitcher or hitter is responsible for a given outcome, or how much in general. I have long wondered how much a, say, great pitching performance depended upon the CHANCE that a MLB players were just very off as a team on a given day, & how many well hit balls were caught. Surely (if I may call you…) some 4 hitters were objectively better pitched than some no hitters, if we could measure just where & how the pitches were thrown, how well they responded to a batter’s weaknesses, etc…

    I am thinking that regardless of HOW responsible a guy is for his hits or preventing them, that looking at them just against his interlocutor & correcting for playing context, era, & stadium mainly-fairly shows how much worse or better he is compared to every other player fulfilling his role.

    But stats that intrinsically depend on the context of what other guys in the same role do, like RBI/R, can only appropriately show the efficiency or total production of the team in a given playing context.

    It seems fairly simple to me, but you will tell me if it seems a satisfactory response. The thread I listed above has worthwhile responses to my pitching inquiry, also introducing FIP stats & how they are considered.

  392. Mike Felber Says:

    Partly what I imply is that while folks will do better or worse than their “true” skill in a small sample size, largely due to how their batting or pitching interlocutor is doing, that over time this & other chance factors like where a ball lands even out, or think of it as a regression to measuring real abilities.

  393. Raul Says:

    So you don’t think it’s necessary to know how much a pitcher or batter is responsible for a walk, yet you subscribe to the idea that somehow ballparks are responsible for runs and that those ballparks….despite no change in dimensions, can alternate between “batter-friendly” and “pitcher-friendly”.

    Surely you jest…

  394. Raul Says:

    And did you really just write “interlocutor”?

    …I’ll have a joke for that in a moment, but I’m having Dennis Miller write it…

  395. Mike Felber Says:

    Stop calling me Shirley!

    Well seriously, I was addressing not just a walk, but how much a pitcher is responsible for any outcome. We can get general ideas, though never know exactly for sure how much a guy is responsible for an outcome when 2 interlocutor are involved. With a IBB, we can say it is all the pitcher’s choice, but certain players & line up sequences effect those decisions.

    Ball parks indisputably are *partially* responsible for the frequency of runs. And certain seasonal conditions can effect productivity in a certain park, mainly weather. But admittedly those do not tend to change a lot over a whole season. You did see how Hoss & i agree that there is a large problem with PFs, in how the home team’s skills distort them, right? That shows how we agree they should be adjusted by comparing the home team’s home-away divergence to the norm, assuming their production is not totally discounted.

    So we all see big problems with Pfs. Though we may differ in the degree to which they mislead. Certainly if a team is close to average in offense or defense the PFs should be pretty accurate. Much less so if they are very strong in one direction. But there is still all the other (away) teams to provide some semblance of a correction.

    That does not make it good enough for me. Follow the thread I linked in post #387 for a detailed discussion of calculating all kinds of things related to pitching performance.

  396. Mike Felber Says:

    Miller was a decent comedian,though pop culture obsessed, who just became a really bitter & mean reactionary.

  397. Raul Says:

    Dennis Miller was awful. And he’s gotten worse. And he’s a fascist jerkoff.

    Nice “Airplane!” retort, though.

  398. Mike Felber Says:

    How can I put with modeling good humor that not hatin’ the hater means we avoid becoming like him, & though the need for revenge is shed, if one is needed as an interim measure facilitating growth, it is like a even more benign version of living well as the best method of.

    Going to OWS related art event. See you guys late night.

  399. Cameron Says:

    “So you don’t think it’s necessary to know how much a pitcher or batter is responsible for a walk, yet you subscribe to the idea that somehow ballparks are responsible for runs and that those ballparks….despite no change in dimensions, can alternate between “batter-friendly” and “pitcher-friendly”.”

    Yes Raul, it’s just as easy to hit a home run in San Diego as it is in Denver.

    Granted, the fact that the factor changes year-to-year is more often than not dependent on the team (dimensions do change. US Cellular Field’s changed dimensions a lot), but I don’t look at the year-to-year, I look at the three or five year stretches that normalize the thing.

  400. Cameron Says:

    Oh lord… Ladies and gentlmen, the new Miami Marlins jerseys.

    http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/mlb/photogallery/111111-marlins-uniform-2.jpg

    And uh… The hat for their weekend home games.

    http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/mlb/photogallery/111111-marlins-alt-hat.jpg

  401. Raul Says:

    “It’s just as easy to hit a home run in San Diego as it is in Denver”

    Nobody said that.

    Though it’s nice to see you subscribing to John’s habit of putting words in people’s mouths.

  402. Cameron Says:

    Kinda had to after a flat denial of a park’s influence on the ability to score runs. Also, I don’t think I know of many, if any, parks actually alternate between hitter-friendly and pitcher-friendly. They usually stay on their side of the fence unless they’re really neutral, then that’s mostly the team’s work.

  403. John Says:

    @375, I think the alarming thing is that you thought Curt Schilling was giving up 1.137 baserunners per 9 IP…so, essentially averaging a 1-hitter every time he pitched…and, thinking that he was averaging a 1-hitter over the course of an entire career, you still wouldn’t want him in the Hall of Fame!

    Anyway, I’m going to go ahead and admit that the fluctuation in park factors when no discernible change in the park’s environment is a little screwy.

    But there’s way more in play than just park dimensions. A great example is at Miller Park. Generally, it’s a very hitter-friendly place. But the shadows created on day games when the roof is open are freaking nuts and basically turn the place into Petco East in terms of batter difficulty. So, you see a lot of 2-1 or so games. If you have a drought during the summer one year and you play just about all of your home day games with the roof open, it can easily skew the overall park factor.

    Bottom line: you don’t always have an absolute 100% ironclad, this-is-the-absolute hands-down truth in life. You actually rarely have that.

    But park factors are a decent estimate as to the run-scoring environment of a place. Better than guestimating.

  404. Cameron Says:

    I’ve noticed Chase Field can cast that same kind of “fuck with your batting eye” shadows that Miller Park does, usually even worse.

  405. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “I do not think we need to know just how much a pitcher or hitter is responsible for a given outcome”

    Raul gave you a hard time for saying that (which I would have if he hadn’t)… but I think it’s important to look at that statement in a different way.

    I say with take it with all the implications it carries.

    The implication of course… is that Mike has completely changed his mind, and he no longer thinks the best way to evaluate talent is to look at Frankensteinian mishmashes of arbitrary statistics. He no longer cherishes WAR, WARP, or even the hilariously named DIPS (written on the road in front of my house is “DIPS”… which makes me think the dude responsible for painting shit on roads is a really big fan of Defensive Independent Pitching Statistics).

    Mike now thinks the only thing that matters in evaluating talent is to watch games, look at players, and use your gut.

    That’s the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to take the statement “I do not think we need to know just how much a pitcher or hitter is responsible for a given outcome”.

    Why?

    Because if you aren’t interested in determining who was responsible for what (which is LITERALLY the foundation from with Sabermetrics have sprung), you can’t POSSIBLY now how responsible he was, how he should be credited, or what the fuck we should even be looking at.

    Your statement is SO ABSOLUTELY INSANE (from your perspective), that I CAN NOT BELIEVE you actually said it.

    So… Mike recants his old opinions.

    Good to know.

    Chuck shall be pleased.

    (creepy Hannibal Lector tongue sound)

    Raul: “And did you really just write “interlocutor”?”

    Literally the first time I’ve ever had to look up a word used on the Dugout.

    I thought *I* used a LOT of bullshit words

    For shits and giggles, I did a google search for “interlocutor Dennis Miller”… and it turns out that interlocutor is actually a tag he’s used on his website before.

    http://www4.dennismillerradio.com/blog?action=blogArchive&blogTag=Interlocutors

    The only article to have used the tag?

    A story about Sparky Anderson dying.

    That’s kinda weird… right?

    Cameron: “I don’t think I know of many, if any, parks actually alternate between hitter-friendly and pitcher-friendly. They usually stay on their side of the fence unless they’re really neutral, then that’s mostly the team’s work.”

    Did you miss my hard hitting expose on why Park Factors are bullshit, by citing Joe Robbie?

    The park has been as low as 90, and as his as 110… and it’s constantly fluctuating between 95 and 105.

    There is a big difference between 95 and 105… and an EPIC difference between 90 and 110.

    Park factors seem JUST FINE… until you start bothering to think about them, how they’re figured, and how much emphasis is put on them.

    The same EXACT thing that you could say about pitching wins (“they’re an outmoded stat that doesn’t accurately enough reflect what it attempts to represent. The only reason people ever use them as a statistic, is because they’ve been told by others that they should, and they don’t possess the ability to properly judge it for themselves”), as you do about park factors (just read the damn thing again).

    And when you’re at the OWS thinger tonight (or whenever), please remember that all of the people screaming about how they represent the 99% are lying assholes. They don’t represent me. They don’t represent anyone who believes its bad to put more power in the hands of an already corrupt government.

    Its an intellectually dishonest movement, which misrepresents itself in order to deceive others into following (“The 22% Movement” just didn’t seem to gain any traction).

    When you guys can come up with a system that doesn’t involve me losing my rights as a human being to a greedy Oligarchy… I’ll be the first to sign up.

    Until then… “what the fuck is wrong with all of you people?”

  406. Hossrex Says:

    John: “But park factors are a decent estimate as to the run-scoring environment of a place. Better than guestimating.”

    Lets try this thought exercise.

    “Pitching Wins are a decent estimate as to the general skill of a pitcher. Better than guestimating.”

    Well… there we go. John just proved, by extension, that Pitching Wins are awesome!

    Or… well… I guess there *MIGHT* be something in between “fuck it, lets just guess”, and “although I’ve not only been told precisely how and why the statistic is flawed, but actually exactly what would be required to fix it… I’m still going to use that pointlessly flawed statistic in all of the VERY MOST IMPORTANT statistics I’m going to create, and then laud the quality of that new statistic because it’s ‘comprehensive’, without ever bothering to fucking make sure the shit fucking works.”

    No?

    Nothing in between?

    We’ve explained why Park factors suck. We’ve explained how they could be made better with nothing more than the data points at hand (no new observations necessary), and you COMPLETELY dismiss the point, and simply retort “Better than guestimating”!

    Oh… *THIS* is why you guys used to always get me so riled up.

    I almost just said “Fuck you John, eat a dick”… but since I aint taking this shit seriously no more, I say we all just go eat some Pizza Rolls.

    Who wants a pizza roll?

    Email me if you want a pizza roll.

    John aint gettin’ none of my pizza rolls.

  407. Raul Says:

    ” Until then… “what the fuck is wrong with all of you people?” ”

    …I already told you. I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don’t have to. I have people skills. I AM GOOD AT DEALING WITH PEOPLE…

  408. Cameron Says:

    WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

    …Fuck, I REALLY need to get a VCR to replace my old one.

  409. Cameron Says:

    I want a pizza roll…

  410. Raul Says:

    Using 200 ABs at a minimum,

    Jacoby Ellsbury and Dan Uggla led the Majors in 2nd-half home runs with 21 a piece.
    Cameron Maybin stole 28 bases in the 2nd half.
    Dexter Fowler had 10 triples in the 2nd half.

  411. Cameron Says:

    Yeah, Uggla tore it up in the second half. Hopefully this is a good sign for Atlanta and he returns back to what he was in Florida and that first half was a fluke.

    Also, can Maybin and Fowler actually hold on to everyday major league jobs now that they’ve shown they can be capable players? …I’m not entirely sold on either of these guys yet, to be honest. They can be everyday players, but they haven’t shown the consistency yet.

  412. Hossrex Says:

    I think I found a way to express how I feel about the sabermetric approach to baseball.

    Even if it’s the finest brush ever used to paint baseball, it’s still a very broad stroke. It makes concessions, and treats every historical instance of an event as equal. After compiling that “best we could do” data, players are scrutinized to remarkable precision.

    The problem is, after you’ve plugged in a ‘guess’ variable, you CAN NOT look at anything like a 10% difference in the statistics as relevant to a differential in the caliber of a player. The broad strokes of baseball statistics simply don’t carry the precision to make that accurate of a statement… but yet a 10% difference in skill basically represents the difference between a league minimum player, and an eight figure per year all-star.

    The Bill James/Paul DePodesta approach says that if you look at the data, you can find correlations that lead to predictable results. So you make a hypothesis: “The height of the second baseman is the single most important aspect to winning games.”

    So you find the heights of every second baseman to ever play, and the results of all those games… graph them out… and see if anything makes a cute picture of a kitty cat.

    If it doesn’t, you form another hypothesis (“Do the number of Expo wins correlate to the degree which Rock Raines was fucked out of his head on cocaine?”), and test again.

    Eventually, you’ll find a statistic that correlates very well to wins. How often a team gets on base, for example, makes a very appealing graph.

    While that absolutely IS the scientific process… it’s… kinda… not.

    It’s funny, given how many times I’ve heard this just this week from you guys… but “Correlation is not causation.” It’s a good line. It’s true.

    Or… it would seem SOME of you think it’s true when it’s convenient for the point you’re trying to make, and not so true when you’re talking about how well Saber stats correlate to “winning”.

    Historically, the “Quality Start” correlates AMAZINGLY with outstanding success. Seriously. It does.

    So… Saber logic suggests that I now consider an ERA of 4.50, and six innings pitched to be “good”, since it correlates so well to victory.

    Well… no. The “Quality Start” is a bullshit stat that just happens to correlate to success.

    Sabermetrics are fantastic, so long as you have a healthy dose of common sense attached to it to stop you from believing data which deceives you.

  413. Hossrex Says:

    Cameron: “Fuck, I REALLY need to get a VCR to replace my old one.”

    OH MY GOD! WHATS WRONG WITH YOUR FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!

  414. Raul Says:

    “Sabermetrics are fantastic, so long as you have a healthy dose of common sense attached to it to stop you from believing data which deceives you.”

    …and that stat heads constantly create bullshit baselines for their arguments.

  415. Cameron Says:

    Hoss, I’m actually watching that video right now.

  416. Hossrex Says:

    I watch a lot of bullshit internet television… almost all of it is shitty (and easier to make than you’d think). Of all of them, “Red Letter Media” creator Mike Stolkasa is the only one who it genuinely amazes me that he isn’t being paid large sums of money to be funny on television or in movies.

    http://blip.tv/redlettermedia/the-great-space-jam-5329144

    He’s Seth McFarland… if Seth McFarland could tell a joke that doesn’t involve cartoons from the 80’s.

  417. Cameron Says:

    I’m a big fan of a quite a few contributors for Channel Awesome. They’re pretty talented and once you look at the shit they do on the production end, it can get nuts. They’ve filmed two feature-length movies with people from all over the country (and several international contributors) in a combined span of less than two weeks.

    You tell me to arrange the travel schedules of twenty people, deal with international travel issues, give me no budget, and say “give me four hours of usable footage in ten days”, I’m killing myself.

  418. John Says:

    “Eventually, you’ll find a statistic that correlates very well to wins. How often a team gets on base, for example, makes a very appealing graph.

    While that absolutely IS the scientific process… it’s… kinda… not.

    It’s funny, given how many times I’ve heard this just this week from you guys… but “Correlation is not causation.” It’s a good line. It’s true.”

    The “Correlation is not causation” argument is widely misinterpreted.

    An example where you would use correlation is not causation:

    A team’s GIDP has a strong correlation with run-scoring. Historically, more double plays goes hand-in-hand with run scoring. The Cardinals, for example, set a league record for GIDP, and led the league in runs/game.

    OBVIOUSLY, the conclusion isn’t “GIDP leads to more runs scoring.” That’s where correlation is not causation. Because, see, it would be batshit insane to suggest that creating two outs on play is an effective way of bringing home more runs.

    But the fact of the matter is that GIDP and R/G share a common driving force: OBP.

    The more often your team reaches base, the more opportunities you have to ground into a double play, and the more double plays you’ll likely ground into.

    The more often your team reaches base, the more opportunities you have to score a run, and the more runs you’ll likely score.

    In both of these last two statements, correlation most definitely DOES mean causation.

  419. Hossrex Says:

    Oh, don’t get me wrong. I got mad props for what Bhargav does (“HEART!”), but he’s the one that deals with that shit (Doug is the figurehead who doesn’t actually have NEARLY as much to do with the management as it would appear from the videos).

    I’ve watched the Nostalgia Critic and Spoony since they were both on youtube, Nostalgia Chick since she won the contest to become the Nostalgia Chick, and Linkara before he reminded all of us that he “IS A MAN!” I also watch Obscurus Lupa and the Cinema Snob… but I came to them later.

    They’re all funny, but the “Summarization” process (since, despite what they’re called, they aren’t actually “reviews”) is entirely formulaic, and pretty basic.

    Watch a movie two or three times. Take notes on what you think it funny, and note the time on the DVD player (for later editing). Then pick 15 or 20 half minute bits of the movie that are funny/interesting, and quantify WHY it was funny. Write some bullshit script organizing your notes. Film yourself making funny faces, and record the dialog from your script. Edit your funny faces together with the clips you’ve selected from the movie (which you already have the timecode for in your notes), and throw the voice-over on top of everything.

    *TA DA*

    You’re an internet “reviewer”.

    I don’t care, and can’t be bothered… but it’s FAR easier than it seems. Like too many aspects of life, motivation is more important than skill.

    “Suburban Nights” was just terrible. Even in relation to the also terrible (but quaint) “Epic Battle”, and the INTERMINABLY long (don’t forget terrible) “Kick-assia”.

    I also watch the Angry Video Game Nerd, The HAPPY Video Game Nerd (he’s more under the radar than the rest, but he’s hilarious), Confused Matthew, and SFDebris.

    If you like Star Trek, make sure you check out this link: http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews

    He’s the dude who literally coined the phrase “Future Guy” (which later scripts of Enterprise actually used)… and if you understand that reference… we’d probably have a lot of fun over a beer.

  420. John Says:

    Hossrex: “Historically, the “Quality Start” correlates AMAZINGLY with outstanding success. Seriously. It does.

    So… Saber logic suggests that I now consider an ERA of 4.50, and six innings pitched to be “good”, since it correlates so well to victory.”

    You mean, the bare minimum requirement for a QS correlates amazingly with outstanding success?

    Cuz that’s not really true.

    Even during the steroid era (which I’m defining as 1994-2007), teams went 1252-1362 when they got exactly 6 IP and 3 ER out of their starter.

    There’s nothing particularly statty about defining the quality start. It’s really just round numbers. It simply asks the question: how often did you give your team a reasonable expectation of victory? Ever watched a game and felt like you were out of it after 6 IP, down 3-0? Maybe facing a guy like Halladay, or if the team has the best bullpen ever, but I’m not exactly changing the channel if the Brewers are losing 3-0.

    The stat-part of this is simple: The more quality starts you get out of your team, the better you’ll do. Maximizing how often you’re passable (or better, of course) is around as important as your overall team ERA, with respect to how often it leads to winning.

  421. Raul Says:

    “The stat-part of this is simple: The more quality starts you get out of your team, the better you’ll do.”

    …..”The more often your starters give up zero runs, the better you’ll do.”

    See?

    Same shit.
    I can pick arbitrary numbers to define quality starts too!
    :)

  422. Cameron Says:

    Gonna get ready to watch the Velasquez vs. Dos Santos fight on Fox. UFC’s first broadcast on Fox is a Heavyweight title fight. Both guys are 7-0 in the UFC and neither have gotten knocked down or taken to the ground in a fight once.

  423. Cameron Says:

    And Junior Dos Santos is making his way to the octagon to “Gonna Fly Now”. …Awesome.

  424. Raul Says:

    Can’t take UFC seriously.

    Either box, or go full contact like in the Kumite or some shit.

  425. Cameron Says:

    That didn’t take long at all. After about a minute, Dos Santos used a left straight to draw Velasquez’s guard then snuck a right hook to take him down and it was over from there. Congratulations to Cigano, man. You can tell the guy’s a trained boxer with fakeouts like that.

  426. Hossrex Says:

    John: “You mean, the bare minimum requirement for a QS correlates amazingly with outstanding success?”

    You’re making the same point I’m making, and you don’t even realize it.

    If, in looking at a statistic, you need to mentally adjust it… or even worse, need to investigate deeper to know precisely how each statistic was tallied… it isn’t a good stat. If you need to look at it and say “it’s a good stat… so long as you discount around 1/3rd of the instances for which it’s happened”… it ISN’T a good stat.

    Yet it correlates to victory.

    It’s a bad stat. That correlates DIRECTLY to victory.

    This is why you can’t confuse one thing that occurs at a similar rate as another as necessarily being RELATED to one another.

    Quality start ABSOLUTELY correlates with success… but it ISN’T a good stat.

    You don’t have a problem with that?

    Raul: “I can pick arbitrary numbers to define quality starts too!”

    Right?

    Cameron: “Gonna get ready to watch the Velasquez vs. Dos Santos fight on Fox.”

    Isn’t this a baseball site? Can’t we get back to talking about Star Trek, and the Nostalgia Critic?

  427. Cameron Says:

    Let me get some pizza rolls out of the bucket, we’ll be fine Hoss.

  428. Hossrex Says:

    John: “The “Correlation is not causation” argument is widely misinterpreted.”

    You then go into an explanation… which literally amounts to “you can’t always use the correlation does not equal causation argument… because you sometimes just can’t, usually when it’s inconvenient for my point.

    So… yeah… if you want to redefine words, your points make perfect sense.

  429. John Says:

    “Quality start ABSOLUTELY correlates with success… but it ISN’T a good stat.”

    Obviously it correlates well with victory. If you take away every game that your starter gives up more than 3 runs and/or doesn’t complete 6 IP, you’re eliminating lots of bad games and not so many good ones.

    If you redefine quality start to be 6 IP and 2 runs, you’ll get BETTER correlation.

    “If you need to look at it and say “it’s a good stat… so long as you discount around 1/3rd of the instances for which it’s happened”… it ISN’T a good stat.”

    Ok, so there are exactly zero good statistics?

    I mean, think about it. If I said run-scoring leads to winning because there’s a high correlation, would you then just say that’s stupid because of teams like the Rockies, Reds etc who score lots of runs AND (due to bad pitching) also lose a lot?

    Seriously, have you EVER thought to apply these same standards to other statistics?

    I guess home runs are stupid, because it’s not a guarantee that hitting one will result in a victory.

    At least with the quality start, the pitcher has to meet SOME semblance of a standard. Not a terribly high standard, mind you, but still something.

    A pitcher who gets the win really just needs to get through the 5th inning, with half of the game WHICH IS TOTALLY 100% OUT OF HIS CONTROL going well.

  430. John Says:

    “You then go into an explanation… which literally amounts to “you can’t always use the correlation does not equal causation argument… because you sometimes just can’t, usually when it’s inconvenient for my point.”

    So, what are you trying to argue?

    OBP -> Run Scoring is both correlation and causation.

    ANY BASEBALL FAN CAN IDENTIFY THIS. Any fan can say, ok, the more base runners we get, the more chances we get to score.

    QS -> Winning is also both correlation and causation.

    The more times you keep the game within reach, the more times you will win.

    Based on those numbers from before, a team that only puts up 6 IP and 3 ER every start for a season will go about 78-84.

    Ok, not great. But how do you think a typical 4.50 ERA team does?

    Well, the Royals had a 4.45 ERA this season and went 71-91 with a pretty good offense. Colorado had a 4.44 ERA and a good offense and only went 73-89.

    Still think there’s no connection with consistency?

  431. John Says:

    Here’s an example of correlation not being causation: having a guy with the last name “Pujols” on your team leads to winning.

    Now, the Cardinals have done very well over the last decade with Albert Pujols on the team (so there’s high correlation) but his last name being “Pujols” has nothing to do with it. Albert Pujols being very very very good at baseball with his 170 career OPS+ has been causation, and the good supporting cast has been causation, but I’m not going to sign former Mets farmhand Stanly Pujols for his last name because I’ve noticed some sort of correlation.

    If you watch the game, identifying correlation/causation isn’t tough.

    And if a statistic is proven to correlate highly with winning, it’s silly to just ignore it.

  432. Raul Says:

    I think baseball players stepping into the batters box with a baseball bat correlates to base hits.

    I think it correlates highly.

  433. Cameron Says:

    I guess that’s why Hank Aaron XXIV sucked so much.

    Also, fun fact. Charles Manson took over 150 hours of Scientology courses before he started his cult and killed people… And left the “faith” because he thought it was too crazy.

    Yes, Scientology is too insane for Charlie Goddamn Manson.

  434. Raul Says:

    That might be the funniest thing I’ve read in a while @ Cam.

    Good job.

  435. Hossrex Says:

    Before someone else says it… this: “The only variable that changed was one that should have LOWERED his OPS+ (marginally)”

    Was a mistake. I had the numbers backwards in my head. His OPS+ should have increased by a fraction of a percent (instead of deceased as I initially said).

    It doesn’t change the point… but I expect John would have viewed that as a victory for him… because when you’re never ACTUALLY correct, sometimes you have to settle for being fake correct.

  436. Mike Felber Says:

    Hoss, you are very bright, yet you sometimes get excitable-you have admirable passion, just sometimes it is misdirected, or you use an elephant gun to slay a gnat. A QS is a good stat that correlates with victory, the starting pitcher giving you this helps. Though stats are often properly approximations of standards useful towards goals like winning. Many have said that the QS standard should be a bit more rigorous in either of its components. I agree, certainly after the steroid era. Either way that is a tempest in a teapot.

    I can see how you would see my quote as contradictory to my past statements (“I do not think we need to know just how much a pitcher or hitter is responsible for a given outcome”): if you did not notice the context/intended meaning.

    Which you did not argue with. That in the specific case of the duel between pitchers & batters, we do not need to know precisely how much one guy did better, the other sub par, what factors are random…To compare how well either does against the league average over a significant period of time, hence how good they are. See, this is worthwhile to try to sort out, but impossible to know with precision. But it is categorically unlike other examples we have entertained.

    Their duel is a closed system. If you are good over time you will do better, & then we extricate the results of the duel-such as defense that skews the results. And neutralize for era, park, other stuff as well as possible. You have the will & mathematical chops to implement a better PF, I’m all ears. Otherwise I will use them & make a mental adjustment when called for. And stats like R/RBIs are heavily dependent upon factors outside the control of these guys, what OTHER players do.

    We can observe how guys don things to make a walk more or less likely, but how often one draws or issues them tells the best story of player tendencies.

  437. Mike Felber Says:

    Hoss, I urge you to keep an open mind about things like OWS. I respect if you have a different ideology, but you do not know a lot about their motivations & issues. And you tend to react quite strongly to small irritants-even when you are right about them, you may throw out the whole proverbial baby with the bathwater.

    I refer you to our other very long Silver Slugger thread, soon before you returned. Please see my detailed comment #441 after I spent a while again down there a week ago. http://www.dugoutcentral.com/?p=2287#comments.

    To address your point: a movement is not intellectually dishonest if it uses a colorful name that is not intended to be a precise %. But even there, they do NOT mean that all will share their opinions. They simply believe that the vast majority have been screwed by the system rigged for rich & big corporate concerns, & ~ 99% of the folks have been screwed. So their self interest is in fighting the biases & limits of the system.

    Sure, some is for “more” Gov’t. Personally I think it is mildly retarded to always think smaller, or bigger, Gov’t is better. Regulations that prevent tremendous corruption, stolen taxpayer money, bailouts that benefit largely negligent & sometimes criminal interests, prevent public moneys & private pension funds from being raped are GOOD.

    And some of the OWS means would LIMIT Gov’t: like Corporate welfare & myriad advantages/loopholes that leave taxes eviscerated, reward outsourcing, & do the equivalent in handouts to what we finally mostly stopped in baseball: holding a city’s coffers hostage to getting public financing & benefits we pay for.

    Besides all I enumerate in the referenced post, let me give a few more salient facts that show the massively unjust oligarchy that in many ways we inhabit.

    Wealth has gotten insanely bifurcated in less than a generation, as less funds are available for education, community services, help for the poor & middle class in innumerable ways, while we “pay the rich” through their lobbyists & essentially bought politicians. The lawmakers & those who we are supposed to monitor & regulate often are an employment revolving door/incestuous.

    Their are many vicious subjective & objective measures of justice. The US has 5% of the world’s population, but 1/4 of their prisoners. I know you agree about drug incarcerations, which are insanely biased towards catching & ruining the lives of poor & minorities. Devastating the integrity of whole communities & families. Then some demagogue/blame the victim for their wounds.

    The prison industrial complex is a meat grinder. The average indigent defendant has 7 MINUTES with his lawyer when facing sentences approaching a generation.

    The rile of lawyers makes it very tough for entrepreneurs. And the dominance of big Co. forms monopolies & attendant corruption.

    Some of this & more is discussed in “Liberty & Justice for Some: The West & the Rest”.

    The disparity in our standard of living with the world’s is shrinking. China’s economy is projected to be larger than our in 5 years. India by mid century. In our military excisions & internal corruption, I include the lack of effective democracy for 3rd parties & limitations on personal freedom (spying, persecution & marginalization of protest freedoms…) we are resembling a floundering empire.

    I can give a long story about one eccentric I know who has been repeatedly persecuted due to his opposition to the Mayor (he ran too), & how his free speech rights have been violated with crazy charges & incarcerations.

    Any power uncontrolled or constantly favored by the system will rot us from the insides. The banking, housing, insurance, pharmaceutical, prison, & other big industries ARE like an oligarchy. Just what is done with speculative & fictitious products re: mortgages & derivatives is antithetical to freedom & individual rights.

    I do not care how exactly much Gov’t we end up with: what ways should we be limiting it when it supports things that are a reverse Robin Hood-like trade & pollution arrangements that ravage our world & human dignity so massive Corps can get rich: & what ways we can use it to preserve & restore opportunity, literal & de facto (economic) freedom.

  438. Hossrex Says:

    1: The 99% movement wants the government to FORCE (on penalty of death) rich people to support people who didn’t necessarily earn it.

    2: If the government can force a rich person to turn over their property (and by extension, their civil rights) to someone who didn’t necessarily earn it, they can force YOU to turn over YOUR property (and by extension YOUR civil rights) to people who DON’T deserve it.

    3: If you give a government a power, they WILL use it.

  439. Raul Says:

    Either Hossrex is a libertarian…or worse…a republican.

    If you really think rich people earned anything in this country you’re one ignorant human being.

  440. Raul Says:

    Close fight last night.

    Have no problem (really) with Pacquiao winning it.
    But the judge that had the fight 116-112? What fight was he watching? You’ve gotta be joking.

  441. Raul Says:

    Ok seriously….

    I cannot get over this. The Phillies are paying a Closer 50 million dollars.
    Someone needs to tell Ruben Amaro that coffee is for closers. Not 50 million dollars.

  442. Hossrex Says:

    Raul: “Either Hossrex is a libertarian…or worse…a republican.”

    Actually option “A”, registered as option “B” since California has a bullshit closed primary (which simply serves to reinforce the two party system, and thus shouldn’t be allowed to exist).

    Raul: “If you really think rich people earned anything in this country you’re one ignorant human being.”

    Rich according to who’s perspective?

    Rich according to the perspective of the POOREST of the poor? Then you’re a rich bastard who should have everything taken from him except for the shirt on your back, and the food CURRENTLY in your mouth.

    That’s the FUNNIEST part about this “Occupy the 99%” bullshit. Rich Americans judging other rich Americans, and deciding that anyone who has more than them is evil. If you honestly feel that way, you’re fucking retarded. If you honestly support this 99% crap, and you DON’T believe that people POORER than you have just as much right to judge you as you have to judge people richer than you, then you’re even fucking stupider than that.

    It sucks to be poor. It sucks to be hungry.

    If your response to that is to do nothing except be angry at other people who have more… you’re going to have a shit load of hungry fucking boring night.

    No one ever thinks “they” are the rich ones… and yet REGARDLESS of who they are… *SOMEONE* is fucking poorer than them.

    Should that person be allowed to take all your shit?

    Certainly not.

    Why not?

    Because none of you have bothered to actually think about this shit. You just sit there and pout about how “shit-sux-bro”.

    The proper response to poverty is NEVER theft. If you believe that, then fuck you. Fuck you in your stupid fucking face. Society is broken because of you, and people who think like you. You’re doing nothing more than justifying the ABSOLUTE WORST qualities in humans… ironically… the EXACT SAME “qualities” that you CLAIM to have such a problem with.

    You have such a problem with stealing, that you’ve decided to steal.

    Fuck everyone.

  443. Hossrex Says:

    Damnit. Stupid formatting problems.

    Everything after “one ignorant human being” should NOT be italicized.

    Apologies.

  444. Raul Says:

    “The proper response to poverty is never theft”.

    How ironic then that the wealthiest people are themselves wealthy because of theft.

  445. Hossrex Says:

    Raul: “How ironic then that the wealthiest people are themselves wealthy because of theft.”

    Yes… that was actually implied in what I said.

    The *POINT* of course, is if your reaction to a problem… theft, in this case… is to participate in the problem, how are you helping anything?

    The general rule of capitalism is: “Don’t like being on the bottom? Take advantage of the system, and get on the top!”

    But instead of that, you’ve decided “I’m completely unable to be a productive member of society, so instead of trying to better myself, I’ll just act like all the people I hate, and contribute to the problem of theft.”

    So there you go.

    You have enough money to buy the name brand peanut butter, but you’ve done your part to maintain the status quo of America… that of taking something that didn’t belong to you.

    How can you suggest a solution to a problem… when your solution is to MAINTAIN the problem?

    Seriously… you’ve NEVER thought about this shit?

    Never?

    You’ve NEVER thought about how we might fix poverty? You’ve never thought about what it takes to fix a society?

    Seriously?

    Because if you have… and your response is to do exactly what you hate “rich” people for doing… how is that any better than the capitalism you like to pretend you’re better than?

    Now is when you’ll give a joke answer… and I’ll let it slide because I like you.

    Bastard.

  446. Hossrex Says:

    After re-reading… I’m curious.

    How many of you HAVE actually spend considerable time thinking about this?

    I have. Lots.

    Have you (any of you)?

    Honestly.

    If not… can you really say you have a solid opinions?

    If so… you shouldn’t have any problem giving rational responses to what I just said.

    Either?

  447. Raul Says:

    …frankly I’m anti-capitalism. I think it sucks.

    I border on a sort of social-anarchism.

  448. Raul Says:

    Not that I think we even have a capitalist society.
    In my view it’s a fascist society that socializes wealth to the top 1%.

  449. Raul Says:

    Ok I’m gonna get off the political stuff.

    This is a baseball website and the least I can do is keep it in sports.

    So that said….

    Cameron…let’s see how your Chiefs are going to fuck me today. You guys play the Broncos. And if you lose to Tim Tebow, you get thrown out of the league.

  450. JohnBowen Says:

    Huh, after all that, I agree with Hossrex.

    The OWS crowd isn’t even worthy of insulting.

    No fucking economic system in the history of mankind has been better for “the 99%” than capitalism.

  451. JohnBowen Says:

    “And if you lose to Tim Tebow, you get thrown out of the league.”

    He’s not an NFL-ready QB right now, just wanna make that clear. He has no pocket presence to speak of.

    But people screamed, cursed, and in general just freaked the FUCK out when he lost to the Lions. And yeah, he played a terrible game.

    But it’s the Broncos! They’re already a terrible football team. And Tebow has managed to go 3-3 as a starter for a team that has gone like 4-14 or something like that, without him as the starter the last couple years.

  452. Raul Says:

    “No fucking economic system in the history of mankind has been better for “the 99%” than capitalism.”

    Except that it actually hasn’t.
    And except for the fact that the dumb fucking assholes who point to the Soviet Union and Cuba as examples of Communism fail to realize that those were not Communist or Socialist societies. They were “State-ist”.

    So again…

    Let’s get on to football.

  453. Raul Says:

    Tebow sucks.

    His ceiling is probably that of a Jason Campbell.

    I forgot to make my picks on Thursday and the league automatically picked the Chargers and assigned it a 16 point rating.

    Way to screw me over. I hate Philip Rivers.

  454. Raul Says:

    I got the Colts winning their first game of the season today against Jacksonville.

  455. Raul Says:

    We got Dallas/Buffalo and Nawlins/Atlanta.

    Not sure which game to watch.

  456. Raul Says:

    This just in…
    Dez Bryant is good.

  457. JohnBowen Says:

    @455, this is why I hate living in DC.

    So many good games, and I only get Redskins-Dolphins.

  458. Raul Says:

    And the skins are down 7-0.

    Touchdown Dallas.
    13-0 pending the extra point.

  459. Raul Says:

    Kasay with a 52 yard field goal.

    Atlanta 3
    Nawlins 3

  460. Chuck Says:

    “I’m going to try and see if I can get Harper and Trout to sign some stuff.”

    “If you can find ‘em Chuck, see if they can. Might be a good early gauge on how friendly they’ll be to fans when they actually get famous.”

    I would call both of them pretty famous, as far as still being teenagers go.

    I didn’t get to the park early enough beforehand, so I didn’t try, and neither of them stopped afterwards. Well, Harper did, but only to exchange some saliva with his pre-teen girlfriend.

  461. Raul Says:

    Harper’s a jerk.

  462. Chuck Says:

    “Oh lord… Ladies and gentlmen, the new Miami Marlins jerseys.

    http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/mlb/photogallery/111111-marlins-uniform-2.jpg

    The players wore the black ones yesterday.

    They almost didn’t look like gamers, I got the impression some Fall League ops guy bought replica jerseys on-line and had the players wear them as a last minute thing.

    If that was the case, then there may be some hope for the real thing, if not, I’d demand to be traded because they’re fucking hideous.

    And the announcer said “Miami Marlins” when introducing the players.

  463. Chuck Says:

    “Also, I don’t think I know of many, if any, parks actually alternate between hitter-friendly and pitcher-friendly.”

    You know it’s the players, and not the park, who determine “park factors”, right?

  464. JohnBowen Says:

    I can tolerate the white, gray, and black jerseys. Not my taste in color scheme, but at least the jersey is mostly normalish.

    I would refuse to take the field wearing that orange jersey. Baseball players aren’t air traffic controllers.

  465. Chuck Says:

    “@375, I think the alarming thing is that you thought Curt Schilling was giving up 1.137 baserunners per 9 IP…so, essentially averaging a 1-hitter every time he pitched…and, thinking that he was averaging a 1-hitter over the course of an entire career, you still wouldn’t want him in the Hall of Fame!”

    What?

    You can’t possibly be that fucking dumb to think that, could you?

    Must be just a vain attempt to keep the thread going, has to be.

  466. JohnBowen Says:

    Well, you thought WHIP was per 9 IP.

    And Schilling had a career WHIP of 1.137.

    Which is still quite good.

  467. Chuck Says:

    “Even during the steroid era (which I’m defining as 1994-2007), teams went 1252-1362 when they got exactly 6 IP and 3 ER out of their starter.”

    So, the bare minimum for a QS creates a BELOW .500 winning percentage, and it’s a “good stat.”

    It sucks.

    Next.

  468. Raul Says:

    How many teams have changed their names in the history of baseball?

    I mean it hasn’t really happened that often since…I dunno…1915?

    Both Florida teams have done it.
    The Expos did it but I guess they relocated…still..the Athletics moved across the country and remained the Athletics…

  469. JohnBowen Says:

    @467, if you miss the point, everything’s a bad stat.

    It’s just round numbers. A simple, to the point determination if a guy’s had an ok outing.

    You worship at the foot of batting average, a statistic which equates a bloop single to a grand slam.

    Ever scrutinize batting average the way you do everything else?

    What about home runs? Sammy Sosa had more HR than Stan Musial. Guess that makes HR a stupid statistic.

  470. Chuck Says:

    #412

    That was awesome, man.

    There are two people in this thread with what I consider above average language skills, in the sense of using the right words in the right context to make their point.

    One of them has an above average knowledge of the subject matter (baseball), the other a below average knowledge.

    I’ll let you all form your own opinion to which is which.

  471. JohnBowen Says:

    @468, let’s see…

    The Reds were the Redlegs for a bit during the red scare.

    Seattle Pilots became the Brewers when they moved to God’s Country.

    St. Louis Browns became the Orioles.

    Both Senators teams became different names (Twins, Rangers).

    I think the official name of the Senators was actually the Nationals, but everyone just called them the Senators anyway.

  472. JohnBowen Says:

    Whatever Chuck.

    Nyjer Morgan had a higher batting average than Mike Stanton this year.

    Batting average is pretty fucking stupid, isn’t it?

  473. Chuck Says:

    “Well, you thought WHIP was per 9 IP.”

    No, John.

    All I said was I used the wrong formula, and carried it an extra step when I shouldn’t have.

    To which Raul properly explained, “give the old man a break.”

    Dude, you REALLY need to read each comment carefully before writing your response.

    I fucked up.

    I admitted I fucked up.

    I explained WHY I fucked up.

    Raul called me out on it ON THE VERY NEXT GODDAMN COMMENT, and here we are two days and 100 comments later STILL talking about it?

    And here I am thinking my life sucks.

  474. JohnBowen Says:

    I guess “IP” is a stupid statistic too, if you really think about it.

    Since you can give up 1 or more runs and still get credit for an IP as long as you get three outs.

  475. JohnBowen Says:

    WHIP is also stupid…I mean, you can walk the bases loaded and allow zero runs and still allow 0 runs, but if you give up just one hit and its a HR, you have a better WHIP for the inning but gave up more runs!

    EVERY STAT IS DUMB

  476. Raul Says:

    Not every stat is dumb.

    But hinging an argument on K/BB is.

  477. Chuck Says:

    “Ever scrutinize batting average the way you do everything else?”

    You have this same annoying habit my wife does..she asks questions she already knows the answer to, and almost expects me to either change my mind so she can mess with me, or have me justify what she already knows.

    “Chuck, about 150 times on this site, do you know Pujols and Ichiro have the exact same lifetime average”?

    You can’t make a determination on one stat, no matter how powerful it may appear to be, which is why WAR sucks and Mike’s ERA+ argument for Schilling failed miserably.

    “What about home runs? Sammy Sosa had more HR than Stan Musial. Guess that makes HR a stupid statistic.”

    No, just you.

    What was the point of that?

  478. Chuck Says:

    “WHIP is also stupid…I mean, you can walk the bases loaded and allow zero runs and still allow 0 runs, but if you give up just one hit and its a HR, you have a better WHIP for the inning but gave up more runs!”

    I know that was meant more as sarcasm and not as a contribution to the discussion, but you’re 100% right.

  479. Raul Says:

    So the idea appears to be for the Marlins to sign Jose Reyes and move Hanley Ramirez to 3rd base.

    (Insert John’s joke about Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez HERE).

  480. Mike Felber Says:

    Hoss, some folks here have thought about the issues you describe, a lot, like me. And others less. But with respect, you do not have much knowledge about what OWS is about, & make a host of simplistic & negative assumptions about them. Did you read the link I provided to my earlier comments? If you want to remain open minded & consider substance, you should.

    There I mentioned checking out their living Constitution. For a movement less than 2 months old, they have a ton of specific idea(l)s. Everything you say comes down to assuming that they want to “steal” money, presumably tax money. There are many things wrong with that thought.

    1) The vast majority of what they stand for is to stop money effectively being stolen from folks. In part regulations from preventing what amount sto Corporate welfare & private interests often criminally screwing/stealing from folks. pensions, mortgages, bailouts on a scale that dwarfs social programs…

    2) Society appropriately taxes & then does things for the common good. But when you combine all sources of taxing income & wealth, the rich have gotten in some cases exponentially richer directly due to public monetary policies, & the evisceration of legal controls to prevent the corruption & theft of wealth. And folks who are middle class, not just poor, have MUCH harder time getting basic life needs met, including education & health care. Just the income needed to survive compared to expenses is so tough for so many. Folks have to work more dead end jobs, & are more often paid non or barely living wages. While folks who run things (not counting small struggling Co’s) do well on many levels.

    3) You have absorbed as Gospel the hoary demagoguery that I ask you to reexamine. Logically if it is true that all who complain like OWS are just lazy thieves & have no validity to their arguments, then the rich have accumulated their greatly accelerated wealth due to their character, &, on, everyone else, the whole middle class & below, have suddenly become much worse.

    4) That is absurd. OWS & many others, including some Republicans, LIBERTARIANS & Conservatives recognize the structural changes in US (f)law, including what is now allowed or unregulated. And that politicians, lobbyists, bankers & other moneyed industries are often in bed, corrupt, & there is a revolving door between them.

    5) It bears repeating in a different way that we have corporate welfare in many many ways. And when these “people” are found to have violated already eviscerated US law, they tend to be allowed to continue & may even be rewarded. You could make an argument that certain industries are “too big to fail” in terms of the public good.

    But then if we bail them out to the tune of I believe it was 850 Billion (after so much tax, trade, environmental & other regulations already were jobbed for them):

    6) At least we the people through the Gov’t has the right to regulate how you use that money, take partial control of things as a condition for getting it-certainly not have those who at best totally f*cked up, other times were criminal, allowed to remain in their positions & not be prosecuted for criminal acts.

    7) You look with admirable care about matters of only academic importance in baseball. So if you want to understand something of real life consequence, & do not want to be a massive hypocrite (re: having automatic, unexamined, conditioned yet strident positions with no backing depth):

    READ what OWS wants. Nothing there supports the notions that they just want to take the money of the rich. The point is that the 99% have had THEIR wealth & opportunity stolen from them, under cover of changed law, how we choose to redistribute wealth to the wealthy, directly & indirectly, & how existing law is flouted by them & their proxies.

    Their are unevolved folks on all sides. But having spent a good deal of time amongst those folks, read & kept my ears very open, few hate those who are rich just for having money. An open source movement will have a few nuts that the media focuses on: the tea party was unfairly broad brushed & disdained as systemically hateful & racist for a while due to a few very visible haters.

    But focusing on the outliers as proxy for the group is similar to the way media shows street crime-much more easy to ID than white collar crime-& the impression of this lets folks, often poor & also ill served by the system, feel fear & loathing for the poor, ghetto, minorities.

    Things have not gotten way worse for the 99% due to en masse moral lapses, & the rich are not suddenly great. The system is jobbed. There is a reverse Robin Hood that is carried out or enabled by Gov’t.

    Trying to repair this theft of resources is nothing like looking for handouts. You have gotten the theft picture precisely backwards. Except that the theft has already happened.

  481. Mike Felber Says:

    WHIP, runs, RBIs, are not at all stupid. It is what they are meant to prove, & what context that is given, that is stupid. Context dependent raw #s are good for measuring team productivity, but used forever by the public & commonly by “experts: to show individual dominance or lack. That is one of the many good things from SM, & any rant against it needs to consider specifics. Like how much closer or further from the truth the formulas are. usually it is much more the former.

    WHIP at least does not throw in what other folks, line up, do. it is good ins showing something about pitching skill,s but since preventing runs is the goal of a pitcher, WHIP helps a great deal-& it is even better adjusted for era & park, of properly measured-but using it alone as a measure of success is wrong.

    It helps a great deal, but does not show just how efficient someone is in preventing runs. Though it correlates heavily with this skill. Similarly, K/BB does not tell all, but who said it did? Again, it is just 2/3 of the only things the pitcher has much control over. You add HRs & consider over IP, & even though it does not DIRECTLY show how many runs are allowed, it will give a pretty accurate idea of how good a pitcher is.

    this can be crosschecked like with multiplication & division by chaking it against adjusted ERA +. Over many IP, there will rarely be much variation between DIPs/FIPs ratings & ERA +. Though you can argue if it is best to consider unearned runs too due to the vagueries of scoring, or to use some fielding metrics…

  482. John Says:

    Since its possible for a hit to result in an out, I guess BA and hits are stupid.

  483. Chuck Says:

    The government steals from EVERYONE everyday.

    You want to fix this country?

    Stop giving benefits to illegals.

    Make Medicare and welfare fraud felonies and punishable by jail time.

    Stop spending money on “reparations”. When we leave Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq or wherever, we leave it the way it is.

    Any money WE spend on rebuilding THEIR country should be considered a loan, with substantial late fees and penalties.

    We need to get back to the way things used to be, with the US the “world boss” and everyone kissing our ass, instead of what we are becoming, beggars.

    It sucks.

    We loan billions, even trillions, to other countries and we write it off?

    Fuck that.

    Call everyone’s debts due in full and give them 30 days, or we put them all on sanctions.

    We need to be taking care of our own instead of their own.

  484. Raul Says:

    Saints/Falcons is too damn close for comfort.
    13-10, Falcons.

    Come on Brees.
    Just as I type this…Brees to Meachem for a TD.

    Oh yeah.

  485. Bob Says:

    Mike, two stories about OWS bother me.

    1. Some of the people vandalized a McDonalds.
    2. Two days ago, a paramedic was injured while trying to tend to a protester. About 50-60 people formed a blockade and prevented the medic from doing HIS JOB which was to look at somebody who had called 911.

    Which begs the question, what were these protesters afraid of? Or, what does a medic do?
    1. Takes blood pressure
    2. Checks a pulse
    3. Askes 2 questions. When was the last time you ate? And when was the last time you had a bowel movement? Nothing too bad. Which begs the question, what else does a medic do?
    4. Yup, he puts a flashlight in your eye for about 15 seconds. Then removes it. I wonder if the crowd was afraid of those reults. How about you???

  486. Raul Says:

    The “illegals” issue is such an insignificant issue it’s a drop in the bucket when it comes to America’s problems.

    The reality is that right now it’s merely the Mexicans’ turn as being the group of people that is hated by the so-called “Natives”.

    …Just like it was for the Chinese, Dutch, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Jews, Blacks and everyone else before them. It’s merely a continuation of historical hate.

    You go to England and they say the same shit about Muslims and Arabs and the Welsh…etc…

  487. Raul Says:

    OH MY GOD.

    THEY VANDALIZED A MCDONALDS!!!

    Who give a fuck? If you had any idea the kind of money these people make off you and how they systematically fuck your environment and health, you’d stop bitching about a McDonalds with some broken windows.

    Companies like McDonalds and Tyson and Monsanto are literally destroying the fucking world and you people are upset about a vandalized restaurant.

    Give me a fucking break.

  488. Mike Felber Says:

    Your priorities are misplaced Chuck. The nation is far more savaged by Corporate welfare queens, outsourcing jobs, economic & environmental exploitation, reverse robin hood tax policies & corruption that money given to the poor-which has been cut. Certain rich Corps & folks have done way better not due to welfare queens & the like, but Corporatte welfare queens & unchecked robbery of the middle class.

    A big part of the reason why we have not cracked down on illegals is most take jobs we could not staff. Largely due to not being willing to do ‘em. The economy & many bix. would deeply suffer. It is better for the powers that be to demagogue them: ’cause if the cut off the gravy train of their labor for farm & service industry sectors, THEN the people might really recognize who is screwing them & revolt.

    And whether we believe we should go into a nation or not, “if we break it we should fix it”. We cannot eviscerate their infrastructure & do nothing: doing so also makes it likely the people will hate or hurt us, whether through terrorism or overthrowing our installed or truly Democratic inchoate regimes.

    We have done many great things for the world, & also overthrown legal regimes & done bad stuff. it will never be like it was.

    if China calls in OUR debt, for one example, we are screwed. We cannot just lay down the law anyway, we have nowhere near the leverage.

    Oh, & for the sake of argument let’s say we agree about a particular intervention. Sometime 5 or 6 figures of innocent civilians are killed in a long war. those lives are just as valuable as if it was us & our families. We act without care or ’sensitivity”, it will exhaust our treasure 7 security in the long run.

  489. Raul Says:

    Matt Ryan just threw an interception.

    I am less-bitchy now.

  490. Bob Says:

    I know Ray Krok was altruistic as fuck with his money.
    I also know vandalizim is a crime.
    And why would anyone ever attack a medic who is doing his/her job.
    You call 911, legally some one has to respond.

    Sometimes it is a cop.
    Sometimes it is a firefighter.
    Sometimes it is a medic.
    Do not want them to see you??? Refrain from calling 911.
    And I wonder how clean that park is now. These people cannot be helping the ozone layer or the Greenhouse effect.

  491. Chuck Says:

    Don’t feel bad, Raul, we don’t get the NFL in Phoenix either.

    I’m watching the Cardinals/Eagles game.

  492. Mike Felber Says:

    Those incidents bother me Bob, but I do not know about the 2nd, I would need to look into it. First, there are tons of folks who visit Zucotti Park, & only a few there vadalized. Most would not support it & say it is wrong. Though Raul is right about the much larger crimes, it is still wrong to support or justify destruction of private property.

    I don’t know why those folks stopped the paramedics: you must understand though there is much confusiuon at a time like that. Most of the police have been good, but historically & occasionally there they have started &/or provoked trouble. So maybe the protesters irrationally did not trust the paramedics.

    It is true that some will use any trouble inside the park, even if not an indictment of the whole movement, as a pretext to try & shut it down.

  493. Chuck Says:

    “A big part of the reason why we have not cracked down on illegals is most take jobs we could not staff”

    As usual, completely missed the point.

    Get off your soapbox Mike.

    No one gives a shit what you think.

    You want to run for office, good luck to you.

    Just don’t do it here.

  494. Raul Says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHA @ Chuck 491

    I really cracked up just now.

  495. Raul Says:

    Cameron won’t come on the site on Sundays…probably because the Chiefs are sucking something awful.

  496. Mike Felber Says:

    Mickey D’s has been pretty evil like clear cutting rainforest. The jobs are low paying compared to their profit. They should CHOOSE to pay more rather than expand as fast as possible & folks at the top get rich. The food is mostly crap, though they have made some efforts-in their self interest-to have healthier foods.

    What about this small park is bad for the environment? They even had their generators taken from them. Be specific Bob. They are using MINIMAL energy. Do you know that urban folks living WITH modern conveniences have a much smaller carbon footprint than in suburbia, just by sharing resources like boilers in large buildings?

    Please do not presume things about pollution or dirt. But feel free to ask folks like me who have spent time there recently.

    If they ATTACKED a medic, THOSE WHO DID IT should be prsecuted. Not a whole movement smeared.

  497. Chuck Says:

    So, Mike..NL Rookie of the Year tomorrow.

    Who you got?

  498. Raul Says:

    Freeman?

  499. Bob Says:

    The jobs are low-paying because they are meant for teens and people who are working their first job. Not meant for people who major in chemistry.

  500. Mike Felber Says:

    I did not miss the point Chuck, i addressed yours, re: how unfeasible it would be too crack down on illegals, & not in the interest of the govt to do so.

    Some care about what both of us think.

    When & if nobody is allowed to say anything about things other than baseball that will be a sad day. You & most all address many other things. If that becomes the enforced, I will follow this.

    Until then, to paraphrase a famous NYC sign related to parking, Do not even think of telling me what not to post.

    Unless, say, I am ever personally abusive or try to humiliate or intimidate anyone. Which i never do.

    Feel free to try to Police that, meaning including yourself.

  501. Mike Felber Says:

    They know that they cannot fill all their stores with those populations. Even so, if they made little money I would say sure, pay the kids low wages. As little as possible so you can endlessly expand? It is not a crime, just not the most ethical way to proceed Bob.

  502. Chuck Says:

    OK, Mike, you’re the man.

    I’m going Kimbrel, Raul.

  503. Chuck Says:

    Looks like Denver’s figured out how to win with Tebow at QB.

    Don’t let him throw.

    They’re winning, and Tebow’s 3-9 passing.

    The Broncos have 48 rushing attempts.

  504. Mike Felber Says:

    I don’t play those alpha male dominance games Chuck. I am not trying to be “the man”. I just expect all are free to live & let live. Somebody challenges, or asks when i mention going to an OWS event, some support me & others differ, I respond.

    I respect what you do & raising a kid.

  505. Raul Says:

    I don’t have much conviction in Freeman. And Kimbrel was fantastic this year.

    I just..closer for ROY? I guess…but I don’t want to.

  506. Chuck Says:

    Cardinals just tied the game at 14 on a 12 yd pass to Fitzgerald which was tipped and should have been a pick six the other way.

    I was a DB when I played and had a couple of drops or tips on plays like that and it’s as frustrating as anything.

    It’s like dropping a fly ball or missing a layup.

  507. Raul Says:

    John knows about dropping balls.

    Oh! Boom!

    LOL

  508. Raul Says:

    I’m just messing with ya, buddy..

  509. Chuck Says:

    “I don’t play those alpha male dominance games Chuck.”

    Good, so we do have something in common after all.

    I’m with you Raul, and maybe Freeman and Kimbrel being on the same team might cut into their overall vote totals.

    In that case, maybe my boy Danny Espinosa can sneak in the back door and win it.

    That would be SWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET.

  510. Chuck Says:

    Typical Cardinals football.

    Vick throws an interception that gets run back 45 yards to the Eagles 30, only to be called back on an off the ball personal foul.

    So, instead of first and ten from the 30, it’s first and ten from their own 15.

    Then John Skelton throws a pick, Eagles ball, first and ten on the Cardinals 31.

  511. Chuck Says:

    Vick got knocked out of the game on a run play…the Eagles’ back up QB?

    Vince Young.

    For the season, he’s 0-1 passing with an interception.

    LOL

  512. Raul Says:

    LOL.
    Vince Young is still in the league?

    There’s hope for JaMarcus Russell yet…

  513. Raul Says:

    And the Saints are marching their way out of a win.

  514. Chuck Says:

    Good call on the Colts today, Raul.

  515. Mike Felber Says:

    We do Chuck. But not that: even your most ardent supporter here would not deny you regularly try the A.D.G.

    Come to think of it, if places like Mc-D’s had 1/3 less stores, & paid their workers 1/3 more, the world would be a much better place. Pollution & wages would improve directly & on a large scale. It would model to competitors appropriate corporate conscience, shown by some like Costco (wages).

    And we would have better, healthier food replacing those many 1000’s of ghost Mc-D’s around the world. Less homogeneity, decent jobs, more mom & pops & diners. More lungs for the planet. Thus everybody would literally & metaphorically eat.

  516. Chuck Says:

    ” But not that: even your most ardent supporter here would not deny you regularly try the A.D.G.”

    Perception and reality are NOT the same thing.

    I certainly respect your opinion, but I’d be lying if I said I cared.

  517. Raul Says:

    Colts…Chiefs…I’m not fit to pick winners

  518. Chuck Says:

    Cardinals win a road game.

    Wow, miracles really do happen.

  519. Mike Felber Says:

    You should care about being in alliance with reality as to your own conduct. You really think that much of what you do has not been jockeying to be the top dog? What is more plausible, that all you have written for years does not express correctly your motivations, or you are a ‘lil deluded? Mostall of us are, more or less, self image vs. reality.

    Or I could just say as you do in your more peaceful, calm, yet benignly paternalistic mode: OK Chuck.

  520. Chuck Says:

    “You really think that much of what you do has not been jockeying to be the top dog?”

    Absolutely not.

  521. Cameron Says:

    The Cheifs I can blame ou for Raul. Indy? …They’re 0-10 for a reason. They suck.

  522. Cameron Says:

    Eesh, I may suffer my second loss in my fantasy league. I’m ahead by 15 points right now, but he still has Aaron Rodgers on Monday. …Against the Vikings.

    In all honesty, I had a shit game. I’m only above 100 points despite three of my guys posting double-digit points. Those guys though…

    Arian Foster – 30.60
    Maurice Jones-Drew – 19.70
    Jimmy Graham – 14.20

    If I win, it’s all because my runningbacks are made of win.

  523. Mike Felber Says:

    OK Chuck.

    Man dried mangoes are good. Unsulphered, unsweetened.

  524. Cameron Says:

    I’ll have to try that. Oddly enough, I like mangos in just about everything from a sorbet to a lassi. One time I bought a mango to eat. It tasted terrible.

  525. Cameron Says:

    Hey John, you’re a Navy tech, right? You ever hear of the USS Yorktown breaking down because the computers tried to divide by zero?

  526. Mike Felber Says:

    You got a bad &/or unripe one! Have someone advise how to select. Dense & just a bit soft, & fragrant. Frozen on a hot day is great. Or even when not hot-they are cheap at Trader Joe’s, in 24 ounce packs.

  527. Cameron Says:

    No Mike, I got a cheap one. A really cheap one, from when I was still shopping at off-brand dollar grocery stores.

  528. Chuck Says:

    Mangoes by themselves are not an enjoyable thing to eat.

    Best in sorbets, or smoothies.

    Caribbean rum punch is often made with mango and is outstanding.

    I guess the alcohol kills the taste.

  529. Raul Says:

    A report went out that the Marlins have signed Jose Reyes, but was pulled back and called premature.

    In any case, it seems it is only a matter of time. Reyes will be a Marlin.

  530. Cameron Says:

    Mango smoothies are good, mango lassi is better. …Though the fact I usually consume it with copious amounts of Indian food helps.

  531. Raul Says:

    Yeah I don’t know what the hell you people are talking about.
    Mangoes are delicious.

  532. Raul Says:

    Cardinals name Mike Matheny their new manager.

  533. Cameron Says:

    Mike Matheny? …When the fuck did he get interviewed?

  534. Cameron Says:

    Also, Matheny has never managed a team on any level I think. …That would have me worried if I was a GM.

  535. Mike Felber Says:

    Right Raul! Also, another trivial thing for us to debate! It is largely unfamiliarity with the flavor of it that may have some not liking it “straight”. Though of course all tasts are subjective, I did not realize until a few years ago on the side of the frozen mango bag, how there are endless varieties of it, & it is considered the world’s most popular fruit. Though exotic to many here. i find it complex, rich & sensual, not just straight ahead sweet.

    Then there is this variety. http://www.hulu.com/watch/4114/saturday-night-live-mango-and-j-lo

  536. JohnBowen Says:

    535 posts.

    Sorry guys, I’ll pump out a ROY thing. That’s tomorrow right?

    “Cardinals name Mike Matheny their new manager.”

    I fucking love Mike Matheny.

    That guy might be the toughest ballplayer I’ve ever seen. Once took a ball to the face and walked to first place like it was nothing.

    “I know that was meant more as sarcasm and not as a contribution to the discussion, but you’re 100% right.”

    If you think how many baserunners a pitcher surrender is irrelevant, then I seriously wonder if you’ve ever paid attention to a single baseball game.

    “But hinging an argument on K/BB is.”

    Mike has mentioned the following statistics in support of Schilling:

    ERA+
    WHIP
    K
    K/BB
    DIPS
    WAR

    You’ve mentioned the following:

    W/L
    Niceness

    Mike Wins.

  537. Cameron Says:

    I’m pretty sure I jsut bought a shitty mango, Raul.

  538. Raul Says:

    I’m pretty sure in that Seinfeld episode where Costanza says “it moved”…it was a mango that he was eating.

    And as for John @ 536…

    As Chuck noted earlier, you’re just dwelling on a discussion that ended hundreds of replies ago. And not a single one of those statistics is any reason to elect a player to the hall of fame. And not a single one of those statistics has ever been cited as a reason to elect a player to the hall of fame.

    Frankly, you guys are just wrong.
    And everyone’s known it for over 100 replies.

    Moving on…

  539. Chuck Says:

    Mike says I come off as the dominant type, yet I haven’t responded to #535.

    As difficult as it is.

  540. JohnBowen Says:

    “And not a single one of those statistics is any reason to elect a player to the hall of fame. And not a single one of those statistics has ever been cited as a reason to elect a player to the hall of fame.”

    I want to hear one statistic that should be considered.

    You’ve pretty much denied every statistic that gives any indication of how good a pitcher is, in lieu of focusing on things that have no relation whatsover to pitching ability (like W/L).

  541. Cameron Says:

    Strikeouts don’t help guys get elected to the Hall of Fame? Uh… Okay. What are you smoking and where can I get some?

  542. JohnBowen Says:

    Strikeouts only count as half an out if you’re a dick to Jon Heyman.

  543. JohnBowen Says:

    Also, ROY article is posted.

  544. Cameron Says:

    Couldn’t you pick a writer that doesn’t deserve to be dicked with? Like Gammons or Costas?

  545. JohnBowen Says:

    “Frankly, you guys are just wrong.
    And everyone’s known it for over 100 replies.”

    LOL

    Half of the people in this discussion are wrong and everyone (the other half?) have known it.

    Ok. Sure.

  546. Cameron Says:

    I just realized something.

    …Who the fuck is catching for the Dodgers in 2012? AJ Ellis? These guys are fucked behind the plate.

  547. Mike Felber Says:

    If you wanna tease me as having a Mango fetish Chuck, go right ahead. Either kind.

    Raul I have no idea why you think those stats are not valid nor considered for the HOF. I also mentioned HR/9, & the larger context they played in (steroid era). Most particularly in combination with/in the vessel of another I broached, IP. And cooking them together to discover career & peak season value.

    Yup, I must have been nuts to use just what a pitcher does, & how much of it, in a particular environment. What was I thinking/

    I should have only used his post season accomplishments (instead of assigning them a conservative same weight as regular season value). And his heroism/the bloody sock, insisting that the sensational meant guts & it IS the Hall of FAME…

    I’ll try to be less scien-terrific about it all. I’ll study the masters: the Veteran’s Committee.

  548. Hossrex Says:

    Raul: “frankly I’m anti-capitalism”

    It drives me nuts to hear people say that.

    You’re saying “I don’t like the idea of assigning a set value to goods and services to more efficiently facilitate the distribution of said goods and services.”

    It’s batshit insane to say that, because it’s clearly a superior system to the alternative (the value of goods and services being in a constant state of inefficient flux, and as with any market inefficiency, it WILL be manipulated for gain by the intelligent and the educated, which would hurt the undereducated underclass).

    That’s what Capitalism means… and anything else you think it is, is more of a political ideology (market regulation/deregulation, tariffs, etc).

    What you actually hate is greet, but since you can’t make a law against greed, you shift your focus to a RESULT of the greed instead of the CAUSE (insufficient resources).

    If Capitalism were to disappear tomorrow, most people would be VERY surprised about what actually changed.

    Just imagine the process of buying a fucking car in a world without a monetized value on goods and services. Your wife bakes SIX THOUSAND loaves of bread? You agree to spend 1,000 hours cobbling shoes for the owner? Perform oral sex on the owner 400 times? How many blowjobs is a car worth? How many loaves of bread is a an hour of cobbling shoes?

    THAT’S what you’re saying you want. Have you ever thought about this before, or did you just think it would be cool to be an anarchist?

    Capitalism isn’t evil. It’s a vaguely philosophical system of measurement. Opposing capitalism is literally as stupid as opposing the Metric System. Just because someone uses the Metric System to build an atomic weapon, that doesn’t mean John Wilkins did anything wrong.

  549. Raul Says:

    First, you’re assuming what this country functions under IS capitalism.
    It is not.

    And second, you have no idea what I meant by social-anarchism.

    Excuse me if I don’t believe your bullshit about free markets regulating itself and that society should just kick people to the fucking curb because they weren’t in position to exploit this bullshit ponzi scheme you call “capitalism”.

    Maybe you think the people protesting Wall Street want to run into Bill Gates’ home and steal his furniture. And maybe you think I’m just some Che Guevara-wearing hipster who thinks he was born in Cuba.

    But you’re completely off-base.

  550. Cameron Says:

    I’m not anti-capitalism, I’m anti-capitalists. Well, that’s a poor choice of words. I hate rich, greedy assholes who think that having a fleet of solid gold yachts isn’t a big enough “fuck you” to people lucky enough to pay off their house in the span of thirty years. If you think “Holy shit, I have more money than I EVER will be able to spend, but I’m not quite happy. Let’s take everyone else’s money through really underhanded tactics.” To the real estate agents who sold people houses they knew the new owners would never be able to afford and to the bankers who afforded the predatory loans and subprime mortgages they’d never be able to pay off, I offer a hearty fuck you. Your greed is the reason our economy tanked and took the rest of the world with it. Being a millionaire isn’t as impressive as it used to be, but your salary is more than enough. Don’t fuck it up for the rest of us.

    I like capitalism. Hell, I love it. However, without proper regulation you get… Well, this.

  551. Mike Felber Says:

    That is pretty reasonable Cameron. Greed has many causes, & like our nobler instincts, we have much that encourages or allows it. And a lot is our individual choice & early influences & programming. Most all systems have monetary exchange units: that can be done under communism, dictatorships, oligarchies…

    How much to regulate & what to allow unfettered, + what & how the Gov’t is responsible for. There are great aspects of Capitalism. It is just immature to think that in its unrestrained form it will not become a tyranny of the “monied & connected) small minority.

    So mixing it with Socialism makes sense. Now some Republicans Demagogue & misunderstand this. Simply put, any collective public action is a form of it, entitlements like social security, & tons of education, community, health/vaccines, safety sanitation & numerous other mandates beyond public safety.

    And when the reigns are too tight & freedom is restrained absent benefit, Socialism becomes stifling to at least economic growth & freedom. Where we have the elements balanced is the question.

    But things have gotten WAY out of whack re: wealth, opportunity, & other indices of what is effectively FREEDOM & social & economic mobility for the poor & middle class (~ 99%). The codified LAWS & corrupt way the lawmakers benefit & bail out the elite has gotten to be onerous & really does amount to Corporate Welfare in many cases. Loopholes, abuses, backwards redistribution off the sweat of those below…

    I would be guessing exactly what YOU mean by social anarchism Raul, & whether it would be feasible on a national scale. But I am open to hearing your idea(l)s.

  552. Cameron Says:

    The Blue Jays are being cautious about free agenst relievers. Thanks to Pap’s deal, closers on the market are looking for four and vie year deals. AA looked at this and went “Holy shit, these guys want that money long-term? This sucks.” They might try and look for a trade for a closer.

    And Travis D’Arnaud may be their top prospect to be traded. Guy had a great year, but JPA’s got the backstop in Toronto locked up on the cheap for the next few years.

  553. Lefty33 Says:

    To me the eye popping part about Papelbon’s deal is not so much the years as it is the years combined with the money.

    Papelbon’s deal didn’t really change anything in terms of length as he, Madson, and Bell were going to be asking for and getting deals of that length from someone regardless of how much sense it makes as GM’s have a long history of going gaga over big name closers.

    What Papelbon’s deal did was reset the market in terms of money over that length.

    It’s one thing to give guys contracts of that length, but then to do it with record breaking money is pretty stupid for a position where outside of Rivera and lately Cordero there is a history packed with little longevity.

    Check out what guys like Nathan, Ryan, Linebrink, Speier, Wagner (NYM in ’09), Karsay, Isringhausen, and Mantei did after their big deals and it’s all mostly bad with no one on that list able to fulfill their contract due to injury or just general ineffectiveness and most of the guys had some portion of their contract eaten after getting released.

    The idea that Amaro had in bringing a fly ball pitcher into a park that is quasi-hitter friendly without the luxury he’s used to having of a certain thirty-seven foot wall in LF to help correct any mistakes is asinine at best.

    Madson and Bell were both better than Papelbon in ’10 and in ’11 and now he’s going to be paid a record breaking contract to pitch in a park where he may whined up changing his whole approach to compensate for the loss of his security blanket.

    The final issue is simply payroll flexibility.

    This year there were twelve teams that had a payroll of less than 85 million dollars.

    In 2014 the Phillies will pay slightly less than that to four players and none of those four players are named Rollins or Hamels. (Halladay, Lee, Howard, Papelbon.)

    As someone who follows the Phillies closely it’s nice to see Amaro being given the keys to the kingdom Cashman style to do as he pleases but at the same time the true definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over and somehow expect different results.

    Amaro’s continued doubling down on being very pitching heavy has had diminishing returns in each of the last three years and unless he makes a move or two to shore up the offensive side of the ball I fully expect another repeat of ’10 and ’11 with an offensive playoff embarrassment.

  554. Chuck Says:

    Lefty,

    Saw Tyson Gillies play on Saturday.

    It was painful.

    He looked as bad as any player I’ve seen, couldn’t get out of the box, had an awful time picking up balls in center, not a good performance by a guy who’s supposed to be a prospect.

    He showed a good arm and a good eye at the plate, but, wow.

  555. Lefty33 Says:

    That sort of suprises me.

    I mean he has only played 31 games in the last two seasons but some people still talk about him as a possible replacement for Victorino.

    Thanks for the info.

  556. Cameron Says:

    Lefty, Madson and Bell may have thought of asking for four to five year deals, but GMs usually don’t give relievers those kind of years because of the flexible nature of the position and the changes in these guys’ performance from year to year. Both of these guys were looking at three year deals at best.

    …Then Papelbon fucked it up by showing that someone’s gonna be dumb enough to sign them long-term and the years are gonna be major holding points on contract negotiations this year. Either you play by their rules and give them the years, or you just won’t get them.

  557. Lefty33 Says:

    “Both of these guys were looking at three year deals at best.”

    I guess that’s why Madson’s deal was leaked first as being 4/44 with a fifth year to make it 5/59. Papelbon is the better name. Madson and Bell have been the better pitchers over the last two years.

    “Then Papelbon”

    Change that to “Then Amaro” and you have the actual guilty party.

  558. Cameron Says:

    Both of them really. Papelbon had the balls to demand four years, Amaro was the dumbass who gave it to him.

    Either way, whoever Philly signed was gonna fuck up the market by setting the table with a long-term contract.

  559. Chuck Says:

    He plays really shallow in center and had all kinds of trouble picking the ball up.

    CF in Surprise is a sunfield, but even at that he wasn’t reacting at all, and got beat over his head and in front of him.

    He seemed to run OK once he got started but seemed hesitant to “bust it” out of the box.

    I understand hamstring/quad injuries are a bitch to recover from and no matter what anyone says it’s never again going to be 100%, especially if it was surgically repaired, but his movement in the OF didn’t seem to be all related to concerns, he legitimately seemed to not being able to pick up the ball.

  560. Lefty33 Says:

    FWIW, Heyman is reporting that the Marlins made an offer to Madson and that he is being heavly pursued by Texas amongst others.

  561. JohnBowen Says:

    The Marlins have offered everyone and their moms a contract.

  562. Cameron Says:

    They only offered me a minor league deal.

  563. Chuck Says:

    “They only offered me a minor league deal.”

    They saw the radar readings on your “slider”

  564. Bob Says:

    Well, did accept their offer? Has to be better than “expired fried chicken.”

  565. Bob Says:

    I meant did you accept their offer?

  566. JohnBowen Says:

    I didn’t shave for three days, and Brian Sabean offered me 5y/60M for being gritty.

  567. Cameron Says:

    I stopped throwing the old slider… slurve… thing. Doesn’t work with the new arm motion. Now it’s sinker-curve-change for me. Working on a real slider now that I finally figured a good grip for it. Thing tends to go squirrely, though.

    And by squirrely I mean I’m thinking of using it as a pickoff move.

  568. Chuck Says:

    Right, Cam.

    You drive down the road and see any bridges with “For Sale” signs on them, don’t stop.

  569. Cameron Says:

    The old “Have I got a bridge to sell you line” took on a new meaning when I saw a story of some jackasses with torches and flatbeds stole a bridge. Why buy it? Just wait until the middle of the night and sell it to a scrap dealer.

    Also, Black Sabbath is back. …And recording an album. That just made my day.

  570. Hossrex Says:

    Raul: “Excuse me if I don’t believe your bullshit about free markets regulating itself and that society should just kick people to the fucking curb because they weren’t in position to exploit this bullshit ponzi scheme you call “capitalism”.

    Considering you’re giving me crap for misunderstanding the idea of social-anarchism… it’s kinda ironic that you don’t know what capitalism is.

    I just defined it for you… I couldn’t have broke it down any more clearly, and then you reply that it’s a ponzi scheme.

    You don’t know what the word capitalism means, and when you misuse it, you sound like an idiot.

    There isn’t an industrialized country in the world that doesn’t apply the principle of capitalism. You’re making the mistake of conflating the POLITICAL concept of capitalism with the *ACTUAL* principle of capitalism.

    The following is capitalism: “An hour of work cobbling shoes is worth $20 dollars. $20 dollars will buy 10 loaves of bread.”

    That’s capitalism. Seriously. Anything else is bullshit indoctrination you’ve been fed to make you angry… and since in this case, that anger is directed in such a way as to make you more complacent to the idea of increased governmental power (who the fuck do you think is going to regulate the fucking market?), I would think a person would need to be retarded to not see right fucking through the manipulation.

    Do you really not see what you believe, who that belief benefits, or from where that belief came?

    You’re going to pretend I’m not making sense… but just think about it bro. Think about what you believe, who it benefits, and why you’ve blamed capitalism for it.

Leave a Reply

Advertisement