Rusch, Williams, Hill & Guzman

[CubfaninCA]

They have 15 starts with 1 win between them. Basically, they've given the Cubs little chance to win. I can't fault Guzman. He's quite young and it was his first time through. Guy has good stuff. But these other guys have really let the team down.

 

Yes the hitting has sucked, but it's difficult to be good when you have little to no chance in a third of your games.

 

thanx prior

[Fred Hornkohl]

Quality !!

 

04/03 - 05/20        IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR    PC  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
Rusch              32.0   34   27   26   16   21   11   630  4.50  5.91  3.09  1.56  7.31
Willliams          12.3   15   12   10   11    5    2   233  8.03  3.65  1.46  2.11  7.30
Hill               19.3   23   20   20   15   11    5   344  6.98  5.12  2.33  1.97  9.31
Guzman             18.0   20   16   14   16   20    2   378  8.00 10.00  1.00  2.00  7.00

totals             81.7   92   75   70   58   57   20  1585  6.39  6.28  2.20  1.84  7.71

[Diffusion]

thanx prior

 

Huh?

 

In what way is Prior responsible for his injury?

[srbin84]

thanx prior

 

Huh?

 

In what way is Prior responsible for his injury?

 

It looks like CubfaninCA may agree with my theory that injury prone players are of little value no matter how good they are because they force bad players to play when they are hurt. Until we discover the facts about Prior's injuries, I can't blame him. I blame Hendry for not trading him and putting us in the position where we have to put a bunch of crappy pitchers out there to replace Prior.

[Pinktermite]

Players that don't play are of little value, not just prior. Mark P. is the Jim McMahon of the cubs, every little friggin ache and pain gets him down for a month or more. We should rid ourselves of these players and find players who play. The Cubs are so broken they won't be fixed for years. I don't know how I deluded myself into thinking they might actually be competitive this year. Misplaced Cubs hope I suppose. We should all have our heads examined for this, and a new disease should be invented so that we can claim disability. Can someone please tell me why they keep all these horrid pitchers and don't bring guys up from the minors that might get the ball over the plate? And why they hang on to players that can't play, when Buck Coats and Felix Pie are rotting in Des Moines?

[Diffusion]

It looks like CubfaninCA may agree with my theory that injury prone players are of little value no matter how good they are because they force bad players to play when they are hurt.

 

That's quite a theory you've got there. Problematically just about everything about it is flawed.

 

It assumes an easy definition of injury prone, whereas none such exists. The very fact that you have no idea, and never will, as to the facts behind Prior's injury is exactly the problem. If it was that easy to categorise a player as such and such an injury risk, then valuation would be significantly easier. As a result, the relevance of the theory is extremely limited, working on stupidly hypothetical levels.

 

Or not working, as the case may be. Because the only thing that "forces" bad players to play when someone's injured is bad players being adjudged the next most viable option. But there is no default setting there, and if it just so happens that the next most viable option is a bad player, that is very much at best an indirect consequence, if anything at all. In Mark Prior's case, it's nearer the if anything at all, seeing as Prior's earning a meagre $3.65m and taking up just one roster spot, so his effect on the team's resources isn't anywhere near great enough to justify not having a next most viable option no better than a "bad player".

 

I blame Hendry for not trading him and putting us in the position where we have to put a bunch of crappy pitchers out there to replace Prior.

 

When there was a half price sale on logic, did you miss out? One of the best pitchers in all of baseball gets injured. So you, with your perfect hindsight, think the best option would have been to have traded one of the best pitchers in all of baseball, as opposed to simply somehow avoiding having a bunch of crappy pitchers lined up to replace him in case anything happened to him?

[srbin84]

It looks like CubfaninCA may agree with my theory that injury prone players are of little value no matter how good they are because they force bad players to play when they are hurt.

 

That's quite a theory you've got there. Problematically just about everything about it is flawed.

 

It assumes an easy definition of injury prone, whereas none such exists. The very fact that you have no idea, and never will, as to the facts behind Prior's injury is exactly the problem. If it was that easy to categorise a player as such and such an injury risk, then valuation would be significantly easier. As a result, the relevance of the theory is extremely limited, working on stupidly hypothetical levels.

 

Or not working, as the case may be. Because the only thing that "forces" bad players to play when someone's injured is bad players being adjudged the next most viable option. But there is no default setting there, and if it just so happens that the next most viable option is a bad player, that is very much at best an indirect consequence, if anything at all. In Mark Prior's case, it's nearer the if anything at all, seeing as Prior's earning a meagre $3.65m and taking up just one roster spot, so his effect on the team's resources isn't anywhere near great enough to justify not having a next most viable option no better than a "bad player".

 

I blame Hendry for not trading him and putting us in the position where we have to put a bunch of crappy pitchers out there to replace Prior.

 

When there was a half price sale on logic, did you miss out? One of the best pitchers in all of baseball gets injured. So you, with your perfect hindsight, think the best option would have been to have traded one of the best pitchers in all of baseball, as opposed to simply somehow avoiding having a bunch of crappy pitchers lined up to replace him in case anything happened to him?

 

I wanted to trade him in the offseason. He still had some value and IMO, 4 out of 4 years of missing a lot of time on the DL was enough to give him the injury prone tag. The Cubs are not going to sign a good pitcher just to replace Prior when he gets hurt. I just don't see that happening at all. I don't get the hindsight stuff; all of this has been clear for quite some time. Where's the flaw in the theory? I think it's been proven law, at least with respect to Prior and the Cubs. He's not a good fit with this organization.

Edited May 21, 2006 by srbin84

[Diffusion]

Players that don't play are of little value, not just Prior.

 

So get back to me when you've perfected that formula that predicts exactly who will be able to play and when, which days they'll miss, which they won't, and so on. Until then, really, just how useful is that kind of a statement? It's a tautology.

 

Every little friggin ache and pain gets him down for a month or more. We should rid ourselves of these players and find players who play.

 

Yes, I'm sure if anyone has an intimate knowledge of every single ache, pain, niggle, injury that Mark Prior has, and exactly how long they'll keep him out for, it's Pinktermite.

 

Can someone please tell me why they keep all these horrid pitchers and don't bring guys up from the minors that might get the ball over the plate?

 

Maybe because pitchers with a combination of major league ready stuff and control, capable of making a completely seemless transition from the minor leagues to the majors, just can't be summoned at the click of a finger? This is a new theory of mine that I've been working on lately.

 

And why they hang on to players that can't play, when Buck Coats and Felix Pie are rotting in Des Moines?

 

Rotting? Felix Pie has the grand total of 440 plate appearances above A-ball. Buck Coats, meh.

[srbin84]

Players that don't play are of little value, not just Prior.

 

So get back to me when you've perfected that formula that predicts exactly who will be able to play and when, which days they'll miss, which they won't, and so on. Until then, really, just how useful is that kind of a statement? It's a tautology.

 

Come on, he has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

[Diffusion]

IMO, 4 out of 4 years of missing a lot of time on the DL was enough to give him the injury prone tag.

 

I'm sorry, what? It escapes me how colliding with a baserunner, or being hit by a line drive while on the pitching mound, how any of this contributes to one of your "injury prone" tags. What do you suggest, that Mark Prior should have been born capable of dodging 120mph projectiles while simultaneously finishing off his pitching delivery? That he should have sprayed more Marcus Giles-repellent on him that morning?

 

The Cubs are not going to sign a good pitcher just to replace Prior when he gets hurt. I just don't see that happening at all.

 

So what's that got to do with Mark Prior then? Is that Mark Prior's fault too? Is Mark Prior responsible for front office incompetence? So trading him would, with one fell swoop, have cured the front office of an inability to see beyond the end of their nose? And, lo and behold, a really really good pitcher incapable of ever getting injured would somehow have been conjured out of thin air, been inserted into the rotation, and gone on to ensure that Glendon Rusch, Jerome Williams, Rich Hill and Angel Guzman at no stage were ever allowed within 150 miles of Wrigley?

 

I don't get the hindsight stuff; all of this has been clear for quite some time.

 

It hasn't. So far you haven't even established what the "all of this" refers to, if anything substantial at all. See above. So either you have X-ray vision into the future, or it's hindsight. Hey, if you want to tell me how Mark Prior's rehab start tonight goes around about, say, now, go right ahead. Or at least come up with a much more well grounded and uncontentious version of events as to what exactly the deal with Mark Prior actually is.

 

Where's the flaw in the theory? I think it's been proven law

 

Where's the flaw? The flaw is that when a player gets injured, the unavoidable default setting is not necessarily "insert bad player".

 

He's not a good fit with this organization.

 

Maybe, if that's even true, that has more to do with the organisation than it does Mark Prior.

[srbin84]

IMO, 4 out of 4 years of missing a lot of time on the DL was enough to give him the injury prone tag.

 

I'm sorry, what? It escapes me how colliding with a baserunner, or being hit by a line drive while on the pitching mound, how any of this contributes to one of your "injury prone" tags. What do you suggest, that Mark Prior should have been born capable of dodging 120mph projectiles while simultaneously finishing off his pitching delivery? That he should have sprayed more Marcus Giles-repellent on him that morning?

 

Those two injuries could have happened to anybody, of course. However, when you add the other injuries of 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006, there is just way too much evidence to ignore. You can't just write it all off as bad luck.

 

The Cubs are not going to sign a good pitcher just to replace Prior when he gets hurt. I just don't see that happening at all.

 

So what's that got to do with Mark Prior then? Is that Mark Prior's fault too? Is Mark Prior responsible for front office incompetence? So trading him would, with one fell swoop, have cured the front office of an inability to see beyond the end of their nose? And, lo and behold, a really really good pitcher incapable of ever getting injured would somehow have been conjured out of thin air, been inserted into the rotation, and gone on to ensure that Glendon Rusch, Jerome Williams, Rich Hill and Angel Guzman at no stage were ever allowed within 150 miles of Wrigley?

 

In my first post, I said I can't blame Prior since I don't know the facts about all of his injuries. I've viewed him as an injury prone player since 2004. I've accepted he will likely get hurt every year. I can't blame him for that because it could just be that he has a brittle body. If that is the reason, it isn't his fault. That's why I blame Hendry for not trading him.

 

I don't get the hindsight stuff; all of this has been clear for quite some time.

 

It hasn't. So far you haven't even established what the "all of this" refers to, if anything substantial at all. See above. So either you have X-ray vision into the future, or it's hindsight. Hey, if you want to tell me how Mark Prior's rehab start tonight goes around about, say, now, go right ahead. Or at least come up with a much more well grounded and uncontentious version of events as to what exactly the deal with Mark Prior actually is.

 

"all of this" is that Prior is injury prone and the Cubs will not sign and extra good and healthy pitcher just to sub in for him when he goes on the DL. The reason it is established and fact is because it has happned ever since Prior has been called up: Mitre, Koronka, Hill, Guzman, etc.

 

Where's the flaw in the theory? I think it's been proven law

 

Where's the flaw? The flaw is that when a player gets injured, the unavoidable default setting is not necessarily "insert bad player".

 

With the Cubs, when a pitcher gets hurt, the unavoidable default setting is "insert prospect or Glendon Rusch" and 9 times of 10 that's a very bad thing.

 

He's not a good fit with this organization.

 

Maybe, if that's even true, that has more to do with the organisation than it does Mark Prior.

 

It has to do with Prior getting hurt too much. That may not be one person's fault, but it still keeps happening year after year.

[Diffusion]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. Your argument is ridiculously illogical.

 

Those two injuries could have happened to anybody, of course. However, when you add the other injuries of 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006, there is just way too much evidence to ignore. You can't just write it all off as bad luck.

 

So let's go over the nature of the other injuries, then.

 

2002, hamstring strain

2004, inflamed Achilles tendon/elbow equivalent of shin splits

2005, minor irritation of ulnar nerve in elbow

2006, strained muscle in his shoulder

 

The hamstring and Achilles problems were one-offs, there shouldn't be any long-term worries there. The shin splints thing is a long-term concern, but it won't ever require surgery or anything like that, and it hasn't since come back. The ulnar nerve irritation is potentially worrisome, but it was a minor case, and Prior got over it quickly and hasn't suffered any setbacks since. The strained muscle in his shoulder should be okay long-term.

 

There is nothing there that really points to Prior suffering any serious injury problems down the line. Yes, his injury history is slightly chequered, but he's a pitcher, and the vast majority of them run into injuries at one point or another.

 

I've accepted he will likely get hurt every year. I can't blame him for that because it could just be that he has a brittle body. If that is the reason, it isn't his fault. That's why I blame Hendry for not trading him.

 

So you admit you're just guessing as to what may or may not be wrong with Prior. You don't really know, so you've just made a bunch of assumptions. Maybe he'll get hurt. Maybe it's not his fault.

 

Hendry trades Prior away, and your assumptions are wrong, and, guess what, you've just traded away one of the best pitchers in the game, and you haven't got fair value for him (because that's just about impossible to do when you've talking about one of the most valuable players in the game). You'd be the first to be calling for his head.

 

The logical person, when presented with what you know, or rather, what you don't know and are just assuming, would simply minimise their losses. And the most effective way of doing that would be to not give up Prior's upside and trade him, which in itself represents a potentially enormous loss, because you just can't replace players of Prior's talent. It would be to make sure that the next guy you have in line should anything happen to Mark Prior is not Glendon Rusch, but rather someone that can actually pitch. That is the problem here, not Mark Prior.

 

The Cubs will not sign and extra good and healthy pitcher just to sub in for him when he goes on the DL. The reason it is established and fact is because it has happened ever since Prior has been called up: Mitre, Koronka, Hill, Guzman, etc.

 

Well there's your problem then, and not Mark Prior.

 

With the Cubs, when a pitcher gets hurt, the unavoidable default setting is "insert prospect or Glendon Rusch" and 9 times of 10 that's a very bad thing.

 

I repeat, well there's your problem then, and not Mark Prior.

 

It has to do with Prior getting hurt too much.

 

No it doesn't. It has to do with if/when Prior gets hurt, the Cubs don't have anyone better than Glendon Rusch to fill in for him.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Diffusion

[USSoccer]

What funny is that you're not seeing that if they had traded Prior, they'd have had the same 4 scrubs waiting to start in his place, adn we'd be right about where we are right now.

 

And in regards to CA's post, I think he's found a reason bigger than our "offense" that we're struggling. In those 15 starts, we've been out of the game quickly in most of them.

[srbin84]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

So you admit you're just guessing as to what may or may not be wrong with Prior. You don't really know, so you've just made a bunch of assumptions. Maybe he'll get hurt. Maybe it's not his fault.

 

Hendry trades Prior away, and your assumptions are wrong, and, guess what, you've just traded away one of the best pitchers in the game, and you haven't got fair value for him (because that's just about impossible to do when you've talking about one of the most valuable players in the game). You'd be the first to be calling for his head.

 

Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade.

[USSoccer]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

So you admit you're just guessing as to what may or may not be wrong with Prior. You don't really know, so you've just made a bunch of assumptions. Maybe he'll get hurt. Maybe it's not his fault.

 

Hendry trades Prior away, and your assumptions are wrong, and, guess what, you've just traded away one of the best pitchers in the game, and you haven't got fair value for him (because that's just about impossible to do when you've talking about one of the most valuable players in the game). You'd be the first to be calling for his head.

 

Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade.

 

You're missing the biggest flaw in your logic. Who would be pitching in Prior's place if you traded him? Hill, Rusch, Williams or Guzman.

[srbin84]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

So you admit you're just guessing as to what may or may not be wrong with Prior. You don't really know, so you've just made a bunch of assumptions. Maybe he'll get hurt. Maybe it's not his fault.

 

Hendry trades Prior away, and your assumptions are wrong, and, guess what, you've just traded away one of the best pitchers in the game, and you haven't got fair value for him (because that's just about impossible to do when you've talking about one of the most valuable players in the game). You'd be the first to be calling for his head.

 

Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade.

 

You're missing the biggest flaw in your logic. Who would be pitching in Prior's place if you traded him? Hill, Rusch, Williams or Guzman.

 

True, but you could have Abreu playing right or an above average pitcher or two in his place. You'd be getting something for Prior instead of DLing and getting no production from the asset.

[USSoccer]

True, but you could have Abreu playing right or an above average pitcher or two in his place. You'd be getting something for Prior instead of DLing and getting no production from the asset.

 

First off, you're assuming that either Philly or Baltimore would have made those deals straight up. IIRC Baltimore wanted another player from us.

 

Second, you're also assuming we would have an above average pitcher in Prior's place. Who would that have been?

[Diffusion]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time.

 

So you admit you're just guessing as to what may or may not be wrong with Prior. You don't really know, so you've just made a bunch of assumptions. Maybe he'll get hurt. Maybe it's not his fault.

 

Hendry trades Prior away, and your assumptions are wrong, and, guess what, you've just traded away one of the best pitchers in the game, and you haven't got fair value for him (because that's just about impossible to do when you've talking about one of the most valuable players in the game). You'd be the first to be calling for his head.

 

Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade.

 

And that's the easiest thing in the world to say -- I don't use hindsight and I never will. But it's pretty clear from what you've said earlier in this thread that you do, for there's absolutely no way you could possibly in 2004 have reasonably concluded that Mark Prior would get injured every year. There's not even grounds for concluding that now, even with the benefit of the last two years. So even if it wasn't you yourself, your type, the type that after the fact sees everything as having been inevitable and therefore completely avoidable if only someone had done this, or that, would be completely up in arms about Hendry stupidly trading away Mark Prior. I absolutely 100% guarantee that.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

Can we please change the name of this thread?

 

 

Maybe start a new one on Guzman, Hill, Williams, Rusch...you know, the subject at hand...

[srbin84]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time.

 

So you admit you're just guessing as to what may or may not be wrong with Prior. You don't really know, so you've just made a bunch of assumptions. Maybe he'll get hurt. Maybe it's not his fault.

 

Hendry trades Prior away, and your assumptions are wrong, and, guess what, you've just traded away one of the best pitchers in the game, and you haven't got fair value for him (because that's just about impossible to do when you've talking about one of the most valuable players in the game). You'd be the first to be calling for his head.

 

Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade.

 

And that's the easiest thing in the world to say -- I don't use hindsight and I never will. But it's pretty clear from what you've said earlier in this thread that you do, for there's absolutely no way you could possibly in 2004 have reasonably concluded that Mark Prior would get injured every year. There's not even grounds for concluding that now, even with the benefit of the last two years. So even if it wasn't you yourself, your type, the type that after the fact sees everything as having been inevitable and therefore completely avoidable if only someone had done this, or that, would be completely up in arms about Hendry stupidly trading away Mark Prior. I absolutely 100% guarantee that.

 

I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever. I said Prior has played 5 years in the big leagues and went on the DL in all 5. Given the average career is about 15 years, there's a great chance he will go on the DL in most of the next 10. I'm the type that when I make strong predictions/opinions about something, I do them earlier than others and am usually right. Obviously, I could have been and could be wrong, but it is rare that I have such a strong opinion on something because I don't make one unless I am very confident things will play out as I predict. I'll be around here, and so will you. We can continue this conversation in a few years.

[Diffusion]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time.

 

I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever.

 

Oh, you never said that?

 

Come on, he has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit.

 

My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read.

[srbin84]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time.

 

I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever.

 

Oh, you never said that?

 

Come on, he has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit.

 

My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read.

 

Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting.

[Diffusion]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time.

 

I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever.

 

Oh, you never said that?

 

Come on, he has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit.

 

My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read.

 

Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting.

 

So you've just gone from denying that you even said it to admitting you said it and standing by it in the space of about two minutes?

 

That's a really nice turnaround. Meanwhile, see if you can do a similar turnaround on some proper definitions of "fact" and so on, maybe "injury prone" too.

[srbin84]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time.

 

I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever.

 

Oh, you never said that?

 

Come on, he has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit.

 

My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read.

 

Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting.

 

So you've just gone from denying that you even said it to admitting you said it and standing by it in the space of about two minutes?

 

That's a really nice turnaround. Meanwhile, see if you can do a similar turnaround on some proper definitions of "fact" and so on, maybe "injury prone" too.

 

I'm not denying that I said the current probability of Prior going on the DL in a given year is 100% because I did and it is. I am denying saying that when something happens 5 times in a row, it will happen forever or that Prior will get hurt in every season he plays in. Show me the quotes where I said that. You're twisting something I said into something else.

[Diffusion]

He has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person.

 

I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin.

 

It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time.

 

I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever.

 

Oh, you never said that?

 

Come on, he has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

 

That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit.

 

My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read.

 

Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting.

 

So you've just gone from denying that you even said it to admitting you said it and standing by it in the space of about two minutes?

 

That's a really nice turnaround. Meanwhile, see if you can do a similar turnaround on some proper definitions of "fact" and so on, maybe "injury prone" too.

 

I'm not denying that I said the current probability of Prior going on the DL in a given year is 100% because I did and it is. I am denying saying that when something happens 5 times in a row, it will happen forever or that Prior will get hurt in every season he plays in. Show me the quotes where I said that.

 

Don't try and be semantic. You said it, and I'm twisting nothing.

 

Let's make the given year 2007. 100% probability of Prior going on the DL.

 

Let's do that again, only with the given year as 2008. Same probability.

 

Given year is now 2009. 100%.

 

2010. Guaranteed.

 

2011...

 

If you're going to write something, and then stand by it, at least try and be aware of what is that you wrote in the first place.