Rusch, Williams, Hill & Guzman

[David]

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.

 

No, it isn't. That argument is absolutely crazy.

 

Taking Diffusion's coinflip reference as an example, you could flip a coin 99 times, it could land heads 99 times in a row, and that doesn't mean that the "current probability" of getting heads is 100%. It's still 50-50.

[Wheelimus]

Honestly I'm glad we didn't move Mark. For Tejada? Sorry, Ronny will do just fine. And remember, they wouldn't do it straight up. We'd have had to throw in someone worth something. For Bobby? Again, don't know if they'd have done it straight up.

 

I don't know of anyone we could have gotten straight up for Mark Prior that I'd rather have a full season of them than what we'll get from Mark if he gets his season going and is healthy for the rest.

[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.

 

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.

 

Until something changes, is the probability not 100%? What else do you have to go on to make it less? If Adam Morrison starts his NBA career 100 for 100 in free throws, how is the probability of him making No. 101 not 100% until he actually misses one. It seems like you are saying probability, percentages and trends are meaningless. I know you certainly wouldn't say anything so crazy, but I just don't understand why you think Prior will not go on the DL next year. What are the facts that show he won't?

[CubfaninCA]

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.

 

I'm too lazy to look it all up, but I bet the Cubs are 1-14 in those 15 starts. Even if Tejada replaces Prior on the roster & Lee's back too, I'm not sure if the Cubs even win a couple games of those games. Most of them were blowouts.

[srbin84]

This validates what I have been saying since before the season started. If you traded Prior for Abreu and signed a pitcher or if that wasn't a possibility, traded Prior for a starting pitcher who is at least slightly above average, we would probably be 25-17 right now.

[CubfaninCA]

This validates what I have been saying since before the season started. If you traded Prior for Abreu and signed a pitcher or if that wasn't a possibility, traded Prior for a starting pitcher who is at least slightly above average, we would probably be 25-17 right now.

 

that would have been a very bold move, but you're probably right. it would have been a better option than relying on the kids. of course, there could be long-term consequences. prior could still be really good. he probably needs to leave the cubs before that happens tho. the baseball gods won't allow him to be a successful cub. :(

[Jon]

This validates what I have been saying since before the season started. If you traded Prior for Abreu and signed a pitcher or if that wasn't a possibility, traded Prior for a starting pitcher who is at least slightly above average, we would probably be 25-17 right now.

 

that would have been a very bold move, but you're probably right. it would have been a better option than relying on the kids. of course, there could be long-term consequences. prior could still be really good. he probably needs to leave the cubs before that happens tho. the baseball gods won't allow him to be a successful cub. :(

How would trading Prior for a slightly above average starter make this team any good?

[CubfaninCA]

This validates what I have been saying since before the season started. If you traded Prior for Abreu and signed a pitcher or if that wasn't a possibility, traded Prior for a starting pitcher who is at least slightly above average, we would probably be 25-17 right now.

 

that would have been a very bold move, but you're probably right. it would have been a better option than relying on the kids. of course, there could be long-term consequences. prior could still be really good. he probably needs to leave the cubs before that happens tho. the baseball gods won't allow him to be a successful cub. :(

How would trading Prior for a slightly above average starter make this team any good?

 

i agree that if prior was traded for tejada and they signed a pitcher (millwood), they'd be well over .500.

[abuck1220]

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

 

good grief, dude....who do you want to start? you were rusch's biggest fan last year (obviously you've changed course on that), and everyone knows your feelings about hill (since 99% of your posts are bashing him).

[Jon]

This validates what I have been saying since before the season started. If you traded Prior for Abreu and signed a pitcher or if that wasn't a possibility, traded Prior for a starting pitcher who is at least slightly above average, we would probably be 25-17 right now.

 

that would have been a very bold move, but you're probably right. it would have been a better option than relying on the kids. of course, there could be long-term consequences. prior could still be really good. he probably needs to leave the cubs before that happens tho. the baseball gods won't allow him to be a successful cub. :(

How would trading Prior for a slightly above average starter make this team any good?

 

i agree that if prior was traded for tejada and they signed a pitcher (millwood), they'd be well over .500.

And that's what, an extra $13+ million?

[srbin84]

This validates what I have been saying since before the season started. If you traded Prior for Abreu and signed a pitcher or if that wasn't a possibility, traded Prior for a starting pitcher who is at least slightly above average, we would probably be 25-17 right now.

 

that would have been a very bold move, but you're probably right. it would have been a better option than relying on the kids. of course, there could be long-term consequences. prior could still be really good. he probably needs to leave the cubs before that happens tho. the baseball gods won't allow him to be a successful cub. :(

How would trading Prior for a slightly above average starter make this team any good?

 

Someone said they are 1-14 in the replacement pitcher starts. Half for Wood, half for Prior up until this point. We won't give the win to either. Let's say we go 4-3 in 7 starts for the slightly above average pitcher and 0-7 in Prior's replacements. It's not as big a difference as I originally said, but it's 21-21 insteasd of 17-25. The spread will only increase as long as Prior is out. That's how we'd be better.

[abuck1220]

This validates what I have been saying since before the season started. If you traded Prior for Abreu and signed a pitcher or if that wasn't a possibility, traded Prior for a starting pitcher who is at least slightly above average, we would probably be 25-17 right now.

 

that would have been a very bold move, but you're probably right. it would have been a better option than relying on the kids. of course, there could be long-term consequences. prior could still be really good. he probably needs to leave the cubs before that happens tho. the baseball gods won't allow him to be a successful cub. :(

How would trading Prior for a slightly above average starter make this team any good?

 

Someone said they are 1-14 in the replacement pitcher starts. Half for Wood, half for Prior up until this point. We won't give the win to either. Let's say we go 4-3 in 7 starts for the slightly above average pitcher and 0-7 in Prior's replacements. It's not as big a difference as I originally said, but it's 21-21 insteasd of 17-25. The spread will only increase as long as Prior is out. That's how we'd be better.

 

and they'd still be in fourth place.

[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

 

good grief, dude....who do you want to start? you were rusch's biggest fan last year (obviously you've changed course on that), and everyone knows your feelings about hill (since 99% of your posts are bashing him).

 

i was pointing out the biggest problem.

 

almost everyone's been wrong on what to do. srbin had it right a while ago..tho..

[Diffusion]

Until something changes, is the probability not 100%? What else do you have to go on to make it less? If Adam Morrison starts his NBA career 100 for 100 in free throws, how is the probability of him making No. 101 not 100% until he actually misses one.

 

Erm, the most basic rules of probability?

 

It seems like you are saying probability, percentages and trends are meaningless.

 

No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability.

 

I just don't understand why you think Prior will not go on the DL next year. What are the facts that show he won't?

 

There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year.

 

But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous.

 

Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong.

[abuck1220]

Until something changes, is the probability not 100%? What else do you have to go on to make it less? If Adam Morrison starts his NBA career 100 for 100 in free throws, how is the probability of him making No. 101 not 100% until he actually misses one.

 

are

 

you

 

serious?

 

:shock:

[Diffusion]

I'm too lazy to look it all up, but I bet the Cubs are 1-14 in those 15 starts. Even if Tejada replaces Prior on the roster & Lee's back too, I'm not sure if the Cubs even win a couple games of those games. Most of them were blowouts.

 

They are 1-14. However, 6 of the 15 games were decided by three runs or less, including 5 of the losses. There's still no doubting that a better offence could easily have helped change the course of some of those games.

[srbin84]

Until something changes, is the probability not 100%? What else do you have to go on to make it less? If Adam Morrison starts his NBA career 100 for 100 in free throws, how is the probability of him making No. 101 not 100% until he actually misses one.

 

Erm, the most basic rules of probability?

 

It seems like you are saying probability, percentages and trends are meaningless.

 

No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability.

 

I just don't understand why you think Prior will not go on the DL next year. What are the facts that show he won't?

 

There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year.

 

But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous.

 

Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong.

 

You can't be serious. When something keeps happening, it's a trend. Until the trend ends, it's most likely to continue. I never friggin' guaranteed anything. Stop letting your bias toward Prior because you like him as a pitcher or he signed an autograph or had a great 03 get in the way of your view of reality. Until he goes a whole year without going on the DL, we should expect him to. It's not absolute, but until something different happens, it's very likely to happen.

[abuck1220]

dude, there's a difference between saying that we can expect prior to go to the DL and saying there's a 100% chance of it happening.

[CubinNY]

Until something changes, is the probability not 100%? What else do you have to go on to make it less? If Adam Morrison starts his NBA career 100 for 100 in free throws, how is the probability of him making No. 101 not 100% until he actually misses one.

 

Erm, the most basic rules of probability?

 

It seems like you are saying probability, percentages and trends are meaningless.

 

No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability.

 

I just don't understand why you think Prior will not go on the DL next year. What are the facts that show he won't?

 

There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year.

 

But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous.

 

Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong.

 

You can't be serious. When something keeps happening, it's a trend. Until the trend ends, it's most likely to continue. I never friggin' guaranteed anything. Stop letting your bias toward Prior because you like him as a pitcher or he signed an autograph or had a great 03 get in the way of your view of reality. Until he goes a whole year without going on the DL, we should expect him to. It's not absolute, but until something different happens, it's very likely to happen.

 

Why don't you quit while you're behind. Each post you make only makes things look worse for you.

[srbin84]

dude, there's a difference between saying that we can expect prior to go to the DL and saying there's a 100% chance of it happening.

 

I phrased that the wrong way. I made a mistake. Prior has gone on the DL in 100% of his 5 major league seasons, so we should expect him to continue to do so until he proves he can stay healthy for at least one measly season.

[srbin84]

Until something changes, is the probability not 100%? What else do you have to go on to make it less? If Adam Morrison starts his NBA career 100 for 100 in free throws, how is the probability of him making No. 101 not 100% until he actually misses one.

 

Erm, the most basic rules of probability?

 

It seems like you are saying probability, percentages and trends are meaningless.

 

No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability.

 

I just don't understand why you think Prior will not go on the DL next year. What are the facts that show he won't?

 

There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year.

 

But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous.

 

Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong.

 

You can't be serious. When something keeps happening, it's a trend. Until the trend ends, it's most likely to continue. I never friggin' guaranteed anything. Stop letting your bias toward Prior because you like him as a pitcher or he signed an autograph or had a great 03 get in the way of your view of reality. Until he goes a whole year without going on the DL, we should expect him to. It's not absolute, but until something different happens, it's very likely to happen.

 

Why don't you quit while you're behind. Each post you make only makes things look worse for you.

 

And the worst part is, I'm the only one with facts on my side. The opposition who likes Prior and wants to keep him just has gut feelings and such to go on.

[CubfaninCA]

I'm too lazy to look it all up, but I bet the Cubs are 1-14 in those 15 starts. Even if Tejada replaces Prior on the roster & Lee's back too, I'm not sure if the Cubs even win a couple games of those games. Most of them were blowouts.

 

They are 1-14. However, 6 of the 15 games were decided by three runs or less, including 5 of the losses. There's still no doubting that a better offence could easily have helped change the course of some of those games.

 

i'll have to look into it further later on. am getting ready to head out..

 

i just recall lots of games where the opposition had 4-5 runs early on, and the pen being in early.

[Diffusion]

prior could still be really good. he probably needs to leave the cubs before that happens tho. the baseball gods won't allow him to be a successful cub. :(

 

Yes, obviously it's all the fault of the baseball gods. It couldn't possibly be anything else, like, I dunno, the Cubs. At least they actually exist.

 

Let's say we go 4-3 in 7 starts for the slightly above average pitcher and 0-7 in Prior's replacements.

 

Well then there's what might, entirely hypothetically, happen if we'd gone out and got better Prior replacements. But that doesn't mean we needed to trade Prior to do that. There are 25 spots on a roster, and Prior's only tying up $3.65m, hardly a limiting amount.

 

You can't be serious. When something keeps happening, it's a trend. Until the trend ends, it's most likely to continue. I never friggin' guaranteed anything. Stop letting your bias toward Prior because you like him as a pitcher or he signed an autograph or had a great 03 get in the way of your view of reality. Until he goes a whole year without going the DL, we should expect him him to. It's not absolute, but until something different happens, it's very likely to happen.

 

Right, so it's not absolute at all. Took a while to get there, didn't it, but frigging finally you spat it out. Not absolute. NOT ABSOLUTE.

 

And, for the record, you absolutely "friggin' guaranteed" it. A probability of 100% means something's guaranteed.

 

My bias towards Prior? Sorry, what? Come again? Views of reality? Look, you learn some basic literacy and numeracy, and maybe we'll be able to hold a proper discussion and establish just where the probability of Prior getting injured in future lies.

 

Now that we've at long last established it's not 100% and all.

[abuck1220]

Until something changes, is the probability not 100%? What else do you have to go on to make it less? If Adam Morrison starts his NBA career 100 for 100 in free throws, how is the probability of him making No. 101 not 100% until he actually misses one.

 

Erm, the most basic rules of probability?

 

It seems like you are saying probability, percentages and trends are meaningless.

 

No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability.

 

I just don't understand why you think Prior will not go on the DL next year. What are the facts that show he won't?

 

There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year.

 

But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous.

 

Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong.

 

You can't be serious. When something keeps happening, it's a trend. Until the trend ends, it's most likely to continue. I never friggin' guaranteed anything. Stop letting your bias toward Prior because you like him as a pitcher or he signed an autograph or had a great 03 get in the way of your view of reality. Until he goes a whole year without going on the DL, we should expect him to. It's not absolute, but until something different happens, it's very likely to happen.

 

Why don't you quit while you're behind. Each post you make only makes things look worse for you.

 

And the worst part is, I'm the only one with facts on my side. The opposition who likes Prior and wants to keep him just has gut feelings and such to go on.

 

lol...if you consider stuff that you make up (ie if something happens 5 out of 5 times, the chance of it happening a 6th is 100%), then, yeah, you have "facts" on your side.

[Diffusion]

And the worst part is, I'm the only one with facts on my side. The opposition who likes Prior and wants to keep him just has gut feelings and such to go on.

 

Almost ironic given that you're the one that doesn't appear to know what a fact is. After all, you're the one that for about two pages insisted that Prior having gone on the DL in previous years meant it was a fact that he would do likewise in future years. But, like I said, almost. Because for it to be actually ironic you don't have any facts on your side. And you don't.