It's time for me to give credit to Hendry for the offseason.

[Mephistopheles]

the more i read your posts the more i wonder why i post at nsbb. zing

 

 

but in all seriousness ive been thinking of changing the quote

[Bruno7481]

the more i read your posts the more i wonder why i post at nsbb. zing

 

 

but in all seriousness ive been thinking of changing the quote

 

good one...

 

8-)

[abuck1220]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

[Jazz]

you do know sosa hit 40 HR as a 27 year old, right? you do know he hit 33 as a 24 year old, right?

 

you do know that sosa's career line before 98 was .246 AVG/.325 OBP, and well you know how that improved.

[Bruno7481]

you do know sosa hit 40 HR as a 27 year old, right? you do know he hit 33 as a 24 year old, right?

 

you do know that sosa's career line before 98 was .246 AVG/.325 OBP, and well you know how that improved.

 

more spinach?

Edited July 15, 2007 by Bruno7481

[Mephistopheles]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

you do know sosa hit 40 HR as a 27 year old, right? you do know he hit 33 as a 24 year old, right?

 

you do know that sosa's career line before 98 was .246 AVG/.325 OBP, and well you know how that improved.

 

sosa found the magic juice, corked bats and wasnt on the wrong side of 30. its a bad comparison and youre still not grasping what the hell probabilities are.

[Jazz]

durham was a better bet. again all it shows is an idiot can get lucky

 

Obviously not, or he would be performing this year.

 

probabilistic outcomes.

 

so weighing the probability that a Derosa having good year vs. Durham having a good year is not a skill, but a crapshoot? give me a break.

 

lucky you aren't the gm or we'd have the awesome tandem of lugo and durham maning the Middle Infield!

[TruffleShuffle]

you do know sosa hit 40 HR as a 27 year old, right? you do know he hit 33 as a 24 year old, right?

 

I also know that he never had an OPS+ above 127 until he turned 29, nor did he have an OBP above .340. He was a good player, but a free-swinger and certainly not an elite hitter. It wasn't until 1998 that he had one of the top 10 OPS+ in the league, top 10 in RC. Then he repeated those feats each of the next four years.

[Mephistopheles]

youre still not getting it. either that or you just want to play the blind faith fan part in your high school play

[Jazz]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

you do know sosa hit 40 HR as a 27 year old, right? you do know he hit 33 as a 24 year old, right?

 

you do know that sosa's career line before 98 was .246 AVG/.325 OBP, and well you know how that improved.

 

sosa found the magic juice, corked bats and wasnt on the wrong side of 30. its a bad comparison and youre still not grasping what the hell probabilities are.

 

of course its a bad comparison because of sammy being on the juice, but you failed to bring that to the discussion beforehand, so i was merely responding accordingly.

 

and corked bats? like that improved his game.

Edited July 15, 2007 by Jazz

[TruffleShuffle]

sosa found the magic juice, corked bats and wasnt on the wrong side of 30. its a bad comparison and youre still not grasping what the hell probabilities are.

 

(a) everyone in baseball was on steroids, and corked bats don't help hitters.

(b) Sosa was two years younger than DeRosa, and probably had more mileage on his body since he was an everyday player.

[Mephistopheles]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

you do know sosa hit 40 HR as a 27 year old, right? you do know he hit 33 as a 24 year old, right?

 

you do know that sosa's career line before 98 was .246 AVG/.325 OBP, and well you know how that improved.

 

sosa found the magic juice, corked bats and wasnt on the wrong side of 30. its a bad comparison and youre still not grasping what the hell probabilities are.

 

of course its a bad comparison because sammy being on the juice, but you failed to bring that to the discussion beforehand, so i was merely responding accordingly.

 

and corked bats? like that improved his game.

what in the world are you talking about? i usually can follow most [expletive] train of thoughts but this [expletive] thought is about as random as any.

[Jazz]

youre still not getting it. either that or you just want to play the blind faith fan part in your high school play

 

No I think I am. You're faulting Jim for being right or "lucky" when the odd, and you said he should have been wrong. How do you know Jim didn't look into the matter more thoroughly then just randomly deciding "yes lets throw money at this guy".

[Mephistopheles]

sosa found the magic juice, corked bats and wasnt on the wrong side of 30. its a bad comparison and youre still not grasping what the hell probabilities are.

 

(a) everyone in baseball was on steroids, and corked bats don't help hitters.

(b) Sosa was two years younger than DeRosa, and probably had more mileage on his body since he was an everyday player.

 

a. wrong, and i know

b. more mileage? come on.... the fact sosa stood in rf for a few more innings and took a thousand or two more swings than derosa over the course of ten years is meaningless

[abuck1220]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

 

but, at the same time, all that other stuff is rather flukish. if derosa continues to outperform durham for the entire season, then i think you have to give some credit to hendry for preferring derosa to durham.

[Mephistopheles]

youre still not getting it. either that or you just want to play the blind faith fan part in your high school play

 

No I think I am. You're faulting Jim for being right or "lucky" when the odd, and you said he should have been wrong. How do you know Jim didn't look into the matter more thoroughly then just randomly deciding "yes lets throw money at this guy".

 

nope youre not understanding it.

[TruffleShuffle]

durham was a better bet. again all it shows is an idiot can get lucky

 

Obviously not, or he would be performing this year.

 

probabilistic outcomes.

 

so weighing the probability that a Derosa having good year vs. Durham having a good year is not a skill, but a crapshoot? give me a break.

 

lucky you aren't the gm or we'd have the awesome tandem of lugo and durham maning the Middle Infield!

 

Yeah, what our arrogant friend doesn't understand is that it's not all about projected numbers. Yeah, PECOTA is a nice tool, but if a player has really made a breakthrough due to a change in his approach at the plate, the PECOTA numbers are going to be biased w.r.t. his previous performance. Ray Durham has suddently gotten old, and Marcus Giles is off steroids now. That's why scouting is also a part of the game.

[Jazz]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

you do know sosa hit 40 HR as a 27 year old, right? you do know he hit 33 as a 24 year old, right?

 

you do know that sosa's career line before 98 was .246 AVG/.325 OBP, and well you know how that improved.

 

sosa found the magic juice, corked bats and wasnt on the wrong side of 30. its a bad comparison and youre still not grasping what the hell probabilities are.

 

of course its a bad comparison because sammy being on the juice, but you failed to bring that to the discussion beforehand, so i was merely responding accordingly.

 

and corked bats? like that improved his game.

what in the world are you talking about? i usually can follow most [expletive] train of thoughts but this [expletive] thought is about as random as any.

 

if you're referring to the shoddy grammar of the post (which i think i corrected after the edit), then I can understand, but like I said, steroids weren't brought into the discussion, so I responded as such. The argument was that Derosa's new toetap didn't improve his game at all, so I provided evidence that it may have because of a similar toetap that was implemented by Sosa, who improved (but also with the juice obviously).

[Bruno7481]

sosa found the magic juice, corked bats and wasnt on the wrong side of 30. its a bad comparison and youre still not grasping what the hell probabilities are.

 

(a) everyone in baseball was on steroids, and corked bats don't help hitters.

(b) Sosa was two years younger than DeRosa, and probably had more mileage on his body since he was an everyday player.

 

a. wrong, and i know

b. more mileage? come on.... the fact sosa stood in rf for a few more innings and took a thousand or two more swings than derosa over the course of ten years is meaningless

 

I agree to a point with you on A, not everybody was on roids. But, not to come off the wrong way to you, I bet I have a better idea on Sosa then you do as far as the steroid question.

 

I trust the guy, and he was in that clubhouse for almost the entire year.

[Jazz]

youre still not getting it. either that or you just want to play the blind faith fan part in your high school play

 

No I think I am. You're faulting Jim for being right or "lucky" when the odd, and you said he should have been wrong. How do you know Jim didn't look into the matter more thoroughly then just randomly deciding "yes lets throw money at this guy".

 

nope youre not understanding it.

 

alright. Rather than explaining your position, you'd rather be stubborn. That'll move the conversation swimmingly.

[TruffleShuffle]

okay not everyone was on roids, but i believe a significant percentage of players were. Probably more than half.

[Bruno7481]

okay not everyone was on roids, but i believe a significant percentage of players were. Probably more than half.

 

agreed.

[Mephistopheles]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

 

but, at the same time, all that other stuff is rather flukish. if derosa continues to outperform durham for the entire season, then i think you have to give some credit to hendry for preferring derosa to durham.

 

i dont think so. because if durham plays like he normally does the rest of the year and derosa plays like his career avg the rest of the year, derosa will barely outperform him. Durham is having the worst year of his career and has the lowest obp since his rookie season.

 

We can all agree that DeRosa has exceeded expectations this year. DeRosa's numbers are the expected numbers for Durham. If Durham crashes and burns next year again, then Ill say good job hendry.

 

This really isnt that big of a difference. DeRosa wasnt too expensive like Soriano. It just probably wasnt the best move.

[Mephistopheles]

durham was a better bet. again all it shows is an idiot can get lucky

 

Obviously not, or he would be performing this year.

 

probabilistic outcomes.

 

so weighing the probability that a Derosa having good year vs. Durham having a good year is not a skill, but a crapshoot? give me a break.

 

lucky you aren't the gm or we'd have the awesome tandem of lugo and durham maning the Middle Infield!

 

Yeah, what our arrogant friend doesn't understand is that it's not all about projected numbers. Yeah, PECOTA is a nice tool, but if a player has really made a breakthrough due to a change in his approach at the plate, the PECOTA numbers are going to be biased w.r.t. his previous performance. Ray Durham has suddently gotten old, and Marcus Giles is off steroids now. That's why scouting is also a part of the game.

 

you dont need pecota to see durhams career norms were derosa's career year. i cant believe some of you are saying derosa was the right signing.

[TruffleShuffle]

you dont need pecota to see durhams career norms were derosa's career year. i cant believe some of you are saying derosa was the right signing.

 

Durham is three years older, and more likely to decline, plus he was coming off a career-type year. And regardless of that, there was a big money difference (more than $3M per) between their price tags.