Cubs will allow Prior to walk

[CuseCubFan69]

hey, you know what...you convinced me. in an effort to be more open-minded i'm just going to blindly accept your psycho-analysis of a player you've never met based on watching him pitch on tv a few times.

 

WAY BETTER THAN STATS.

 

Again, I use both but as I said, you're narrow minded and just see one thing. Honestly, I could care less what you think.

 

Seriously, how can you possibly believe that thinking you see Prior fade away mentally when he is being hit can outweigh the facts that Prior has done fairly well when he gets into situations when guys get on?

 

Show me your numbers after he gives up 4 or more runs...his line drive % numbers.

 

Do you not see how ridiculous that request is?

 

If a guy gives up 4 runs, he's having a bad game. If he's having a bad game, he probably doesn't have his best stuff, and when he doesn't have his best stuff, he's going to get hit more. Do you think all those times that Roger Clemens got absolutely rocked, and it's happened quite a few times over the years, it was because he was a mental midget? Is there a single pitcher in the game who hasn't had bad games where they give up lots of hits and 4+ runs?

 

So show me the numbers that say he had bad stuff then?

[abuck1220]

surprisingly, when roger clemens gives up seven runs in four innings, he has an era of 2.87.

[abuck1220]

 

So show me the numbers that say he had bad stuff then?

 

when he gives up a lot of runs, he gives up a lot of runs. there's your stat.

 

are you drunk or something?

[Sammy Sofa]

Cuse, seriously, this argument is self-defeating. It makes no sense to push it.

[Rob]

Cuse, c'mon man... stop while you have your dignity. We all respect your opinion most of the time, but you're over-stepping here.

[cubbyvirus00]

Forget all these small numbers.......I think 2003 was amazing, but besides that hes been AVERAGE. I wanna see his numbers in 2004 and 2005 compared to other pitchers in the league that show him being above average.

[Sammy Sofa]

Forget all these small numbers.......I think 2003 was amazing, but besides that hes been AVERAGE. I wanna see his numbers in 2004 and 2005 compared to other pitchers in the league that show him being above average.

 

Who cares if he was only average? I'll happily pay an averae pitcher $3-5 million a year as opposed to more for a crappy pitcher, something this team has done plenty of times.

 

And "forget all these small numbers?" What the hell does that even mean?

Edited December 13, 2007 by Sammy Sofa

[CuseCubFan69]

Cuse, c'mon man... stop while you have your dignity. We all respect your opinion most of the time, but you're over-stepping here.

 

Honestly saying numbers tell the whole story just boggles my mind. I understand the points that these guys are making but they simply do not tell the whole story.

[jersey cubs fan]

As for the steroid issue. That little bogus list of names that included Prior and Wood seems to be doing its job. CNBC commentators were talking about big names taking a fall, like Clemens, Pettite and "the entire Cubs pitching staff." And for effect, the host repeated the line, "The Chicago Cubs pitching staff."

 

 

It's a good thing we know for a fact that Prior did roids.

[Rob]

Cuse, c'mon man... stop while you have your dignity. We all respect your opinion most of the time, but you're over-stepping here.

 

Honestly saying numbers tell the whole story just boggles my mind. I understand the points that these guys are making but they simply do not tell the whole story.

 

No, they don't. But they are a lot more effective than selective perception. I'm not trying to be rude here, as I do respect what you do. But this is a problem that every single person has. Some of us have taken to relying upon the numbers upon realizing that our memories are not flawless. I know I picked up on it after seeing some numbers about Mark Grace and his "clutch" ability. I had always thought he was nothing too special in those situations, but I saw a study that ranked him as one of the best of the last few decades. All I would do was dwell on the few times he had buggered up when I was watching, though.

 

Again, I respect you a lot. But I think your opinion of Mark Prior has become so jaded that you're attributing characteristics to him that simply are not applicable.

[NCCubFan]

As I said a day or so ago in another thread, I think the Cubs should have tendered him. There's a chance (not a guarantee) he'll pitch effectively this year, and there's a chance (not a guarantee) that, with a new regime in place by the end of the season, he might have reconsidered his willingness to return. I think it was a chance worth gambling on. However, given that the Cubs decided not to bring him back, I'm moving on. This isn't going to ruin the excitement of signing Fukudome for me. I was a Cub fan long before Prior joined them, and I will be long after he left. I'm a fan of the team more than of individual players. I really do think that ultimately there was blame to be placed on both parties, and both parties decided that a fresh start was needed.

[brinoch]

As for the steroid issue. That little bogus list of names that included Prior and Wood seems to be doing its job. CNBC commentators were talking about big names taking a fall, like Clemens, Pettite and "the entire Cubs pitching staff." And for effect, the host repeated the line, "The Chicago Cubs pitching staff."

 

 

It's a good thing we know for a fact that Prior did roids.

 

Too bad I don't work for the Cubs in their media relations department. I'm really good at beating the crap out of outlets when they offer completely inaccurate reporting.

[fromthestretch]

Forget all these small numbers.......I think 2003 was amazing, but besides that hes been AVERAGE[. I wanna see his numbers in 2004 and 2005 compared to other pitchers in the league that show him being above average.

 

His ERA+ of 122 in 2002, 109 in 2004, and 120 in 2005 say that he's been well above average.

[TruffleShuffle]

Forget all these small numbers.......I think 2003 was amazing, but besides that hes been AVERAGE[. I wanna see his numbers in 2004 and 2005 compared to other pitchers in the league that show him being above average.

 

His ERA+ of 122 in 2002, 109 in 2004, and 120 in 2005 say that he's been well above average.

 

get out of here with your fancy logic and numbers.

[fromthestretch]

Forget all these small numbers.......I think 2003 was amazing, but besides that hes been AVERAGE[. I wanna see his numbers in 2004 and 2005 compared to other pitchers in the league that show him being above average.

 

His ERA+ of 122 in 2002, 109 in 2004, and 120 in 2005 say that he's been well above average.

 

get out of here with your fancy logic and numbers.

 

You'd think I'd know better by now.

[WilcoFan]

First post on the site (looooong time lurker), but I guess I'll come out firing.

 

I think its fairly ridiculous to completely dismiss and/or belittle CuseCubsFan (which many here have) because of his belief that Prior didn't handle pressure well. There are virtually no statistics that would disprove this claim, as it is not a quantitative observation and based on subjective terminology. Giving statistics about BAA with runners on and/or ERA+ don't do anything to disprove him, because they don't define the situation in which they occurred (i.e. with an 8-0 lead, runners on 1st and 2nd and nobody out pose significantly less threat than 1st and 2nd and nobody out in a 2-1 game). Those who are somehow trying to use numbers to prove that his opinion is dumb seem to be falling into a variation of the logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance, that is, a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

He isn't making statements that can quantitatively be proven false (i.e. "Prior was a bad pitcher"); he's making qualitative statements regarding specific situations that are even more subjective in their interpretation ("pressure situations"). As such, he would have to define the exact situations he's discussing, and since his definition of what qualifies as a pressure situation is undoubtedly different from everyone else's, its impossible to quantitatively prove him wrong.

 

Cuse's opinion is purely that--opinion based on observations of situations. You may disagree with his opinion, but since he is basing his opinion on non-quantitative entities (and using non-quantitative terminology like "pressure"), using statistics that certainly are incapable of capturing the extent of the situations in which he describes certainly does not prove him to have a stupid opinion. Actually, I think using statistics to disprove qualitative statements such as the nature of "pressure" seems to be the more ridiculous thing to do.

[imb]

hey, you know what...you convinced me. in an effort to be more open-minded i'm just going to blindly accept your psycho-analysis of a player you've never met based on watching him pitch on tv a few times.

 

WAY BETTER THAN STATS.

 

Again, I use both but as I said, you're narrow minded and just see one thing. Honestly, I could care less what you think.

 

Seriously, how can you possibly believe that thinking you see Prior fade away mentally when he is being hit can outweigh the facts that Prior has done fairly well when he gets into situations when guys get on?

 

Show me your numbers after he gives up 4 or more runs...his line drive % numbers.

 

I didn't believe you, but I just looked them up and you were right.

 

LD% was 8%, highest in the league in 2004 and 2005.

[Rob]

First post on the site (looooong time lurker), but I guess I'll come out firing.

 

I think its fairly ridiculous to completely dismiss and/or belittle CuseCubsFan (which many here have) because of his belief that Prior didn't handle pressure well. There are virtually no statistics that would disprove this claim, as it is not a quantitative observation and based on subjective terminology. Giving statistics about BAA with runners on and/or ERA+ don't do anything to disprove him, because they don't define the situation in which they occurred (i.e. with an 8-0 lead, runners on 1st and 2nd and nobody out pose significantly less threat than 1st and 2nd and nobody out in a 2-1 game). Those who are somehow trying to use numbers to prove that his opinion is dumb seem to be falling into a variation of the logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance, that is, a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

He isn't making statements that can quantitatively be proven false (i.e. "Prior was a bad pitcher"); he's making qualitative statements regarding specific situations that are even more subjective in their interpretation ("pressure situations"). As such, he would have to define the exact situations he's discussing, and since his definition of what qualifies as a pressure situation is undoubtedly different from everyone else's, its impossible to quantitatively prove him wrong.

 

Cuse's opinion is purely that--opinion based on observations of situations. You may disagree with his opinion, but since he is basing his opinion on non-quantitative entities (and using non-quantitative terminology like "pressure"), using statistics that certainly are incapable of capturing the extent of the situations in which he describes certainly does not prove him to have a stupid opinion. Actually, I think using statistics to disprove qualitative statements such as the nature of "pressure" seems to be the more ridiculous thing to do.

 

At least that's what you said...

[WilcoFan]

I guess I am an American Aquarium drinker....

[NYF]

First post on the site (looooong time lurker), but I guess I'll come out firing.

 

I think its fairly ridiculous to completely dismiss and/or belittle CuseCubsFan (which many here have) because of his belief that Prior didn't handle pressure well. There are virtually no statistics that would disprove this claim, as it is not a quantitative observation and based on subjective terminology. Giving statistics about BAA with runners on and/or ERA+ don't do anything to disprove him, because they don't define the situation in which they occurred (i.e. with an 8-0 lead, runners on 1st and 2nd and nobody out pose significantly less threat than 1st and 2nd and nobody out in a 2-1 game). Those who are somehow trying to use numbers to prove that his opinion is dumb seem to be falling into a variation of the logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance, that is, a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

He isn't making statements that can quantitatively be proven false (i.e. "Prior was a bad pitcher"); he's making qualitative statements regarding specific situations that are even more subjective in their interpretation ("pressure situations"). As such, he would have to define the exact situations he's discussing, and since his definition of what qualifies as a pressure situation is undoubtedly different from everyone else's, its impossible to quantitatively prove him wrong.

 

Cuse's opinion is purely that--opinion based on observations of situations. You may disagree with his opinion, but since he is basing his opinion on non-quantitative entities (and using non-quantitative terminology like "pressure"), using statistics that certainly are incapable of capturing the extent of the situations in which he describes certainly does not prove him to have a stupid opinion. Actually, I think using statistics to disprove qualitative statements such as the nature of "pressure" seems to be the more ridiculous thing to do.

 

i quoted the whole thing, as this post is spot on.

nice job of explaining the differences in qualitative, and quantitative viewpoints.

 

both methods are valid, and you display one of the central conundrums of scientific study (very succinctly, i might add).

 

statistics are a method of predicting probability. your eyes involve perception, which denotes, and reinforces reality.

 

to intelligently and accurately observe Baseball is to combine the two concepts. case closed.

 

welcome to the board, and the world of internet postulation and punditry. acumen be damned...

[minnesotacubsfan]

First post......ng to do.

 

welcome Wilco. Stick around for awhile :)

[abuck1220]

since he's the one making stuff up, i say he should have to prove himself right. why should i have to prove him wrong?

 

unicorns exist. prove me wrong.

[WilcoFan]

since he's the one making stuff up, i say he should have to prove himself right. why should i have to prove him wrong?

 

unicorns exist. prove me wrong.

 

1. Its an opinion, not someone "making stuff up."

2. There is no burden of proof on anyone initiating an opinion, as it is an opinion. This isn't a court case, and there are no incontrovertible facts related to situational opinions. The opponent of that person positing a qualitative opinion always has the burden of proof in proving them wrong, because they chose to challenge that opinion. If you feel that he's "making stuff up," the only two real options are either to (a.) ignore it, or (b.) disagree with it using identical qualitative premises. Disagreeing with it using incomplete quantitative measures doesn't really do much to prove it false.

[WilcoFan]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot the topic of the thread. It was really dumb to non-tender Prior. Really dumb.

[Guancous]

Hey Wilco, thanks for bringing the focus back to the subject at hand. We're usually not so argumentative around here. We need to find something to grumble about after the Fukudome signing.