R.I.P. Felix Pie's Career (2001-April 20, 2008)

[Chocolate Milk]

I think the "Lou Apologists" just might be picking fights because they feel that even the most remote defense of him is censored by the tyranny of the majority. At times, I can't say I blame them.

What a preposterous load of crap.

[imb]

Everyone deserves to be respected, but healthy discussion -- including the exchange of ideas in the form of debate -- is why people post here.

 

Being wrong on purpose doesn't foster intelligent debate.

[Tyrant]

The majority of Lou's apologists seem to be arguing just for the sake of argument.

 

No. I think that the handful of people on this board just realize that no manager is perfect. Every fan base in baseball -- save for Braves fans -- ends up hating their manager. I've even heard from Braves fans who don't think Cox is a good manager.

 

This isn't a new argument, but being a manager sucks. If you make the right move, you rarely get credit. And if you make the wrong one, you're criticized.

 

Lou has done a great job installing a new approach to the Cubs. He's not a great in-game manager, but I don't think he's an awful one either.

 

While I think it's important to demand the best, I think fans also have to be reasonable. There's no sense blowing a gasket four times a game over the littlest decision by Lou.

 

Anyway, there I go again. Just arguing so I can be a troll.

[Tyrant]

Also, I think it's disappointing that when someone has an opinion that differs from the popular opinion of the board, they're considered to be "picking fights."

[jersey cubs fan]

Also, I think it's disappointing that when someone has an opinion that differs from the popular opinion of the board, they're considered to be "picking fights."

 

When people try and support a clealry asinine move like benching Pie for Reed Johnson and Jim Edmonds, it's not being reasonable, it's being ridiculous.

[Tyrant]

Also, I think it's disappointing that when someone has an opinion that differs from the popular opinion of the board, they're considered to be "picking fights."

 

When people try and support a clealry asinine move like benching Pie for Reed Johnson and Jim Edmonds, it's not being reasonable, it's being ridiculous.

 

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

[WilcoFan]

I think the "Lou Apologists" just might be picking fights because they feel that even the most remote defense of him is censored by the tyranny of the majority. At times, I can't say I blame them.

What a preposterous load of crap.

 

Wow. You couldn't have proved my point better if you tried. Thanks.

[WilcoFan]

 

We really should be getting Reed Johnson more ABs against RHP. Great idea.

 

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

 

Then you're being incredibly dense.

And purposefully so, it would seem. I'm getting tired of the Lou apologists here

 

Keep making posts like this and no one with an even remotely divergent opinion will want to post here anymore. Then everyone can agree on everything...that makes for good discussion.

 

I loathe the decision to sit Pie, especially for what I feel is an inferior player. But if someone wants to argue in favor of it, great-maybe I'm wrong. Its within the realm of possibility that the guy comes in and hits .300 and does a solid job.

 

More importantly, I certainly am not "tired" of people who defend the coaches--that's kinda the point of discussion. That's certainly why I post here.

 

I think the "Lou Apologists" just might be picking fights because they feel that even the most remote defense of him is censored by the tyranny of the majority. At times, I can't say I blame them.

 

If someone is able to form a reasonable argument in favor of a differing opinion, then there is good discussion. If someone defends Lou for reasons such as: 1. He's the manager!!1! 2. Have you ever even played baseball?! 3. Maybe Lou knows something we don't. Ever think of that? 4. I actually watch the games and trust me, Edmonds still has it. 5. Go back to your mom's basement!!1! lawlz! 6. Lolz, you want to play Pie against rhp just because his numbers are better than Johnson's against RH???!!! I actually watch the games and trust me, Pie is Patterson 2.0! --- Then these people's opinions don't deserve to be respected.

 

I think you're picking the dumbest of the responses you might get in response to your opinion and pretending like that's the norm. You could count on one hand the number of responses that are concurrently as silly and rude as these on this site.

 

I almost never see responses like the ones above to anyone on these boards...in fact, I see sample size manipulations masquerading as statistical analysis for the purposes of browbeating differing opinions far more often here than I see stupid knee jerk "I watch the game" posts.

[javy knows my name]

I think the "Lou Apologists" just might be picking fights because they feel that even the most remote defense of him is censored by the tyranny of the majority. At times, I can't say I blame them.

What a preposterous load of crap.

 

Wow. You couldn't have proved my point better if you tried. Thanks.

You probably should change your irony detector

[VanceJergins]

 

We really should be getting Reed Johnson more ABs against RHP. Great idea.

 

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

 

Then you're being incredibly dense.

And purposefully so, it would seem. I'm getting tired of the Lou apologists here

 

Keep making posts like this and no one with an even remotely divergent opinion will want to post here anymore. Then everyone can agree on everything...that makes for good discussion.

 

I loathe the decision to sit Pie, especially for what I feel is an inferior player. But if someone wants to argue in favor of it, great-maybe I'm wrong. Its within the realm of possibility that the guy comes in and hits .300 and does a solid job.

 

More importantly, I certainly am not "tired" of people who defend the coaches--that's kinda the point of discussion. That's certainly why I post here.

 

I think the "Lou Apologists" just might be picking fights because they feel that even the most remote defense of him is censored by the tyranny of the majority. At times, I can't say I blame them.

 

If someone is able to form a reasonable argument in favor of a differing opinion, then there is good discussion. If someone defends Lou for reasons such as: 1. He's the manager!!1! 2. Have you ever even played baseball?! 3. Maybe Lou knows something we don't. Ever think of that? 4. I actually watch the games and trust me, Edmonds still has it. 5. Go back to your mom's basement!!1! lawlz! 6. Lolz, you want to play Pie against rhp just because his numbers are better than Johnson's against RH???!!! I actually watch the games and trust me, Pie is Patterson 2.0! --- Then these people's opinions don't deserve to be respected.

 

I think you're picking the dumbest of the responses you might get in response to your opinion and pretending like that's the norm. You could count on one hand the number of responses that are concurrently as silly and rude as these on this site.

 

I almost never see responses like the ones above to anyone on these boards...in fact, I see sample size manipulations masquerading as statistical analysis for the purposes of browbeating differing opinions far more often here than I see stupid knee jerk "I watch the game" posts.

 

Ok, then logically defend some of Lou's moves.

 

1. Edmonds/Johnson over Pie, when the ideal situation would probably be Cedendo/Pie platoon. (and Pie getting about 2 starts at the beginning of the season to prove himself)

2. Lou planning on having Hill make a few more starts in the minors and Marquis still in the rotation.

3. Chad Fox on the major league team with guys like Ascancio (sp?), Hart, and several other better pitchers in the minors.

4. Fontenot always going in on a double switch when Cedeno has hit better and is a much better fielder.

[javy knows my name]

Also, I think it's disappointing that when someone has an opinion that differs from the popular opinion of the board, they're considered to be "picking fights."

No, this isn't correct.

When an opinion is shared by a majority on the board, it's likely because said opinion is formed by analyzing stats, either sabr or otherwise. Dissenting opinions which aren't rooted in fact are not received well on this board. And why would they be? Most of these opinions are going against facts established by others on the board; in some cases, they fly right in the face of a guy who spent 20 mins searching BR for statistics and composing a long, persuasive post supporting a popular opinion. And it's likely that if a counterargument is being pushed by someone else, they only have ride-the-streak, look-how-hard-he-tries, I-watch-the-games anecdotal evidence. See sig.

It's fine, and admittedly quite ambitious, for someone to challenge a popular board opinion. But it isn't and will not be received well unless it's supported by statistical evidence - and it rarely is.

[Tyrant]

It's fine, and admittedly quite ambitious, for someone to challenge a popular board opinion. But it isn't and will not be received well unless it's supported by statistical evidence - and it rarely is.

 

I'm a big believer in stats. But how do you prove any manager's effectiveness with statistical evidence? You can't ask someone to do that, since there are no metrics available.

 

And for those of you who think Lou is a terrible manager, who would you rather have? I'd like to read some discussion on who everyone thinks is actually a really, really good manager.

[WilcoFan]

Ok, then logically defend some of Lou's moves.

 

1. Edmonds/Johnson over Pie, when the ideal situation would probably be Cedendo/Pie platoon. (and Pie getting about 2 starts at the beginning of the season to prove himself)

2. Lou planning on having Hill make a few more starts in the minors and Marquis still in the rotation.

3. Chad Fox on the major league team with guys like Ascancio (sp?), Hart, and several other better pitchers in the minors.

4. Fontenot always going in on a double switch when Cedeno has hit better and is a much better fielder.

 

This is the problem-regardless of the defense that I might use, if it doesn't incorporate the specific statistical analysis and sample size that you have deemed appropriate, its considered illogical. For example, if I cited Mike Fontenot's minor league history that has shown him, over the long-term, to be statistically superior to Cedeno, you'll claim that Cedeno's numbers last year in AAA and in the small sample size this year are more important. Yet, if I used Theriot's numbers this year to support why he plays over Cedeno, the "sample size would be too small." The goal posts keep getting moved.

 

This is not to say that these discussions aren't healthy, but to use these differences of opinion and claim that one has the factual high ground is simply wrong.

 

 

And if I dared to use anything other than numbers (by citing situational attributes, mechanical problems for Hill, etc.), I would be "picking a fight," because apparently those ideas have been erroneously deemed to have no merit whatsoever. That's not even worth getting into.

[javy knows my name]

It's fine, and admittedly quite ambitious, for someone to challenge a popular board opinion. But it isn't and will not be received well unless it's supported by statistical evidence - and it rarely is.

 

I'm a big believer in stats. But how do you prove any manager's effectiveness with statistical evidence? You can't ask someone to do that, since there are no metrics available.

 

And for those of you who think Lou is a terrible manager, who would you rather have? I'd like to read some discussion on who everyone thinks is actually a really, really good manager.

You prove his effectiveness by whether or not he regularly plays the (statistically) best players on his team. He does not. Debate over.

 

In terms of philosophy, this guy is the best.

EDIT: Try this link

[Tyrant]

In terms of philosophy, this guy is the best.

 

Is Acta the best because he hits Cristian Guzman and his lifetime .302 OBP in the 2 hole? And hits Felipe Lopez and his .328 OBP in the leadoff spot?

[javy knows my name]

In terms of philosophy, this guy is the best.

 

Is Acta the best because he hits Cristian Guzman and his lifetime .302 OBP in the 2 hole? And hits Felipe Lopez and his .328 OBP in the leadoff spot?

Read the second post. Wait, I guess this is me assuming that you read the first post and didn't just see Acta's name and go CRISTIAN GUZMAN ZOMG!!1!!11!!!ONE!!!

[VanceJergins]

Ok, then logically defend some of Lou's moves.

 

1. Edmonds/Johnson over Pie, when the ideal situation would probably be Cedendo/Pie platoon. (and Pie getting about 2 starts at the beginning of the season to prove himself)

2. Lou planning on having Hill make a few more starts in the minors and Marquis still in the rotation.

3. Chad Fox on the major league team with guys like Ascancio (sp?), Hart, and several other better pitchers in the minors.

4. Fontenot always going in on a double switch when Cedeno has hit better and is a much better fielder.

 

This is the problem-regardless of the defense that I might use, if it doesn't incorporate the specific statistical analysis and sample size that you have deemed appropriate, its considered illogical. For example, if I cited Mike Fontenot's minor league history that has shown him, over the long-term, to be statistically superior to Cedeno, you'll claim that Cedeno's numbers last year in AAA and in the small sample size this year are more important. Yet, if I used Theriot's numbers this year to support why he plays over Cedeno, the "sample size would be too small." The goal posts keep getting moved.

 

This is not to say that these discussions aren't healthy, but to use these differences of opinion and claim that one has the factual high ground is simply wrong.

 

 

And if I dared to use anything other than numbers (by citing situational attributes, mechanical problems for Hill, etc.), I would be "picking a fight," because apparently those ideas have been erroneously deemed to have no merit whatsoever. That's not even worth getting into.

 

At age 22 in AAA, Cedeno had an OPS of .921. At age 22 in A, Fontenot had an OPS of .697

At age 24 in AAA, Cedeno had an OPS of .959. At age 24 in AAA, Fontenot had an OPS of .766

Cedeno is by all accounts a better defensive player. Cedeno has better offensive numbers this year.

You can't just look at overall minor league numbers. If that's your argument then you just really don't understand the numbers. Cedeno started in the minors 4 years younger than Fontenot.

 

If Hill was yanked for poor performance, then logically shouldn't Marquis be yanked for worse performance...dating back 3 years?

 

There's a difference between finding excuses and making a logical argument.

[Tyrant]

In terms of philosophy, this guy is the best.

 

Is Acta the best because he hits Cristian Guzman and his lifetime .302 OBP in the 2 hole? And hits Felipe Lopez and his .328 OBP in the leadoff spot?

Read the second post. Wait, I guess this is me assuming that you read the first post and didn't just see Acta's name and go CRISTIAN GUZMAN ZOMG!!1!!11!!!ONE!!!

 

If Lou said he was going to hit someone second because he could hit-and-run or drag bunt a guy over, everyone here would kill him. In fact, I think Lou has said things like that, and people have freaked out.

[bukie]

In terms of philosophy, this guy is the best.

 

Is Acta the best because he hits Cristian Guzman and his lifetime .302 OBP in the 2 hole? And hits Felipe Lopez and his .328 OBP in the leadoff spot?

Read the second post. Wait, I guess this is me assuming that you read the first post and didn't just see Acta's name and go CRISTIAN GUZMAN ZOMG!!1!!11!!!ONE!!!

Your link doesn't work. Try this one.

[javy knows my name]

In terms of philosophy, this guy is the best.

 

Is Acta the best because he hits Cristian Guzman and his lifetime .302 OBP in the 2 hole? And hits Felipe Lopez and his .328 OBP in the leadoff spot?

Read the second post. Wait, I guess this is me assuming that you read the first post and didn't just see Acta's name and go CRISTIAN GUZMAN ZOMG!!1!!11!!!ONE!!!

 

If Lou said he was going to hit someone second because he could hit-and-run or drag bunt a guy over, everyone here would kill him. In fact, I think Lou has said things like that, and people have freaked out.

Yes, that's true. But if Manny Acta had our lineup to work with, there would be no way anyone would be allowed to bunt or steal. There's also a very good chance that he would take a look at Pie's minor league numbers and his nearly identical learning curve for each promotion he got, and play him regularly to start the year. Since Cristian Guzman is not good at hitting baseballs, all he can really bring is speed. Bunting and stealing the extent of his contributions. Hitting him second is puzzling but comparing the two managers as if they had the same resources is beyond foolish.

[brinoch]

In terms of philosophy, this guy is the best.

 

Is Acta the best because he hits Cristian Guzman and his lifetime .302 OBP in the 2 hole? And hits Felipe Lopez and his .328 OBP in the leadoff spot?

 

Hard to argue with Acta when he has this team:

 

1B- Nick Johnson (.415 OBP)

2B- Felipe Lopez (.331 OBP)

3B- Ryan Zimmerman (.274 OBP)

SS- Cristian Guzman (.320 OBP)

LF- Wily Mo Pena (.284 OBP)

CF- Lastings Milledge (.317 OBP)

RF- Austin Kearns (.311 OBP)

 

C - Jesus Flores/Wil Nieves (.458/.378 OBP)** (**Extreme sample size alert... LoDuca and Estrada are on DL)

[Tyrant]

In terms of philosophy, this guy is the best.

 

Is Acta the best because he hits Cristian Guzman and his lifetime .302 OBP in the 2 hole? And hits Felipe Lopez and his .328 OBP in the leadoff spot?

Read the second post. Wait, I guess this is me assuming that you read the first post and didn't just see Acta's name and go CRISTIAN GUZMAN ZOMG!!1!!11!!!ONE!!!

 

If Lou said he was going to hit someone second because he could hit-and-run or drag bunt a guy over, everyone here would kill him. In fact, I think Lou has said things like that, and people have freaked out.

Yes, that's true. But if Manny Acta had our lineup to work with, there would be no way anyone would be allowed to bunt or steal. There's also a very good chance that he would take a look at Pie's minor league numbers and his nearly identical learning curve for each promotion he got, and play him regularly to start the year. Since Cristian Guzman is not good at hitting baseballs, all he can really bring is speed. Bunting and stealing the extent of his contributions. Hitting him second is puzzling but comparing the two managers as if they had the same resources is beyond foolish.

 

I'm not comparing him as if they have the same resources. I'm pointing out examples of him doing things that people here hate about Lou.

 

I've read that FJM piece before, and Acta comes across really well. I think he sounds like a really good manager.

 

My whole point is that every manager is going to make awful decisions.

 

I don't agree with Lou on everything. Not even close. I just think the hyperbole about him being a "terrible" manager is way over the top.

[bring stone back]

I don't agree with Lou on everything. Not even close. I just think the hyperbole about him being a "terrible" manager is way over the top.

 

Yep. With as many "Lou's an idiot" posts and responses I see here you'd think he starts 5 players in the field every game. I almost laugh when people criticize him after EVERY lineup because of no Pie and Cedeno.

 

The "over the topness", constant complaining and arrogance on this board is amazing.

[WilcoFan]

Ok, then logically defend some of Lou's moves.

 

1. Edmonds/Johnson over Pie, when the ideal situation would probably be Cedendo/Pie platoon. (and Pie getting about 2 starts at the beginning of the season to prove himself)

2. Lou planning on having Hill make a few more starts in the minors and Marquis still in the rotation.

3. Chad Fox on the major league team with guys like Ascancio (sp?), Hart, and several other better pitchers in the minors.

4. Fontenot always going in on a double switch when Cedeno has hit better and is a much better fielder.

 

This is the problem-regardless of the defense that I might use, if it doesn't incorporate the specific statistical analysis and sample size that you have deemed appropriate, its considered illogical. For example, if I cited Mike Fontenot's minor league history that has shown him, over the long-term, to be statistically superior to Cedeno, you'll claim that Cedeno's numbers last year in AAA and in the small sample size this year are more important. Yet, if I used Theriot's numbers this year to support why he plays over Cedeno, the "sample size would be too small." The goal posts keep getting moved.

 

This is not to say that these discussions aren't healthy, but to use these differences of opinion and claim that one has the factual high ground is simply wrong.

 

 

And if I dared to use anything other than numbers (by citing situational attributes, mechanical problems for Hill, etc.), I would be "picking a fight," because apparently those ideas have been erroneously deemed to have no merit whatsoever. That's not even worth getting into.

 

At age 22 in AAA, Cedeno had an OPS of .921. At age 22 in A, Fontenot had an OPS of .697

At age 24 in AAA, Cedeno had an OPS of .959. At age 24 in AAA, Fontenot had an OPS of .766

Cedeno is by all accounts a better defensive player. Cedeno has better offensive numbers this year.

You can't just look at overall minor league numbers. If that's your argument then you just really don't understand the numbers. Cedeno started in the minors 4 years younger than Fontenot.

 

If Hill was yanked for poor performance, then logically shouldn't Marquis be yanked for worse performance...dating back 3 years?

 

There's a difference between finding excuses and making a logical argument.

 

I'm not sure why you are arguing Fontenot versus Cedeno...that had little to nothing to do with my point.

 

I'm amazed that, when I write a hypothetical post in which I allude to potential arguments that could be made (without (a.) claiming to believe them, or (b.) actually giving you a complete argument), you fall into exactly the category of people I was writing about when I made the original point. My point had nothing to do with Fontenot, Cedeno, Hill, or Marquis. My point had to do with the use of sample size and stat manipulation to make some condescending post that really doesn't have any more "facts" than any other post. Healthy discussion dies when one person tries to take their opinion (and the use of statistical analysis is still opinion, as the analysis is open to interpretation) and pass it off as fact.

 

Thanks for proving my point. I highlighted it above, as well as the points where you just embody the argument I've made to a tee.

[VanceJergins]

 

I'm not sure why you are arguing Fontenot versus Cedeno...that had little to nothing to do with my point.

 

I'm amazed that, when I write a hypothetical post in which I allude to potential arguments that could be made (without (a.) claiming to believe them, or (b.) actually giving you a complete argument), you fall into exactly the category of people I was writing about when I made the original point. My point had nothing to do with Fontenot, Cedeno, Hill, or Marquis. My point had to do with the use of sample size and stat manipulation to make some condescending post that really doesn't have any more "facts" than any other post. Healthy discussion dies when one person tries to take their opinion (and the use of statistical analysis is still opinion, as the analysis is open to interpretation) and pass it off as fact.

 

Thanks for proving my point. I highlighted it above, as well as the points where you just embody the argument I've made to a tee.

 

No, that's exactly the point. You said that was a possible argument, and I showed that it is a ridiculous argument. There is no manipulation in showing that Cedeno's minor league career was immensely more impressive than Fontenot's.

 

You've done nothing to show that there are logical arguments for the things I listed.