Jason Kubel?

[Guest]

Schierholtz' RADED(Ribbiealldayeveryday) is 8.5 over Ruggiano. He's also more efficient phonetically, as he has 9 letters and only 2 syllabols, while Ruggiano has but 8 letters, burning 4 syllabols in the process.

[Backtobanks]

Nate (at 29 years old) had better numbers for the whole season last year than Ruggiano (age 32) has this year.

 

False.

 

They're close, but false.

 

Ruggiano: .247/.354/.395/.749 OPS+=104 with 2 HR and 8 RBI

Schierholtz: .251/.301/.470/.770 OPS+ =107 with 21 HR and 68 RBI

 

I'm not sure what obscure stats you're looking at, but Nate certainly had better numbers last year.

 

hahahahahaha WOW

 

Apparently that is your response when stats show you're wrong.

[davell]

Schierholtz' RADED(Ribbiealldayeveryday) is 8.5 over Ruggiano. He's also more efficient phonetically, as he has 9 letters and only 2 syllabols, while Ruggiano has but 8 letters, burning 4 syllabols in the process.

 

I was hoping my autocorrect would tell me, but it corrected to cylinder.

[imb]

Nate (at 29 years old) had better numbers for the whole season last year than Ruggiano (age 32) has this year.

 

False.

 

They're close, but false.

 

Ruggiano: .247/.354/.395/.749 OPS+=104 with 2 HR and 8 RBI

Schierholtz: .251/.301/.470/.770 OPS+ =107 with 21 HR and 68 RBI

 

I'm not sure what obscure stats you're looking at, but Nate certainly had better numbers last year.

 

hahahahahaha WOW

 

Apparently that is your response when stats show you're wrong.

 

ahahahaahaahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahahhahaahhahahahahhahahahahhahaahahahahahaahah

[ConstableRabbit]

Nate (at 29 years old) had better numbers for the whole season last year than Ruggiano (age 32) has this year.

 

False.

 

They're close, but false.

 

Ruggiano: .247/.354/.395/.749 OPS+=104 with 2 HR and 8 RBI

Schierholtz: .251/.301/.470/.770 OPS+ =107 with 21 HR and 68 RBI

 

I'm not sure what obscure stats you're looking at, but Nate certainly had better numbers last year.

 

hahahahahaha WOW

 

Apparently that is your response when stats show you're wrong.

Honest question: you have nearly 6 THOUSAND posts on this board since 2003. In that span, have you read anything about stats from other members? The assertions you're making are shocking for someone who has been part of this community for that long.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

seriously what a doofus

[Backtobanks]

Apparently that is your response when stats show you're wrong.

Honest question: you have nearly 6 THOUSAND posts on this board since 2003. In that span, have you read anything about stats from other members? The assertions you're making are shocking for someone who has been part of this community for that long.

 

I have read some of the posts that other members have posted, but I do have a little trouble understanding how a player with a negative WAR (Ruggiano this year) has better numbers than someone (Schierholtz) who had a positive WAR last year. Am I wrong in assuming a positive WAR is better statistically than a negative WAR?

[mul21]

 

Honest question: you have nearly 6 THOUSAND posts on this board since 2003. In that span, have you read anything about stats from other members? The assertions you're making are shocking for someone who has been part of this community for that long.

 

I have read some of the posts that other members have posted, but I do have a little trouble understanding how a player with a negative WAR (Ruggiano this year) has better numbers than someone (Schierholtz) who had a positive WAR last year. Am I wrong in assuming a positive WAR is better statistically than a negative WAR?

 

Well, let's go super simple then. One guy made an out 69.9% of the time and the other made an out 64.6% of the time. Which one was more successful?

[imb]

you've taken two comparable slash lines and indicated that counting stats (where one player played a full season and the other player less than a third) determines who the better player is. Maybe people would give you a break on that if you didn't act like an idiotic [expletive] in every other thread and in this one when it was pointed out.

[Backtobanks]

you've taken two comparable slash lines and indicated that counting stats (where one player played a full season and the other player less than a third) determines who the better player is. Maybe people would give you a break on that if you didn't act like an idiotic [expletive] in every other thread and in this one when it was pointed out.

 

Maybe if you followed the discussion, you would see that I'm not the one who posted "cherry-picked" statistics on Ruggiano this season. When someone posted about his trade value, I posted that if someone offered something decent that we ought to trade him before he turns into Nate Schierholtz (meaning he'll lose his trade value). His "advantage" this year (OBP) over Schierholtz last year will most likely disappear as the season wears on and he reverts closer to his norm (.318).

[Backtobanks]

 

Honest question: you have nearly 6 THOUSAND posts on this board since 2003. In that span, have you read anything about stats from other members? The assertions you're making are shocking for someone who has been part of this community for that long.

 

I have read some of the posts that other members have posted, but I do have a little trouble understanding how a player with a negative WAR (Ruggiano this year) has better numbers than someone (Schierholtz) who had a positive WAR last year. Am I wrong in assuming a positive WAR is better statistically than a negative WAR?

 

Well, let's go super simple then. One guy made an out 69.9% of the time and the other made an out 64.6% of the time. Which one was more successful?

 

Which is one problem with all of the statistics thrown around - often one stat contradicts another.

[imb]

you've taken two comparable slash lines and indicated that counting stats (where one player played a full season and the other player less than a third) determines who the better player is. Maybe people would give you a break on that if you didn't act like an idiotic [expletive] in every other thread and in this one when it was pointed out.

 

Maybe if you followed the discussion, you would see that I'm not the one who posted "cherry-picked" statistics on Ruggiano this season. When someone posted about his trade value, I posted that if someone offered something decent that we ought to trade him before he turns into Nate Schierholtz (meaning he'll lose his trade value). His "advantage" this year (OBP) over Schierholtz last year will most likely disappear as the season wears on and he reverts closer to his norm (.318).

 

lmao ok