jjgman21

But if contact is made and the defender has their back to the play, they are going to call it every time. There was contact? It looked like they brushed hands at best. He prevented Manningham from coming to the ball. That's interference. not if the Manningham doesn't come back for the ball and there is contact, unless he fact guards, which he didn't do.

Wisconsin fandom is making us both root for Michigan. Don't you feel dirty? I'm actually rooting for OSU. I want a rematch of this game for the national championship. I think the only way that happens is a close W by OSU. does Michigan winning benefit the Badgers in any way? if OSU and UW have the same record, I assure you it will be OSU getting the second big ten BCS game.

Henne is terrible. Tressell>>>>>>>>>Carr. come on Michigan, keep this close. edit - there you go. that's about how open a receiver needs to be for Henne to complere a pass.

seems like Michigan keeps going after the whistle on every play.

they call it every time? it happens on almost every punt and its never called.

I think Wells should be an afterthought if the Cubs don't get Soriano or Drew. if that happens, I think you have to do a Barrett for Wells swap, even though Barrett is my favorite Cub. if the Cubs can't get solid at every position (aka miss out on Soriano or Drew) you have to start viewing it as improving the team over what the Cubs had last year. since the swap would be Wells for Barrett, you have to compare how the Cubs were in 05 at C and CF and what they can get out of those two positions in 06. in my mind, one position is vastly improved because you have Wells numbers, which are better than Barretts, for 150-160 games, not 115-130. similarly, I think there is a great chance that Blanco/Soto contribute as much to the offense as Pierre did. looking at the defensive side, the team is vastly improved at both positions.

I think my point is this. discipline is usually a very strong determining factor in whether a hitter is good or not, but not always and not as rarely as stated here. the examples on the low end are a little harder to find because they do end up on the bench, but players like Bellhorn, Mirabelli, and Dan Johnson come to mind. but the high end has alot of players. Joe Dimaggio's slightly above league average IsoD does nothing to detract from his greatness because he still had a very good OBP. Ichiro's piss poor IsoD makes no difference if his obp is up around 380+. while I am not comparing Wells to Dimaggio, his poor IsoD shouldn't be a problem as long as his ave. is around .300. while I am aware of the predictive factor IsoD brings, that's not we are talking about here. we are talking about rejecting a player out of hand because of a low IsoD.

it is helpful for all players, but it loses meaning on the extremes. noone complains when a player has a .400 obp but has a .040 IsoD. similarly, there are ligit complaints if a player is batting .213 but has an IsoD of 100.

this almost sounds like a political discussion re the Democratic leadership.

Bush League Stat. no it's not. it loses alot of meaning if the player consistently puts up an astronomical batting average, but it's not a bush league stat for most players in baseball.

he can keep his IsoD right where it is for 5.5M. I wouldn't re-up him for huge money without an improvement in IsoD, but he's about as good of a value in an offensive player as you can find in baseball right now.

I agree, but ya gotta lose one of the redundant speedsters. Pagan or Bynum have to go, preferably both. check that. Bynum definitely has to go. Pagan I could go either way with. I'd also lose Marquis off the bottom of the list and put the other Japanese pitcher, and Padilla, ahead of Lilly et al.

the difference is the same as any player at that age. what's the difference between Sosa 34 and 35? about 65 points in OPS. what's the difference between Edmonds 34 and 35? about 150 points in OPS. you look at the similar players on baseballreference for Durham, and he's at or past the age where all of them had a significant decline. he would not have to have a huge and fast decline to get to those numbers, and I think you know that to be true. you keep saying "7 of 8 years he was above his career average" (actually you would be better served by pointing it's been 8 of 9) so obviously you looked at the numbers, but you conveniently fail to point out that in most of those season we was only a handful of ops points above (818, 811, 808, 803, 824, 807) his career average. a 10 point drop in obp combined with a 20 drop in slg off of those types of numbers is very likely at his age. Durham does get on base nearly 36% of the time. DeRosa gets on roughly 33% of the time. over the course of a 700 PA season, thats 21 additional times on base. figure the runner scores 40% of those times. are those 8.5 additional runs really worth 5M?

I think Leftwich got a raw deal in Jacksonville, and I think if he does end up not playing another game in a Jaguars uniform, he'll have the opportunity to start elsewhere. He's no Joey Harrington, come on. You know, some people I was watching the Giants game with started complaining about Grossman...all I could think about was how much more confident I feel with Grossman at the helm than a Kyle Orton, Chad Hutchinson, Jonathon Quinn, etc. Some [expletive] media type person said something like: "Kyle Orton did what he was supposed to do, not lose games. Grossman can lose you games" God, I wish there was some emoticon to express my reaction to that. a raw deal? he played in 15 games as a rookie. you bring up Harrington. kind of ironic the guy Harrington is starting in front of is the same guy that most people compared Leftwich to when he was coming out of college. I agree 100% about the Grossman/Orton comments.

my first ever sig?

again, I'm not a DeRosa advocate, but if you play this game, you also have to play that game with Durham. you can't say "look at what Ray did last year and over the course of his career" then compare it to doomsday predictions of DeRosa. I hear what you are saying with this point, but you can't throw his first half out the window either. you have to come to likely outcomes to make this kind of comparison. I think it likely that DeRosa is probably slightly improved with experience and adjustments and will probably put up an OPS around .750-760 over the next couple years with great defense (from what I hear). I also think it likely that Durham will go into a decline from his career numbers and likely be around .775-.785, with old man defense out of a middle infield position. not worth 5M. edit - another way to look at breaking DeRosa's season down is this. "until the end of September his OPS was .871. his numbers were skewed by an end of the season slump." I don't buy it, but I don't think people should take your breakdown and conclusion at face value either.

You're right, I was calculating wrong. Still, the point remains that those 2 starts shouldn't be removed just as his 2 best starts should be and that he actually performed much better by staying in that June game. I think the better way of making this point is that in one game, only innings 3-5 are really on LaRussa. the first 2 innings are purely on Marquis. so while his stats are impacted negatively by LaRussa's decision, the impact is not nearly as big as implied. in other words, it is still Marquis who gave up 9 runs in the first two innings against the White Sox and 5 runs in the first two innings against Atlanta. I have no problem with the analysis if you take way 6 innings and 10 runs when he should have no longer been in the game (although it would be fairer to only take away 7-8 runs because you have to figure he wouldn't have been perfect in the three innings he was left in).

Honestly? It is very possible that Durham could be 5M better than Derosa. Durham's career #s .281/.354/.443 106 OPS+ Derosa's career #'s .273/.331/.404 90 OPS+ That's and 80 point difference in OPS for their career. Even if you think Derosa will continue to put up close to his Texas numbers, they are barely (16 points) better than Durham's average season, which Durham himself has surpassed in all but 1 of his last 8 seasons. the numbers appear correct, but the addition's a little off. that's a 62 point different in OPS. my thoughts on the matter is Durham had his swan song last year and will probably be only slightly better that DeRosa if he's better at all. this is coming from someone who panned the DeRosa trade. while it its possible Durham would be worth the extra 5M, more than likely he won't be, and that 5M is better served someplace else. Ha. Yeah, my math skills suck before 9am. Durham's 2006 was in line with his previous 3 seasons, except for the huge power surge. Even if you don't expect that to repeat, I think Durham is as close to a lock to put up his career numbers as it gets. Derosa has no history to assume he will even come close to repeating his 2006 numbers. sorry, but 35 year old secondbasemen with consistent and repeated injury histories are about as far from locks to put up their career numbers as anybody. but let's assume he does. he's still only an 800 ops player. so let's assume DeRosa also put up his career 735 (which probably isn't fair, but for the sake of argument). is that 65 or so points worth 5M? maybe out of a left fielder or centerfielder, but considering they will play at a position where defense is much more imporant, and I hear DeRosa is very good, an I know Durham has always been average and is now slow and old and making 100+ fewer plays in a year than he did when he was a young man, I would give that a resounding no, he's not worth that 5M.

Honestly? It is very possible that Durham could be 5M better than Derosa. Durham's career #s .281/.354/.443 106 OPS+ Derosa's career #'s .273/.331/.404 90 OPS+ That's and 80 point difference in OPS for their career. Even if you think Derosa will continue to put up close to his Texas numbers, they are barely (16 points) better than Durham's average season, which Durham himself has surpassed in all but 1 of his last 8 seasons. the numbers appear correct, but the addition's a little off. that's a 62 point different in OPS. my thoughts on the matter is Durham had his swan song last year and will probably be only slightly better that DeRosa if he's better at all. this is coming from someone who panned the DeRosa trade. while it its possible Durham would be worth the extra 5M, more than likely he won't be, and that 5M is better served someplace else.

I only know of the one time he was put on irrevocable waivers. Were there others? Na, one time on irrevocable waivers. But I'm sure he's been passed through waivers every summer. And I don't think Boston would have pulled him back if anyone had claimed him. And the rumors have been they've practically begged other teams to trade for him without luck. I think the last time he was placed on waivers was when the RedSox had 70M less in payroll and Manny had 50M more left on his contract. times have changed. Manny isn't being put on waivers with only two years left on his contract and the supposed river of money in baseball right now. taking on the entire salary isn't a big enough enticement today.

that's a good question. tell me Cubs fans, if the Cubs went from 93 wins one year to 78 the next, would you call your GM stupid? Paul Byrd, Lou Merloni, Danny Graves, Steve Karsay, Einar Diaz, Jason Johnson, Dutchvalue, the Crisp trade, and the disassembly of a solid pen. are these the genius moves that put that 93 win team over the top? the grass is always greener my friends. To be fair, Cleveland was incredibly unlucky last year. Pythagororean had them at 88 wins instead of 78. That doesn't mean Hollandsworth et al were good ideas, though. Pythagoreum had the 04 Cubs at 94 wins. the Cubs fell four short in Pythagoreum last year. what was somebody saying about stupid to use one metric? how about these for a crtique on Shapiro. Saves/Holds/Blown Saves. alot of Clevelands success in 05 was their bullpen, and Shapiro either let it go or traded it away without finding suitable replacements. and the bullpen is where they lost all those games they should have one that aren't accounted for in Pythagoreum. that's purely on Shapiro. that's not a situation where you are stuck with 17M in starting pitchers and a 12M first baseman (or a 10M shortstop) who can't take the field . I'm not saying that Shapiro is stupid. my point comes back to the point you raise, fairness. Hendry's done some stupid, stupid transactions, but if people were up for being fair around here, we wouldn't hear "look how bad they were with a 100M payroll," rather we would hear more "they have 65M in roll players and none of their studs and little can be done to get out of that situation accept wait until its over." although now that its almost over, I'm more angry with the past three transactions than I have ever been.

you seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. half this thread is you areguing how poor Westbrook is. when that doesn't work for a different aregument, suddenly he's far too valuable. No, actually I'm trying to point out that people who say Westbrook is a really good pitcher and that we can get him for leftover toast seem to have really unrealistic expectations. I don't know that anybody was saying either of those things tough. maybe early on there were Westbrook advocates, but this morphed into Marquis v. Westbrook. as for the second part, Scott Eyre is the opitome of what gooney says doesn't exist, a predictably good relief pitcher, and the Indians desperately need bullpen, so he's not leftover toast to them, nor is Murton (a way overpay for Westbrook) leftover toast.

you seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. half this thread is you areguing how poor Westbrook is. when that doesn't work for a different aregument, suddenly he's far too valuable.

1. I'm pretty sure StL is more homer friendly that the Jake. 2. That's certainly why Marquis sucked this season. But he's been a sinkerball / anti-hr guy in the past. 1. according to however baseballreference does their ranking, no. they were about equal. he also gave up about as many on the road as at home. 2. 26, 29, 35 I don't want Jake Westbrook, but to say Marquis would be just as good is absurd. the guys stats vs. last year .364/.509/.873. on average, every single batter when facing Jason Marquis is about as good as the Cubs best batter. Does b-r break out their park stats by hr? I haven't seen that. is 26 really that different from the 19 that Westbrook gives up? I've fully qualified my comparison by saying that Westbrook is a better version of that ilk of pitcher. I've also said that I expect Westbrook to perform better in 2006. But let me state a theory about gb pitchers who don't strike many out -- they tend to have pretty wide variances on results due to babip fluctuations. They'll have some years where they look like world beaters (Westbrook in 2004, Pavano in 2004, etc.) and they'll have years where they look simply awful. HR profiles can also change over time. Pettitte, as an example, has had years where he allowed jaw-droppingly few HR. And then years where he makes a few more mistakes or hitters punish the mistakes a bit harder. For pitchers who allow a lot of baserunners, that's a really, really bad thing. And Westbrook allows a lot of baserunners. br just has a "favors hitter/favors pitchers" metric centered on 100. Jake is at 97, Stl at 98, both slightly favored pitchers last year. no, 26 and 19 isn't THAT different. however 53 (19,19,15) and 90 are vastly different. especially since those 53 came in about 35 more innings. I respect your theories, but don't necessarily agree (pretty much through with power pitchers that can't throw strikes), but that's not what I am discussing. nor am I arguing for Westbrook because I don't want Westbrook. but even with your qualification, you seem to be going to the farthest neather regions of baseball rationalization to state the case that Marquis is a better choice for the Cubs situation. he's not.

1. I'm pretty sure StL is more homer friendly that the Jake. 2. That's certainly why Marquis sucked this season. But he's been a sinkerball / anti-hr guy in the past. 1. according to however baseballreference does their ranking, no. they were about equal. he also gave up about as many on the road as at home. 2. 26, 29, 35 I don't want Jake Westbrook, but to say Marquis would be just as good is absurd. the guys stats vs. last year .364/.509/.873. on average, every single batter when facing Jason Marquis is about as good as the Cubs best batter.