scs_paradise

I would seriously rather extend an olive branch and a syringe to Sosa than have Jones. My two cents is that this is a ploy to get negotiations going.

are we still doing in before the lock?!?!!? If so I'm in!

On my drive into work this morning at 3am I was listening to ESPN radio, one of the night guys, and he was saying that Nomar is interested in playing in a utility role for a team, this was the first I heard of this. He didn't give any sources and just glossed over it as if it was a well known fact. What a fantastic signing that would be if Hendry could convince Nomar to stay in a utility role! Am I just in the dark about this one or is this a new development?

I guess it didn't need to be said twice....

Yeah as if Wrigley would actually post here....the gullibility is astounding...

First, to say wins is the best way to evaluate a pitcher is foolish and has been covered well above. Second, the standards of 20 wins and 250 career wins was set when a pitcher pitched 15 complete games per year and his success was more closely tied to the success of the team. In modern baseball where the starting pitcher is only expected to make it to the 7th inning and then turn it over to the pen unless he is having a historical night, creates a much looser correlation between a pitcher's and a team's success. Third, what is wrong with looking at the whole picture to determine the worth of a pitcher? This argument of whether I'd take a pitcher with a 20/5 season and a 4.5 era or a 10/14 pitcher with a 2.9 era is often used incorrectly. The answer to that question is I would take the TEAM that was able to produce a 20/5 season for a starter with a 4.5 era, but I would take the 2.9 era pitcher. Fourth, if Wood, who has the most interest in his own health, is not responsible for his mechanics, how can you hold anyone else responsible? I'm not blaming Wood, but some of the above posts who insinuate that Wood should not be held responsible for his mechanics at all are just plain wrong. True it got Wood to the majors but an intelligent pitcher asks himself how do I not only get to the majors but make consistent contributions to the team that is paying me to help them win. A responsible pitcher seeks out the help he needs, an irresponsible/selfish pitcher waits for someone to force change upon him. I don't know which pitcher Wood is, I don't know him.

I can't believe how much people are over valuing Felix Pie. The guy hasn't even played a year at AA and already he is the second coming. A majority of the posters on this board are clamoring for guys with high OBP, yet you want to pin all your hopes on an uber prospect whose plate discipline thus far is lacking. While Pie may end up being a great player, he is not there yet, and may never get there, while a player like Dunn is there and has been there for an extended period of time. I couldn't agree more. I've said this many times only to be hammered by the crowd on here that think we need to just keep centerfield warm for Pie. I don't think he's done anything to get very excited about. Most of me thinks his value is equivalent to the over valued hype given Bobby Hill. There is a reason they are called "prospects" and if we can get a known valuable commodity for an unproven prospect, go for it.

Just one of the many reason why wins aren't an important metric. However, they are not tottaly usless if used in the context of other variables. Why is it then that sooo many people that are around baseball all the time don't see, what is to me, a very reasonable argument against giving as much credence to the win stat? There are people around here who will say "a win is all that counts", how do you justify that statement when pitchers are so obviously less involved with the stat than other factors in the modern game?

On Mike and Mike this morning, Jayson Stark was commenting on the old view that the voters of the Cy Young use to evaluate players, which is primarily wins. His point was that wins shouldn't mean much anymore because back when the win stat was important you had pitchers pitching 18 complete games a year and it really represented the pitchers ability to beat a team. Now, with pitchers pitching 2 complete games a year and avg. 6 innings per game there are so many other factors which contribute to a win besides the starting pitcher. I know this has been discussed around here many times but I don't think I had ever heard it put like this, I found it interesting, thought you might....

by the way his career OPS is .819....so I guess you are for the move?

SLG isn't everything, despite what this site preaches. exactly, Ichiro isn't here for his slg he would be here to get on base. With an avg OBP of .377 over his career and two years ago it being .414 I would take Ichiro and give up Pie in a heart beat, if we can do it without great, but even if we can't....get it done.

Pierre was quite unlucky BABIP wise, especially for a guy with his speed. However, even at his best he's not that great, and he'll be overpriced in cash and players. Lofton, on the other hand, is the poster child for BABIP good fortune. I don't want either. is there anyone you have enough positive data for that you would want in center field???

seconded, which is possibly why I'm so wary of all the posters who want to define every offseason pickup as a function of data and stats.

your source? :P

yes there are probabilities, but that just tells you what you would expect to happen if that exact scenario happened 100 times, it does not tell you what would happen this time. stat heads would NEVER have brought up Gibson v. Eck in game 1 or Perez to hit a grand slam or Lee to have the year he did or Patterson to have the year he did etc. Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way. no, it doesn't tell you what will happen "this time." it tells you the likelihood that something will happen. a gut feeling doesn't tell you what will happen either (dusty's style of managing). no method is clairvoyant. no, stat hounds wouldn't have predicted the things you say (the odds were against them, not that they were impossible)...and no one else did either, so your point is... at least in two of those situations someone predicted something good would happen or they wouldn't have been in those situations. I'm not arguing against the use of stats as a tool, but I think in sports the correllation between past and current performance isn't as accurate as many give it credit for. Too many human variables, including variables like how hard a player will try. I do think a player tries harder when the game is on the line, (the reason closers are a hard role to fill), I think players play better for different teams, not just because of what statistical data surrounds them in the lineup but because they are where they want to be. I would submit that gut feeling plays just as large a role as statistics and it should. If not, you could hire a computer program as your next GM and forget the whole human interaction thing...and save yourself some money A computer programmer wouldn't be a good GM. A guy who can read computer generated stats would likely be a better manager than a guy who relies on gut instinct. Dusty Baker time and again last year brought in Remlinger on gut instinct (or just plain stupidity) to face left handers. The computer generated stats says "DON'T DO IT, DUSTY", yet he did it anyway. What happened when he did it? Bad things. In the last 3 years, Remlinger has a .215 BAA against right handers and a .284 BAA against lefties. Lefties have nearly as many hits, XBH's and RBI's as righties do, except in less than 2/3's of the at bats. Looks like poop, smells like poop, it's probably poop. But, Dusty tastes it anyway. Nobody would have blamed Baker for one time where he went against the stat trend because of a gut feeling and lost. but there is a saying about doing something over and over expecting a different result. But I don't see how a good mix of stats and experience is contradicting your point...

Stats aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most accurate way of determining something. If using the most accurate way of determining something makes it the end all be all, then so be it I guess. them by themselves AREN't the most accurate way, which is what I'm trying to say. Prime example is the discussion about shef. Would shef put up the numbers expected from him as a Cub? Probably not, a decision made because of gut feeling and human decision making, not stats. Stats would say absolutely trade for sheff, gut feeling would say don't.... My gut feeling says that Nomar would make a heck of a reliever with his arm motion. How in the world does your gut feeling prove you right? Especially on something that hasn't happened? how do stats prove you're right especially on something that hasn't happened? Let's not take the all or nothing approach here. Stats are a fantastic tool, so is a scout with years of experience at reading players.

but would they drop soriano? I don't think he'll be traded and I wouldn't trade for him but could you see a deal sending wood to tex for soriano, then moving walker...

Stats aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most accurate way of determining something. If using the most accurate way of determining something makes it the end all be all, then so be it I guess. them by themselves AREN't the most accurate way, which is what I'm trying to say. Prime example is the discussion about shef. Would shef put up the numbers expected from him as a Cub? Probably not, a decision made because of gut feeling and human decision making, not stats. Stats would say absolutely trade for sheff, gut feeling would say don't....

yes there are probabilities, but that just tells you what you would expect to happen if that exact scenario happened 100 times, it does not tell you what would happen this time. stat heads would NEVER have brought up Gibson v. Eck in game 1 or Perez to hit a grand slam or Lee to have the year he did or Patterson to have the year he did etc. Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way. no, it doesn't tell you what will happen "this time." it tells you the likelihood that something will happen. a gut feeling doesn't tell you what will happen either (dusty's style of managing). no method is clairvoyant. no, stat hounds wouldn't have predicted the things you say (the odds were against them, not that they were impossible)...and no one else did either, so your point is... at least in two of those situations someone predicted something good would happen or they wouldn't have been in those situations. I'm not arguing against the use of stats as a tool, but I think in sports the correllation between past and current performance isn't as accurate as many give it credit for. Too many human variables, including variables like how hard a player will try. I do think a player tries harder when the game is on the line, (the reason closers are a hard role to fill), I think players play better for different teams, not just because of what statistical data surrounds them in the lineup but because they are where they want to be. I would submit that gut feeling plays just as large a role as statistics and it should. If not, you could hire a computer program as your next GM and forget the whole human interaction thing...and save yourself some money

All of those variables are generally available (directly or historically) to the base runner in deciding whether to risk being thrown out attempting to steal a base. How he uses that information is measured by his success rate. so now you say his stats are not an indication of his ability to steal but of when to steal?

yes there are probabilities, but that just tells you what you would expect to happen if that exact scenario happened 100 times, it does not tell you what would happen this time. stat heads would NEVER have brought up Gibson v. Eck in game 1 or Perez to hit a grand slam or Lee to have the year he did or Patterson to have the year he did etc. Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

Yeah, I guess I'm a dumbass. but I believe there are too many variables in baseball and in life to use statistics the way some of you want to use statistics. some variables in getting caught stealing: pitcher, catcher, count, pitch thrown, batter, condition of the dirt, mental aspects, daily changes in the physical aspects of the stealer, person applying the tag, the throw, the ump, wind. None of these aspects are ever equal.

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense. so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense. ...just about as much effect as getting caught 23 times. you are right. everyone should have 100 sb's and never get caught. 60 sb's is just pathetic (even though it's probably more than the whole cubs team had last year). i should know better than to argue with such sound reasoning. isn't it true that while stat analysis can indicate trends it does nothing for an indiviual game. so while you can predict that a coin flipped 100 times will come up 50/50 with a standard deviation, it does not indicate what the next flip will be? If so, stats are great for looking at the totals and making it say what you want it to say but it does nothing for that one game where you need Pods to steal second, be bunted over to third and score on a sac fly? there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame. but you can't tell me from stats when those stolen bases were important and when they just thought they could get an extra base can you? so you don't really know what affect Pods speed has on wins and loses, you have numbers that you think say something, but the first thing you learn in statistics is that statistics say whatever you want them to say.

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense. so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense. ...just about as much effect as getting caught 23 times. you are right. everyone should have 100 sb's and never get caught. 60 sb's is just pathetic (even though it's probably more than the whole cubs team had last year). i should know better than to argue with such sound reasoning. isn't it true that while stat analysis can indicate trends it does nothing for an indiviual game. so while you can predict that a coin flipped 100 times will come up 50/50 with a standard deviation, it does not indicate what the next flip will be? If so, stats are great for looking at the totals and making it say what you want it to say but it does nothing for that one game where you need Pods to steal second, be bunted over to third and score on a sac fly?

I can't stand this sentiment. Pie is a prospect. Damon is a known commodity. Who says Pie will even be able to smell Damon's jock in three years? Why bet on something when you can guarantee it.... Pie looks to be .5 to 1.5 years away from being an everyday major leaguer. he's one of the top three dozen prospects in the game, according to many sources. Proven commodities are good, but Damon isn't proven to be *that* good, and Pie still could be. Maybe he won't pan out, but how do you ever find out if you always go for the "proven commodity?" And it's not like *those* ever backfire, either, by the way. Right, Free Agents Beltr*? My point is that alot of folks talk about Pie like the second coming. I'm just saying he hasn't earned anything yet. But almost every post about center field has, keep it warm for Pie or until Pie is ready, somewhere in the post. We've been down this road before and we've seen the ending...