Diffusion

Almost ironic given that you're the one that doesn't appear to know what a fact is. After all, you're the one that for about two pages insisted that Prior having gone on the DL in previous years meant it was a fact that he would do likewise in future years. But, like I said, almost. Because for it to be actually ironic you don't have any facts on your side. And you don't. He's been hurt 5 out of 5 seasons and his numbers in his last two years are far worse than his numbers in his first two years. He hasn't played this year yet. Those are facts. And in what way are those facts factually pertinent to discussion as to whether or not Prior will go on the DL next year? They're not. Correct, and the reason is that wasn't the discussion. Erm, it wasn't? We were talking about whether Prior would go on the DL next year, and you said you were the one with the facts on your side. Just how short term is your memory? Why don't you quit while you're behind. Each post you make only makes things look worse for you. And the worst part is, I'm the only one with facts on my side. Actually, we were talking about how Prior gets hurt all of the time and that causes bad players to play in his place. I reiterated that we should have traded Prior before and that we would have been better off if we had. At this point, you singled out something I said and started an argument over semantics. I'm sorry, but what? That was about three pages back. I am absolutely clearly not talking about that. I even quoted the bit I was talking about to be absolutely clear on that. Perhaps my quote though wasn't comprehensive enough. Let's try this again, and actually read it this time... Erm, the most basic rules of probability? No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability. There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year. But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous. Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong. You can't be serious. When something keeps happening, it's a trend. Until the trend ends, it's most likely to continue. I never friggin' guaranteed anything. Stop letting your bias toward Prior because you like him as a pitcher or he signed an autograph or had a great 03 get in the way of your view of reality. Until he goes a whole year without going on the DL, we should expect him to. It's not absolute, but until something different happens, it's very likely to happen. Why don't you quit while you're behind. Each post you make only makes things look worse for you. And the worst part is, I'm the only one with facts on my side.

Almost ironic given that you're the one that doesn't appear to know what a fact is. After all, you're the one that for about two pages insisted that Prior having gone on the DL in previous years meant it was a fact that he would do likewise in future years. But, like I said, almost. Because for it to be actually ironic you don't have any facts on your side. And you don't. He's been hurt 5 out of 5 seasons and his numbers in his last two years are far worse than his numbers in his first two years. He hasn't played this year yet. Those are facts. And in what way are those facts factually pertinent to discussion as to whether or not Prior will go on the DL next year? They're not. Correct, and the reason is that wasn't the discussion. Erm, it wasn't? We were talking about whether Prior would go on the DL next year, and you said you were the one with the facts on your side. Just how short term is your memory? Why don't you quit while you're behind. Each post you make only makes things look worse for you. And the worst part is, I'm the only one with facts on my side.

Almost ironic given that you're the one that doesn't appear to know what a fact is. After all, you're the one that for about two pages insisted that Prior having gone on the DL in previous years meant it was a fact that he would do likewise in future years. But, like I said, almost. Because for it to be actually ironic you don't have any facts on your side. And you don't. He's been hurt 5 out of 5 seasons and his numbers in his last two years are far worse than his numbers in his first two years. He hasn't played this year yet. Those are facts. And in what way are those facts factually pertinent to discussion as to whether or not Prior will go on the DL next year? They're not.

There's no such thing as an "option clock". You're confusing two different things. That a player typically has three option years after he is added to the 40-man roster, which the team can use at their discretion. And that a player has a major league service time clock that counts the days that he is on the 25-man roster.

Almost ironic given that you're the one that doesn't appear to know what a fact is. After all, you're the one that for about two pages insisted that Prior having gone on the DL in previous years meant it was a fact that he would do likewise in future years. But, like I said, almost. Because for it to be actually ironic you don't have any facts on your side. And you don't.

Yes, obviously it's all the fault of the baseball gods. It couldn't possibly be anything else, like, I dunno, the Cubs. At least they actually exist. Well then there's what might, entirely hypothetically, happen if we'd gone out and got better Prior replacements. But that doesn't mean we needed to trade Prior to do that. There are 25 spots on a roster, and Prior's only tying up $3.65m, hardly a limiting amount. Right, so it's not absolute at all. Took a while to get there, didn't it, but frigging finally you spat it out. Not absolute. NOT ABSOLUTE. And, for the record, you absolutely "friggin' guaranteed" it. A probability of 100% means something's guaranteed. My bias towards Prior? Sorry, what? Come again? Views of reality? Look, you learn some basic literacy and numeracy, and maybe we'll be able to hold a proper discussion and establish just where the probability of Prior getting injured in future lies. Now that we've at long last established it's not 100% and all.

They are 1-14. However, 6 of the 15 games were decided by three runs or less, including 5 of the losses. There's still no doubting that a better offence could easily have helped change the course of some of those games.

Erm, the most basic rules of probability? No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability. There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year. But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous. Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time. I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever. Oh, you never said that? That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit. My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read. Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting. So you've just gone from denying that you even said it to admitting you said it and standing by it in the space of about two minutes? That's a really nice turnaround. Meanwhile, see if you can do a similar turnaround on some proper definitions of "fact" and so on, maybe "injury prone" too. I'm not denying that I said the current probability of Prior going on the DL in a given year is 100% because I did and it is. I am denying saying that when something happens 5 times in a row, it will happen forever or that Prior will get hurt in every season he plays in. Show me the quotes where I said that. Don't try and be semantic. You said it, and I'm twisting nothing. Let's make the given year 2007. 100% probability of Prior going on the DL. Let's do that again, only with the given year as 2008. Same probability. Given year is now 2009. 100%. 2010. Guaranteed. 2011... If you're going to write something, and then stand by it, at least try and be aware of what is that you wrote in the first place.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time. I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever. Oh, you never said that? That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit. My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read. Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting. So you've just gone from denying that you even said it to admitting you said it and standing by it in the space of about two minutes? That's a really nice turnaround. Meanwhile, see if you can do a similar turnaround on some proper definitions of "fact" and so on, maybe "injury prone" too.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time. I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever. Oh, you never said that? That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit. My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time. Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade. And that's the easiest thing in the world to say -- I don't use hindsight and I never will. But it's pretty clear from what you've said earlier in this thread that you do, for there's absolutely no way you could possibly in 2004 have reasonably concluded that Mark Prior would get injured every year. There's not even grounds for concluding that now, even with the benefit of the last two years. So even if it wasn't you yourself, your type, the type that after the fact sees everything as having been inevitable and therefore completely avoidable if only someone had done this, or that, would be completely up in arms about Hendry stupidly trading away Mark Prior. I absolutely 100% guarantee that.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. Your argument is ridiculously illogical. So let's go over the nature of the other injuries, then. 2002, hamstring strain 2004, inflamed Achilles tendon/elbow equivalent of shin splits 2005, minor irritation of ulnar nerve in elbow 2006, strained muscle in his shoulder The hamstring and Achilles problems were one-offs, there shouldn't be any long-term worries there. The shin splints thing is a long-term concern, but it won't ever require surgery or anything like that, and it hasn't since come back. The ulnar nerve irritation is potentially worrisome, but it was a minor case, and Prior got over it quickly and hasn't suffered any setbacks since. The strained muscle in his shoulder should be okay long-term. There is nothing there that really points to Prior suffering any serious injury problems down the line. Yes, his injury history is slightly chequered, but he's a pitcher, and the vast majority of them run into injuries at one point or another. So you admit you're just guessing as to what may or may not be wrong with Prior. You don't really know, so you've just made a bunch of assumptions. Maybe he'll get hurt. Maybe it's not his fault. Hendry trades Prior away, and your assumptions are wrong, and, guess what, you've just traded away one of the best pitchers in the game, and you haven't got fair value for him (because that's just about impossible to do when you've talking about one of the most valuable players in the game). You'd be the first to be calling for his head. The logical person, when presented with what you know, or rather, what you don't know and are just assuming, would simply minimise their losses. And the most effective way of doing that would be to not give up Prior's upside and trade him, which in itself represents a potentially enormous loss, because you just can't replace players of Prior's talent. It would be to make sure that the next guy you have in line should anything happen to Mark Prior is not Glendon Rusch, but rather someone that can actually pitch. That is the problem here, not Mark Prior. Well there's your problem then, and not Mark Prior. I repeat, well there's your problem then, and not Mark Prior. No it doesn't. It has to do with if/when Prior gets hurt, the Cubs don't have anyone better than Glendon Rusch to fill in for him.

I'm sorry, what? It escapes me how colliding with a baserunner, or being hit by a line drive while on the pitching mound, how any of this contributes to one of your "injury prone" tags. What do you suggest, that Mark Prior should have been born capable of dodging 120mph projectiles while simultaneously finishing off his pitching delivery? That he should have sprayed more Marcus Giles-repellent on him that morning? So what's that got to do with Mark Prior then? Is that Mark Prior's fault too? Is Mark Prior responsible for front office incompetence? So trading him would, with one fell swoop, have cured the front office of an inability to see beyond the end of their nose? And, lo and behold, a really really good pitcher incapable of ever getting injured would somehow have been conjured out of thin air, been inserted into the rotation, and gone on to ensure that Glendon Rusch, Jerome Williams, Rich Hill and Angel Guzman at no stage were ever allowed within 150 miles of Wrigley? It hasn't. So far you haven't even established what the "all of this" refers to, if anything substantial at all. See above. So either you have X-ray vision into the future, or it's hindsight. Hey, if you want to tell me how Mark Prior's rehab start tonight goes around about, say, now, go right ahead. Or at least come up with a much more well grounded and uncontentious version of events as to what exactly the deal with Mark Prior actually is. Where's the flaw? The flaw is that when a player gets injured, the unavoidable default setting is not necessarily "insert bad player". Maybe, if that's even true, that has more to do with the organisation than it does Mark Prior.

So get back to me when you've perfected that formula that predicts exactly who will be able to play and when, which days they'll miss, which they won't, and so on. Until then, really, just how useful is that kind of a statement? It's a tautology. Yes, I'm sure if anyone has an intimate knowledge of every single ache, pain, niggle, injury that Mark Prior has, and exactly how long they'll keep him out for, it's Pinktermite. Maybe because pitchers with a combination of major league ready stuff and control, capable of making a completely seemless transition from the minor leagues to the majors, just can't be summoned at the click of a finger? This is a new theory of mine that I've been working on lately. Rotting? Felix Pie has the grand total of 440 plate appearances above A-ball. Buck Coats, meh.

That's quite a theory you've got there. Problematically just about everything about it is flawed. It assumes an easy definition of injury prone, whereas none such exists. The very fact that you have no idea, and never will, as to the facts behind Prior's injury is exactly the problem. If it was that easy to categorise a player as such and such an injury risk, then valuation would be significantly easier. As a result, the relevance of the theory is extremely limited, working on stupidly hypothetical levels. Or not working, as the case may be. Because the only thing that "forces" bad players to play when someone's injured is bad players being adjudged the next most viable option. But there is no default setting there, and if it just so happens that the next most viable option is a bad player, that is very much at best an indirect consequence, if anything at all. In Mark Prior's case, it's nearer the if anything at all, seeing as Prior's earning a meagre $3.65m and taking up just one roster spot, so his effect on the team's resources isn't anywhere near great enough to justify not having a next most viable option no better than a "bad player". When there was a half price sale on logic, did you miss out? One of the best pitchers in all of baseball gets injured. So you, with your perfect hindsight, think the best option would have been to have traded one of the best pitchers in all of baseball, as opposed to simply somehow avoiding having a bunch of crappy pitchers lined up to replace him in case anything happened to him?

Huh? In what way is Prior responsible for his injury?

Mike Wuertz 14.2 IP, 11 H, 0 HR, 5 BB, 19 K, 1.23 ERA Get this guy in Chicago where he belongs, for crying out loud.

Marmol watch... 48.1 IP, 34 H, 0 HR, 21 BB, 56 K, 2.42 ERA in 9 GS

Automatic double. Grrrr..

Let's wait and see how he pitches first. The loss of velocity is a concern. Slow. Gun.

Carlos Marmol's numbers on the year now... 42.1 IP, 33 H, 0 HR, 19 BB, 50 K, 2.55 ERA Strength to strength. Absolute dominance, more so than at any point in his career before really, but the walks are still an issue. If anyone's seen him lately, how's his changeup looking?

The upgrade is Hairston/Perez to Tejada with Walker still in the lineup until Lee would return. Who would you rather have, Miguel Tejada or Neifi? Who would you rather have, Miguel Tejada or JHJ? I don't know what you're getting at here. For the next month or so until Lee returns, yes, you're upgrading from Cedeno to Tejada at short, and from Perez/Hairston to Cedeno at second base. But thereafter you're upgrading from Cedeno to Tejada at short and making one of Cedeno and Walker expendable. And losing Sean Marshall. The marginal benefit of all that is significantly less than replacing Jones or Pierre in the outfield with a player equivalent to Tejada. I've already said that if you can effectively get Tejada for Marshall you have to do it, regardless of need, but we'd be significantly better off if we then turned around and flipped Tejada for an elite outfielder. That's all.

How about Williams, Aardsma, and Marshall for LaTroy and Tejada? Ronny Cedeno is not the problem with this team right now. But if you can get Tejada for Marshall, kind of, I guess you've got to do it. And then trade Tejada for Manny Ramirez or something. Marshall has exceeded my expectations and then some, but I'd do that deal any day of the week. Ronny would also not be the problem with this team if he was playing 2nd. And then Lee comes back and you put Walker where? He can fill in anywhere (RF, 2B, 1B), but he'd likely end up on the bench. For a chance to improve this offense with Tejada and Lee, I'd lose Walker in a hurry. The upgrade from Cedeno to Tejada isn't enough to justify losing Walker in a hurry, not with the state of our offence. And not if we're also losing Marshall, who I think is all too comparable to Mark Mulder.

Then you just have to do that. And put Cabrera in right field. But I think you're wrong, that wouldn't get their attention at all.