RynoRules

I have no problem trading Murton, I do have a problem lumping him into a garbage in garbage out transaction. I get what you are saying, but the reason I asked about Laird is that I don't I know much about his background. He could just be unhappy in TX for all I know, sort of like Barrett was in Montreal before he we got him.

Is Laird just underperforming? Was he highly regarded when he was in oakland's system? Eyre and Murton for Laird and Wilson? I know many of you will consider it sac-relig to trade Murt, but its sort of a garbage-in, garbage-out scenario.

:D

That's a stellar idea. Soriano Church Lee Ramirez Hermida DeRosa Theriot/Cedeno Kendall(ideally Soto) I'd swap Church and Hermida, but yeah. I love the idea of acquiring Hermida; is there any chance he's actually available? For Pie? Absolutely. However, I'd be reluctant to swap those two. If Hendry gives up Pie, I'd prefer it be for established producers. Can Hermida be described as an established producer yet? I'd say no, but he is certainly trending in the correct direction.

OK, if it's Pie for Salty that's a different story.

Jon Heyman in SI said Pie for Laird. I'm fine with trading Pie, but you better be damn sure you're getting a difference maker and not some replacement level player who does nothing special. Oh G-d that would be horrendous.

I was just coming to post this quote... The article is a "Rumor mill" article. This was a blurb that was all on it's own. No other context to be had. Can someone email him? You'd think that with something as important as that (relatively speaking) he'd do more than just hit-n'-run. And, FWIW, Levine is saying Pie will not be traded.

"I haven't heard a deal that makes sense" OK, so who have you heard about, Will? Oh, and can you expound on the context of that article?

Didn't see this anywhere else. Boston Globe says that Dye to Red Sox for Wily Mo Pena and at least one minor league picther could be close. EDIT: Changed title to reflect actual quote from source. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2007/07/dye_chances_pre.html

I don't agree. Our pitching could carry us through at least one round and perhaps to the WS depending on who we see in the NLCS. Playoffs is different from reg season. We need the extra bat mostly to win this diuvision, IMO.

I would love to see him be our starting CF. Yup.

Schniekies!

Are people really saying this? I haven't noticed people saying this Cubs team is just lucky. To be honest I can't quantify it (pun intended), but I have seen it in several places on this bd.

That's definitely true. All you can really do is build a team that makes the playoffs. And all you can do to build a team that makes the playoffs is have a team that scores more and gives up less than most of the rest of the league. I would say it's possible to build a team that could and should win 90+ games, without relying on luck. And that is what GMs should be striving for. Give yourself the best possible chance, so that, if you are a team that "should" win 98, but if you hit some bad luck you can still win 90-92 and have a chance to make it. That's exactly where I was headed.

I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way. Luck is just a different way of saying variance. Players who hit .250 don't go 1 for 4 every day, and pitchers with a 4.50 ERA don't give up 3 ER over 6 IP every start. In the same way(or, "as a result" works better I guess), .500 teams don't alternate win-loss-win-loss all year. A different way to say it without using "luck", is that they "played to their potential". People say luck because the close games that make and break teams' records have a LOT of variance. well put, moddy. luck is a much bigger part of baseball than team chemistry and possibly even skill. "variance" is a good way to look at it. some people may not want to face it, but baseball is one of those games that is significantly effected by circumstances completely out of a player's control. which is why a long season is necessary. That pretty much answers the questions I posed above, and I happen to agree. There is a great degree of luck / variance involved in baseball as a whole. I get annoyed when I read comments stating that the 07' Cubs are "just lucky". Well hell, you could say that about a lot of winning teams.

I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way. Luck is just a different way of saying variance. Players who hit .250 don't go 1 for 4 every day, and pitchers with a 4.50 ERA don't give up 3 ER over 6 IP every start. In the same way(or, "as a result" works better I guess), .500 teams don't alternate win-loss-win-loss all year. A different way to say it without using "luck", is that they "played to their potential". People say luck because the close games that make and break teams' records have a LOT of variance. I am not sure that is what everyone means when they use the term, but I'll play along. Assuming you are correct, do we have a way of quantifying or predicting this variance? What about for middle relievrs, which is the topic the hand? Also, would you be willing to concede that baseball in general is to a great extent influenced by this "variance", or do you think certain teams get "luckier" than others? And if it is the case that some get luckier, isn't it true that there is only so much you can do to build a team that wins the WS?

Crap. Well, if it does happen at least he isn't going to the Brew Crew or another NL contender. BTW, reds, thanks for the qualifier in the thread title. :wink:

TT wrote: I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way.

Hmm, I didnt get the memo that James, Tango and others decided to retire. I was under the impression that they were still out there working on trying to explain this stuff and dig deeper. They are, and that's a good thing for the reasons I stated above. I think what Peoria meant to say is that there is more work to be done, though his message could have been stated in a less visceral way.

HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY Now go get Griffey!

I know, you are attributing it to luck. hitting got worse. starting pitching got worse. pen got better. must be luck. (shhh, don't tell anyone that while the hitting and pitching got worse, the pythag record got better too). it's the worst thing about the stats movement. five years ago they determined 'these are the only explanations worth anything' and everything since has been about defending those methodologies and ridiculing any other explanations or any criticque. zero attempt to look for better ways to explain things that were previously unexplained, just call it luck. Bill James himself says maybe the clutch argument is wrong, he's scoffed at. I think it was DM posts an article saying that maybe pitchers do have something to do with the outcome of a batted ball, they are ridiculed. don't dare try to explain previously unexplained phenomena, because it might put a chink in the new dogmatic armor. I am not saying stats are not valuable. I am saying give me better stats to explain the things that haven't been explained, and don't ignore the stats just because they are counter to your argument. quit throwing your hands up in the air and declaring it luck. Well said. Statistical methedoligies are getting better and better, but even James would acknowledge they can't account for everything yet. For example, could there be a way to measure this "thing" we call "luck"? Maybe. Could there be a way to illustarte that it does not exist? I dunno, but I do know that it has become a fall-back when we can't explain something. The playoffs are another good example. Near as I can tell the prevailing wisdom is that the playoffs are a complete crapshoot. But maybe we just haven't figured out a way to identify the common denominators between good playoff teams.

Holy cow, you are the King of Hyperbole lately. I think the reason it doesn't seem like the Brewers are choking is that they do not have much credibility or history of winning. If the Yanks had been up 8 games and lost the lead it would be a choke. Same for the Red Sox, Braves, Mets, etc. But when the Brewers do it they are just regressing back to where they should be (at least that is the perception). but it was an 8 game lead in june. teams make up that kind of deficit all the time, i would guess. and sorry i said everyone. i should have counted how many people said it and rephrased what i said as "don't know why 47 people out of 68 are making this out to be about the brewers choking it away." I dunno about that. Anyone know where we can find out? i mean, they made up 8 games in 32 games or something. that's not that like end of the world remarkable or anything. Again, its difficult to respond to hyperbole. No, its not "end of the world remarkable"; curing famine would be "end of the world remarkable." Making up 8 games in 32, however, is a pretty big swing in the baseball universe. That's only 4 less than Seattle made up in about the same period of time to catch the Angels in 95', an all-time record iirc. BTW, anyone recall who managed that Mariners squad?

They still freak me out, notwithstanding TT's post.

Dunn looked pretty bad at the plate this weekend, but so did Soriano one or twice. I'd love to have him.... ...but I'd rather have Griffey.

Holy cow, you are the King of Hyperbole lately. I think the reason it doesn't seem like the Brewers are choking is that they do not have much credibility or history of winning. If the Yanks had been up 8 games and lost the lead it would be a choke. Same for the Red Sox, Braves, Mets, etc. But when the Brewers do it they are just regressing back to where they should be (at least that is the perception). but it was an 8 game lead in june. teams make up that kind of deficit all the time, i would guess. and sorry i said everyone. i should have counted how many people said it and rephrased what i said as "don't know why 47 people out of 68 are making this out to be about the brewers choking it away." I dunno about that. Anyone know where we can find out?