wilk

:-s you heard him, now get lost! ... Does it say: 1. David, get lost. 2. Does that mean we lose ... David too? Does it end in a period or a question mark?

Does that mean we lose RammyFanny and David too?

I'm aware it wouldn't have worked, but wasn't that your original suggestion? Maybe you said Cedeno too... We couldn't have matched Seattle's package either. Adam Jones is a better valued prospect than Pie, the Cubs don't have any reliever with the value of Sherrill besides Marmol (C'mon, Ohman??), and don't have anyone with the ceiling/probability of Tillman though we could have matched Butler with say a Veal or even Ceda. We don't have the equivalent. Huseby unfortunately doesn't have very much value right now and though Tillman is very young and raw himself, he does. It doesn't help when Tillman is already gracing Top 50 prospect lists...

Yikes. Not even close but wouldn't that have been nice... And to couple that with your trade idea of Mark Prior for Khalil Greene, we would have been set.

Good. It's finally time for the Cubs to listen to me here.

Life would be a lot easier if Fuld was a switch hitter.

Byrd isn't bad as a 5th OF to play CF for some lefties, but 2007 Home(TEX) .356/.406/.510 2007 Away .259/.304/.410 2006 Home(WAS) .173/.289/.259 2006 Away .259/.338/.414 2005 Home(WAS) .252/.309/.358 2005 Away .283/.339/.396 ...his line for last year is a bit deceiving.

Which is actually relatively low... Since we're throwing out random names, the average PA leading off an inning for the #1 hitter per game is 1.92. The Giants were the highest with 2.09 and the Angels lowest with 1.79. But once the first 3 innings are out of the way, the odds of leading off an inning again are not really any better than any other spot and it's obviously team/lineup dependent--but I guess that's not really the point.

(I'd say) Crede being dealt and Fields getting most of the 3B at-bats is a pretty safe bet.

How about Vitters and Fukudome?

According to baseball reference, it was 287 plate appearances leading off an inning. You are right though that 139 were leading off the first inning. He started 162 games for them. 287/162 = 1.77. Again, tough to break out how many of the other 148 times he led off an inning were in games he batted somewhere other than first in the lineup. ETA: In my post earlier in the thread, I only calculated it to 153 games instead of 162 for Rollins. While he played in 162, there were only 153 games in which he led off an inning. I have 276. And he didn't start 162 games leading off so you can't use that. 276 PA leading off an inning in 139 games when he was the leadoff hitter = 1.99. As for Soriano, he was 232 PA (125 in 1st, 107 later); or 1.86.

Rollins had 276 PA leading off an inning. 139 to leadoff the 1st and 137 later in the game. So, 1.99/game (or 0.99 "extra" times).

Yeah dudes, why bring any reasonable maturity to this thread unless it's just because you have a ♥secret crush♥ on him? YOU AND PRIOR, SITTIN' IN A TREE...

Yes, I'm aware of this and understand it. I'm saying if the increase in balls in play falling for hits is not defense (since it's the same) and it is not being effected by ballpark (previously dismissed or ruled out), then what is it? If it's absolutely unattributable then why is there a clear pattern of it occurring on the road and disappearing at home? Most of them were doubles so it's not weakly hit balls slipping through the infield, it's a legit 55% line drives. According to Retrosheet, 63% of his line drives were on the road (or LD% of 17 at home and 24 on the road). It seems batters are connecting better/harder on the road (even outs) opposed to just getting luckier. So if we say he's the exact same pitcher based on everything else appearing the same then what makes the batted balls different? I don't think we can ignore that he was one of, or the most effective pitcher ("results") in the league at home and one of the worst on the road. I can be convinced of a "cause" that I may conclude is immaterial looking forward but I don't think I've seen any reasoning.

54 more hits (in 9.1 more innings) on the road; 20 of them doubles. [For the record, he had 6 more foul outs at home than away.] Is it also "random" that he gave up more than five hits 6 times at home and 16 times away? The other 3 away games were all five hit games but he had five or less hits 9 times at home. On the road, he pitched 1 less inning on average while giving up almost 2 more hits and 1 more double. What accounted for such a significant increase in hits on the road? If his defense is the same and the way parks play supposedly doesn't have any effect then what is it? What makes this blatant difference dismissible? Is it truly any more wise to assume we should ignore the splits if it must be something we can't measure like the hotel beds in places like Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Houston, Minnesota, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Tampa Bay, Texas, and Toronto? If he just threw it over the plate more, or hated travelling, or couldn't sleep or needs his guy for his fix or just missed his little kitty does this make it any less relevant? It's pretty obvious his GB, K and BB rates would stay about the same. But it's pretty "[expletive]" to say the splits are irrelevant, there's nothing to it and offer nothing to attribute the increase to nor to suggest it'd stop. Just 19 games, all on the road, that were each hit coincidentally by some unimportant arbitrary independent bad luck is better than assuming there's a pattern of cause for the effect? We're not talking about one, two, or even a handful of games to skew matters -- he was clearly less effective in 85-90% of his away games than his average home game. Boy, if only we could throw away Khalil Greene's splits because "he's the same baseball player no matter the city!"

I don't care about the number thingy either but if we HAD to give Blanton a number thingy with the Cubs it'd probably be a 4. Personally, I don't give up Pie for another essentially average pitcher. I'm starting Pie in CF unless he could be used for a major upgrade at SS.

Soriano speaks Japanese. I don't know how much Lee knows.

So Meph calls a poster's opinion "[expletive]," someone asks if he's elaborated, I give Meph's "I could but I don't want to" beaut and I'm warned for personal attacks? For quoting a facetious smart alec poster and giving my facetious opinion of the mindset? OK.

He could support it but he doesn't feel like it. A luxury you have when you fool yourself into thinking you're smarter than you are is never having to prove you're right nor accept you're wrong - and if you come out looking like an idiot you don't have to care because you're a genius and they're the idiot, Jesus! Meph takes to the Bart Simpson "I can do that but I don't wanna!" school of proof.

"Legit" doesn't mean we should take it to mean it'll happen either though. Earlier in the offseason, the hangouters' "insiders" were confident Tejada was going to be traded for Pie amongst others. Then the Roberts deal is Pie&Gallagher, then definitely Pie then Bedard is included and the O's get everybody, then it's just Brian again and for Gallagher. I don't think Pie is being traded. I believe this, my "insiders" have said this and I believe the board's "insiders" have corroborated it as well, yes? So I think it comes down to: Cubs are interested in Roberts. They think the O's would want the Cubs top 2 guys. Imagine that. Not really anything we don't know. I say with a good amount of confidence that Pie is not going anywhere. I don't really know how Hendry would feel about dealing Colvin until Pie shows he'll stick, either. On another note, would there be any reluctance to trade, or trade for, Veal right after his parent's death?

I keep opening this thread thinking, "Nah, they had to have stopped making fools of themselves by now."

Yes, that'd help our demanding of him in trade, wouldn't it? But Meph says he's available! And for Prior! So Hendry is a fat jerk! :cry:

Hint: Stop ignoring everything.

Hint: look at more than 2007. But why are you convinced Bedard's 2007 is that far off what he can put up again? I don't believe he's traded here, but especially in the NL Central? In the small sample we have, 70 innings, Bedard has a 1.93 ERA, 1.06 WHIP and 87 strikeouts against NL teams. He significantly cut his BAA because of increased strikeouts and a better defense (his BABIP dropped to .295, Hill's was .280). I think his strikeout increase was legit and while it's not going to be the same rate as 2007 - coupled with his ability to induce flyball outs, which is at least as sustainable as Hill's, and a better defense will definitely keep him in the same ballpark. He's significantly improved every year and all of it can be accounted for. He may not be that dominating but I think he'll be closer to his 2007 than his 2006 in 2008. Also to note, his fielding independent pitching was 3.15 (vs. 3.16) in 2007 and Hill's was 4.28 (vs. 3.92).

Ah, your presumptions from a Paul Sullivan article. That really trumps my point of a fan's perception and "evidence" thrown out of proportion. Find this conversation and show me how the front office is treating Prior worse than anyone else. What tells you he says this insincerely? Do you have more than one comment, which may be ignorant or mistaken, on their understanding of his physical health? Again, I don't see how this discussion can go anywhere and I'm not trying to change anyone's (made up) mind but I'm absolutely confident the front office didn't "treat him like garbage." You seem to be mushing an entire organization of people, as well as some media bias, into front office behavior and placing all the credibility of the opinion into a Paul Sullivan article and that's just not very sensible.