Rob

I'm willing to acknowledge that it's certainly a possibility. Do you disagree? Tell me where I lose you: - One player could respond positively to a negative clubhouse - A team is composed of more than one player - If a team has more players who respond positively in a negative clubhouse than those who respond negatively, the net effect could be positive for that team

I could point you at a few where CubinNY bashes UZR without understanding it or davearm acts contrary and gets upset at the board calling him obtuse (showing they don't know the meaning of the word) if you'd like. There's always the movie thread, too. I understand UZR just fine. Rob, put me on ignore. but then he wouldn't be able to insult you and then run away You were acting dumb. I called you on it. You got pissed off and snapped back at me. I didn't care to embarrass myself by playing a game of dirty dozens with you. Get over it.

Prove that Derrek Lee didn't have a great year due to Milton Bradley's presence. Oh my lord. So now we've reached a point where anything at all that can't be disproven must consequently be true. Actually scratch we, and replace with you. I don't think I'd throw that blanket over anyone else here. You're confusing yourself, I think. Nobody here, even myself and SSR are making the claim that negative chemistry leads (on the whole) to positive performances. We are playing Devil's Advocate in an attempt to show that claims that negative chemistry leads to negative performances aren't a slam dunk. Here's the crux of it though, summed up as best I can. Nobody here (and likely not even the players themselves) has a [expletive] clue what effect a negative player in the clubhouse has on team performance.

I could point you at a few where CubinNY bashes UZR without understanding it or davearm acts contrary and gets upset at the board calling him obtuse (showing they don't know the meaning of the word) if you'd like. There's always the movie thread, too. I understand UZR just fine. Rob, put me on ignore. My ignore list is approximately 5-10 people long and is generally reserved for people whose stupidity is so over the top it offends me... do you really think you belong on that list?

I wish I knew Tim and a few others were going to be there. I'd have bought a couple rounds.

I could point you at a few where CubinNY bashes UZR without understanding it or davearm acts contrary and gets upset at the board calling him obtuse (showing they don't know the meaning of the word) if you'd like.

He's pretty bad. Yet he's still far, far better than Dye.

Try reading my post. The important bits at the bottom are where I say how I feel about the subject.

I didn't wish to add this to the previous post in fear that it might detract from the message of my argument, but I think as Cubs fans we may all find it relevant. Joe Tinker and Johnny Evers are two names every Cubs fan worth his salt should know. They were the HOF members of our keystone combo while the Cubs were still considered a dynasty back at the beginning of the 1900s. In mid september of 1905, the two got into a fistfight and didn't talk to each other again for more than 30 years, despite playing right next to each other for many of those years. I think we all know how the next three seasons went. 1906 - Went 116-36, setting records that still stand for the most wins in a single season (tied with the 2001 Mariners), and the highest winning percentage in baseball history. 1907 - World Champions 1908 - World Champions This isn't to make a judgment that the team performed better because of the profoundly negative chemistry. No. It's simply meant to illustrate a single point: There are much more important things to consider than chemistry when constructing a ballclub.

Because in order to prove that all clubhouses will react negatively to a negative chemistry, it must be proven that you don't have a team full of guys who thrive under the discord. As long as you admit that some will react positively, there's always a chance (and one that neither you nor I has any way of quantifying) that the full clubhouse will have enough of that type of player to get a net positive effect from negative chemistry. Only if it isn't helping the team more than hurting it. I've you've already conceded that some players perform better under those circumstances, that's the same as conceding that in all likelihood there have already been teams where that negative clubhouse translated positively on the field, and that there are likely to be teams in that same vein going forward. I think my purpose in that previous post are being confused by some. I'm not trying to say anything about chemistry except that none of us are in any position to judge what is going on. Chemistry may have helped our team, hurt our team, or made no difference whatsoever. And unfortunately, guys like Ryan Theriot who actually have to live through it are probably a little too close to the action for their opinions about the effects of chemistry to be unbiased. We don't know. And we wont know. Those pretending to have any idea are only fooling themselves.

Being a baseball player is hardly the same thing as sitting in a bland cubicle struggling to merely stay awake all day, let alone do real work. Those of you assuming your real life experience can translate to them are every bit as mistaken as those you chastise. And I make this challenge every time I hear these arguments pop up, but once more can't hurt. I'm willing to concede that one player's attitude can affect the clubhouse chemistry. I'll also concede that chemistry may affect performance. Now I'd like to hear a compelling case that negative chemistry causes all players to perform negatively. Don't forget to explain how greats like Barry Bonds, Albert Belle, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, and countless others through the years have seemed to perform at their best when everybody turns against them. I don't think I need to spell this out, but I will anyways. When faced with a negative clubhouse, some players will perform poorly, while others will rise above it. Every player is different, and so by definition is every clubhouse. It's hardly unreasonable to suggest that none of us know the personalities of our team well enough to figure how each player will respond, and to what degree.

Just sitting down for the Down on the Farm section. I've been waiting for this one since the convention started.

I'm at the convention. In one of his talks, Lou mentioned that he was hoping for soto to lose 10-15 lbs. He barely even recognized him when he saw him recently and made a comment that soto looks like a jockey now, he's so small.

40 pounds in about 3 months? Is he dying? After football season back in high school, it was pretty routine for me to crash diet back down from my playing weight and lose about 60 pounds in 3 months.

Thank god you're not our gm. Every other team in the league passes on a guy but people on this board still think hes great. :banghead: At anyrate, Dye would be great at the right price, there is a very good chance that Lee and or Soriano miss some time this year and the platoon with Fukudome would probably very productive. I would like this move I didn't say I wanted Murton and I certainly didn't say he was great. All I said was I wanted him more than Dye... Jermaine Dye has been below replacement level two of the last three seasons. If you aren't aware, replacement level is by definition those AAAA guys like Matt Murton who, by the way, only cost the league minimum. If I thought Dye would only act as Fukudome's platoon partner in RF, he might be worth it. But it's pretty obvious he'd get too much playing time and he simply isn't worth the marginal cost for a player who isn't any better than a couple dozen guys we could bring in on a minor league deal. How can a guy that OPSs over .800 be considered below replacement level? Perhaps his defense is Jake Fox-like? I can't imagine that many teams have AAAA guys just sitting around in the minors that are capable of putting up .800 OPS over the course of a season. Also, its hard to argue that Dye would be much more than a platoon partner in RF without significant injuries. That .800 OPS is slugging heavy and OBP light while being in a very good hitters ballpark. In years like 2007 and 2009, he's only very barely above average with the bat (3-5 runs). That's while he's consistently 20 runs below average in the field.

It wasn't much of a fight, more of a hit and run.

Or the steroids caused the injuries and cost him substantial playing time. Steroids helped him add a lot of bulk, but they don't do anything for tendons and ligaments. And the added strain from all that bulk certainly wasn't helping.

Grace was one of my favorite players when I was younger and didn't know that he was a douche. Now, I absolutely love hearing him tell stories for one half inning once a series against the DBacks... but I think any more than that would be pushing it.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/uzr-2008-to-2009

Rather than find myself in a pissing match with dexter of all people regarding which of us is cooler in real life, I think I'll gracefully bow out about now.

personally i'm disgusted with myself. thanks for showing me the error of my ways, rob. i'll long rue the day that i embarrassed myself on the internet. off to the bar now. i'll make sure to post from there on my iphone (don't wanna waste time talking to girls) Ha, the walking punchline makes a joke.

It's funny... in the process of a minor semantic argument where each of you tries to make yourself look smart, you're both looking dumber and dumber with every post.

Wow... that's awful. I posted this earlier in the offseason when Dye was brought up. It uses Fuld as a baseline, but everything points to Byrd being a league average defender in CF, so it stands true for him as well.

Thank god you're not our gm. Every other team in the league passes on a guy but people on this board still think hes great. :banghead: At anyrate, Dye would be great at the right price, there is a very good chance that Lee and or Soriano miss some time this year and the platoon with Fukudome would probably very productive. I would like this move I didn't say I wanted Murton and I certainly didn't say he was great. All I said was I wanted him more than Dye... Jermaine Dye has been below replacement level two of the last three seasons. If you aren't aware, replacement level is by definition those AAAA guys like Matt Murton who, by the way, only cost the league minimum. If I thought Dye would only act as Fukudome's platoon partner in RF, he might be worth it. But it's pretty obvious he'd get too much playing time and he simply isn't worth the marginal cost for a player who isn't any better than a couple dozen guys we could bring in on a minor league deal.

Actually, I'd still rather have Murton. Dye may be slightly better versus lefties, but he's much worse defensively, on the basepaths, likely more expensive and is much older and so carries a lot higher risk of decline.