brfahey

Except he didn't make those points elsewhere. I asked him to, and he declined like he did in this thread. That's not accurate at all. See yesterday in this thread at about 4:55pm. If you want to criticize me try actually reading all of what I post. I've made points with you before and when I don't automatically succumb to your reasoning you have broken it off. I asked you a few months ago if the sabermetrically best teams win every year and you responded no because (and I am paraphrasing) anything can happen in a short series, which is true. I then stated that I was asking the question in the context of the regular season and I never received a reply. That's Ok. But don't tell me I am declining to make arguments. I am declining to spend precious time talking to people who have their minds made up in advance of discussing a point. There's nothing there that says anything about Pierre being better than Wilkerson. I showed you the case for Wilkerson over Pierre, then you compared Wilkerson to Burnitz. Here's the exact post: I replied afterwards with the case for Wilkerson over Burnitz, and that was the end of that particular tangent. As far as whatever discussion happened a couple months ago, the best built teams don't win because 162 games isn't long enough to overcome whatever fortune/misfortune may occur. That doesn't mean that it's an incorrect way to do it if it doesn't always work, it just gives you the best odds. Thanks for your answer.

Except he didn't make those points elsewhere. I asked him to, and he declined like he did in this thread. That's not accurate at all. See yesterday in this thread at about 4:55pm. If you want to criticize me try actually reading all of what I post. I've made points with you before and when I don't automatically succumb to your reasoning you have broken it off. I asked you a few months ago if the sabermetrically best teams win every year and you responded no because (and I am paraphrasing) anything can happen in a short series, which is true. I then stated that I was asking the question in the context of the regular season and I never received a reply. That's Ok. But don't tell me I am declining to make arguments. I am declining to spend precious time talking to people who have their minds made up in advance of discussing a point.

Two things. 1. You missed it. Beane and JP were criticized for those signings. 2. This is a Cubs board. Doesn't it make sense that more people will criticize Hendry's moves than an American League general manager's moves? Maybe I did miss it like I said but I looked. It makes sense to criticize Hendry only he deserves it. It also makes sense under your theory to assume that he would applauded more than AL or other NL GMs on this board. Why does it have to be only criticism? When people think Hendry makes a good move he gets praised a lot. Threads on the Howry/Pierre/Eyre moves don't make it to the lengths that they are if no one thinks Hendry did the right thing. Heck, there's a huge thread of praise over Macias being DFA'd, the Nomar trade thread was huge, etc. That's fair enough and true.. My comment was directed at the language at the post which stated only that we should expect more criticism of Hendry here but did not state anything about praise.

Two things. 1. You missed it. Beane and JP were criticized for those signings. 2. This is a Cubs board. Doesn't it make sense that more people will criticize Hendry's moves than an American League general manager's moves? Maybe I did miss it like I said but I looked. It makes sense to criticize Hendry only he deserves it. It also makes sense under your theory to assume that he would applauded more than AL or other NL GMs on this board. Why does it have to be only criticism?

Not taking the bait. I've made my statement. I'll quote numbers and then you'll tell me they don't mean anything and then you'll quote numbers and tell me why they prove Wilkerson is better. Blah blah blah blah. We went through this yesterday regarding Soriano and Walker when you misrepresented some numbers about their difference in OBP. Then we talked about it regarding Wilkerson and Pierre when you initially said Pierre was superior only in stolen bases and then admitted he had better numbers in other categories. It comes down to opinion, and my is as valuable as yours. And judging from your user name, maybe you don't have such a good history of evaluating players. Or in other words, I know I can't compete in this debate so I forfeit. Thanks for playing anyway. In other words, read what I wrote and then go back in the thread to yesterday where I had the discussion I mentioned in my post. It comes down to people having different takes on players. And no one is right or wrong. But some people here don't seem to accept that and try to constantly prove their point by slectively quoting numbers. It's a waste of time. Let's be honest some people here take a more metrical approach and see baseball that way. And they like players who appear valuable under that analysis and they admire GMs who think that way. Others have a more traditional approach. OK. But intolerance seems to rule the day. Hendry is skewered regularly here for good and bad reasons and for his more traditional approach. I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

Please, show me the evidence that Pierre is better than Wilkerson. Not taking the bait. I've made my statement. I'll quote numbers and then you'll tell me they don't mean anything and then you'll quote numbers and tell me why they prove Wilkerson is better. Blah blah blah blah. We went through this yesterday regarding Soriano and Walker when you misrepresented some numbers about their difference in OBP. Then we talked about it regarding Wilkerson and Pierre when you initially said Pierre was superior only in stolen bases and then admitted he had better numbers in other categories. It comes down to opinion, and my is as valuable as yours. And judging from your user name, maybe you don't have such a good history of evaluating players.

It seems sometimes that many people who post on this board think the only way to get on base is to get a walk. I swear to God if a guy hit .150 but walked much many here would be telling us he was better than Lee or Ramirez. In the recent past here, we have been inundated by less than stellar comments regarding Pierre while Brad Wilkerson has been spoken of as if he was the real answer. The Sun-Times stated this morning that that Pierre has the most hits in the majors since 2001 except for Pujols and Ichiro. I don't care what anyone says: that makes him pretty good. Wilkerson may well be a good player, but the facts are he has not produced to date at the major leaguie level the way Pierre has. There's no argument. And I don't care about their salaries. I am not paying them. It just seems sometimes that some of the posters here want to show how much they know by latching onto a guy fewer people may have heard of than others and then proclaim this guy as superior to a more well-known guy. Wilkerson/Pierre is one example, and Spriano/Walker is another. I'll take Soriano and Pierre every time over Wilkerson and Walker, and I think most people would as well. Some people seem to be obsessed with certain numbers but willfully ignore other numbers which do not support their contentions.

What part of Wilkerson's numbers are "atrocious at best"? He's superior to Pierre in every single facet of the game sans stolen bases. Is that you opinion or do the numbers (and not just your favorite categories) bear that out? Okay, aside from batting average, which isn't one of "my favorite categories", triples, and the aforementioned SB, find something that Pierre does better than Wilkerson. OBP, SLG, HR, 2B, BB, defense, you name it. Wilkerson's better. I wasn't issuing a challenge, just trying to determine if your statement was factually correct, which it apparently was not by your own admission. So W is better than Pierre because he has better OBP, SLG, HR and BB numbers. Burnitz has better HR and SLG numbers and only slightly worse OBP number than W. Is Burnitz better than W. I don't know. What do you think? And remember, a walk is only as good as a single, not all hits.

What part of Wilkerson's numbers are "atrocious at best"? He's superior to Pierre in every single facet of the game sans stolen bases. Is that you opinion or do the numbers (and not just your favorite categories) bear that out?

Boy do I agree with much of that post. Were those guys considered absolutely no-miss? If not, they are just prospects. For every one Dontrelle Wilis, there are 100 Lance Dicksons (anyone remember that name?). You know what the big leaguer will give you and you take a chance. It makes the team better without weakening it: it's a good deal.

Depends how they're used. Walker's the better 1-2 hitter. Sori the better 4-5-6 hitter. Soriano in the 4 hole? No thanks. Walker is the better hitter. Soriano would be okay in the 6 hole. But he costs 4X as much, while being nowhere near 4X the player. Please say that your argument regarding Walker and Soriano is based solely on money. Because if it isn't and you're saying that flat out Walker is a better player, you are way off. Even in the precious OPS catergory Soriano is 30 point higher over the course of their careers. All Walker does better than Soriano is walk, that's it. I won't tell you what you want to hear. Walker and Soriano are different, but overall bring a similar overall production. I prefer a guy like Walker, who has a clue at the plate and gets on base. If more power comes with less patience, I'll take less power. And the money factor is enormous. Walker + a $7.5m player is much better than just Soriano. I think that's a fair answer and it does answer my question. Thanks.

Depends how they're used. Walker's the better 1-2 hitter. Sori the better 4-5-6 hitter. Soriano in the 4 hole? No thanks. Walker is the better hitter. Soriano would be okay in the 6 hole. But he costs 4X as much, while being nowhere near 4X the player. Please say that your argument regarding Walker and Soriano is based solely on money. Because if it isn't and you're saying that flat out Walker is a better player, you are way off. Even in the precious OPS catergory Soriano is 30 point higher over the course of their careers. All Walker does better than Soriano is walk, that's it. He gets on base at a rate 50 points higher. Considering that a point of OBP is worth roughly 1.5 of SLG, I'd say that makes up for the SLG difference. Plus Soriano was garbage outside of his home hitters park. He gets on base more like 30 points higher. And if Soriano is garbage outside his home hitters park, he must really be doing some damage in that park to get his numbers where they have been.

Depends how they're used. Walker's the better 1-2 hitter. Sori the better 4-5-6 hitter. Soriano in the 4 hole? No thanks. Walker is the better hitter. Soriano would be okay in the 6 hole. But he costs 4X as much, while being nowhere near 4X the player. Please say that your argument regarding Walker and Soriano is based solely on money. Because if it isn't and you're saying that flat out Walker is a better player, you are way off. Even in the precious OPS catergory Soriano is 30 point higher over the course of their careers. All Walker does better than Soriano is walk, that's it.

The A's haven't made the playoffs in the past two years, just like another team some of us follow. I wouldn't say "just like", they won more games and did so with little more than half the payroll. I would.

The A's haven't made the playoffs in the past two years, just like another team some of us follow.

First, I'm glad you know that the only reason Walker is being shopped is becasue the Sox won with speed and defense, even though they really won with pitching. Second, there may be legitimate reasons for not liking the job Hendry has done. However, I get the feeling that the reason many on this board bash him regularly is because he may have a different approach to valuing players than do many here. In other words, there may be philospohical differences. And instead of calling it that and reasonably acknowledging that there's a chance Hendry might know what he's doing, some posters call him names. God knows none of the posters here who disagree with Hendry can be wrong in evaluating a player or mistaken in their approach. Finally, if Hendry refuses to see Walker's worth he's got a ton of company, ie all the other GMs who gave up on the guy. There's no chance none or all of those guys are right, is there? I guess not. That's why they are GMs and we are sitting around posting on a message baord playing at being a GM. Saying that something is a result of "philosophical differences" doesn't preclude the possibility of one side being wrong. The world isn't flat. People who practice faith healing die of curable diseases. Walker helps the team score runs. Your first sentence is absolutely correct. All the Hendry bashers could be wrong.

First, I'm glad you know that the only reason Walker is being shopped is becasue the Sox won with speed and defense, even though they really won with pitching. Second, there may be legitimate reasons for not liking the job Hendry has done. However, I get the feeling that the reason many on this board bash him regularly is because he may have a different approach to valuing players than do many here. In other words, there may be philospohical differences. And instead of calling it that and reasonably acknowledging that there's a chance Hendry might know what he's doing, some posters call him names. God knows none of the posters here who disagree with Hendry can be wrong in evaluating a player or mistaken in their approach. Finally, if Hendry refuses to see Walker's worth he's got a ton of company, ie all the other GMs who gave up on the guy. There's no chance none or all of those guys are right, is there? I guess not. That's why they are GMs and we are sitting around posting on a message baord playing at being a GM.

I fume every time I hear about Walker possibly/probably being traded. we have one fee agent, ONE, over the 30 years I have followed baseball that took less money because he wanted to be a Cub. and he's a fine player, and exactly what the team needs. so we send him packing. Andre Dawson. And it wasn't like Walker walked away from large opportunities. As far as I recall, only Cleveland and the Cubs expressed interest in him after 2003.

ERA by Catcher: Molina: 3.39 (111 games) Mahoney: 3.56 (21 games) Diaz: 3.76 (30 games) It doesn't look like it to me. Hey, I thought catcher's ERA was a BS stat. It sure was with some here when Barrett's defensive deficiencies were being pointed out. He said that the Cardinals pitchers struggled when Molina was hurt. CERA is the easiest way to show what the pitchers' performance was. The problem is when you take that and say that Mahoney isn't that much worse defensively than Diaz. It's one thing to use it to prove a fact(that the Cardinal pitchers didn't really struggle without Diaz), it's another to use as an evaluation of a catcher. Whatever you say.

ERA by Catcher: Molina: 3.39 (111 games) Mahoney: 3.56 (21 games) Diaz: 3.76 (30 games) It doesn't look like it to me. Hey, I thought catcher's ERA was a BS stat. It sure was with some here when Barrett's defensive deficiencies were being pointed out.

Yeah, it better be Manny. After all JVB was about the 15th guy on the staff. Manny can't be a ptbnl. Not that he ever would be, but why can't he? He's been placed on waivers, you'd think he could be a PTBNL... That was sarcasm fellas.

Yeah, it better be Manny. After all JVB was about the 15th guy on the staff.

Yeah, it better be Manny. After all JVB was about the 15th guy on the staff.

If that contract is finalized it will enter the Ed Whitson-Kenny Rogers-Jaret Wright wing of the Yankees' Free Agent Signing Hall of Shame, reserved for pitchers who never should have donned the pinstripes.

I'm sorry but this is hilarious! :lol: :lol: :lol: Agreed - brilliant post by Kess. I used to got to war with him on a daily basis, but I now I worship at his altar! :wink: :lol: Great post about the "Prospect Shrine." As much as Baker is accused of having an obsession with veterans and/or his guys, some who post here have a similar thing for these prospects. Neither approach is best; you can't just apply a single theory to the development of a real club. Some veterans are better than others as our some prospects. Placing value merely on the label is not going to get you anywhere.