ConstableRabbit

Hey Vance, don't worry about Elinore. Look on the bright side: you will live to see next year! There might be other chances!

I really think you are way off here. I don't think even the biggest stats advocate would ever say that scouting is largely obsolete. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that. Ever. Correct. Moneyball was about how scouting can be overvalued. The example given was Billy Beane, the player. A physical specimen who was supposed to have five tools was outplayed by the less-attractive but better overall player, Lenny Dykstra. Moneyball painted old-school scouts, and traditional scouting methods, as the dinosaurs of baseball. I don't think I'm overstating things here with regard to how Moneyball has changed the way many folks view scouting. That's because old-school scouting IS outdated! Old-school scouting ignores stats in favor of a few in-the-flesh looks. Successful scouting takes statistics into account as well. Believe it or not, there WERE stats that indicated that Kendall could return to a productive player...

I really think you are way off here. I don't think even the biggest stats advocate would ever say that scouting is largely obsolete. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that. Ever. Correct. Moneyball was about how scouting can be overvalued. The example given was Billy Beane, the player. A physical specimen who was supposed to have five tools was outplayed by the less-attractive but better overall player, Lenny Dykstra.

I on the other hand, am anxious as hell and can't get any work done!

He was supposed to be on ESPN 1000 this morning... anyone hear him?

I think it depends on what the follow-up question was... it could've been out of line -- rotoworld didn't mention what it was

It might be this guy, no?? http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/Hornkohl/038.jpg Santa stays at the Hilton? :D

So that was you who said that over a career, a player's avg with RISP tends towards his overall average? Yes. Did I sound like a moron? :lol: I was trying to get everything in without stopping so they couldn't cut me off

For the record, I really wanted this to be about sports radio as there are already countless other threads about Murton where the exact same arguments come up.

Yeah, exactly. When we were out of the race!

When I worked for an extremely high-powered lawyer last summer, we used to get ridiculous (and extremely creepy) letters like that one going on long rants with tangents that made absolutely no sense. Conspiracy theories like that one, but they would always result in gibberish, asking him for help. We obviously threw them away immediately, but it made me glad I wasn't opening the mail!

Called in on my way to work and got through for the first time ever. Silverman was hating on Murton, saying the usual runners in scoring position garbage and comparing him to Cedeno, saying neither should ever play. So I made the usual arguments (sample size, needs to play every day etc) and the second I take a breath, they cut me off. Waddle goes on about how he likes Murton and Silvy says he's a guy who argues with other players and coaches and was only good last year "when it didn't matter." Just made me wonder... are they really that dumb, or do they know that acting that dumb makes the show more interesting to more people?

Yeah, I'm 34000+ Hope my grandkids enjoy them. When did you sign up? Was there a huge increase somewhere?

How is living together before marriage "the old fashioned way"? How did you completely miss the sarcasm? Because I'm at work and trying to quickly read nsbb between writing invoices! :lol: :oops: But seriously -- you never know these days! :D

How is living together before marriage "the old fashioned way"?

So, yes. That's one person that used the term "dynasty" towards the Cubs. He was immediately reprimanded. The second quote above -- while perhaps still too sunny -- disagreed with the term "dynasty." You picked out one overly optimistic fan and then portrayed the entire thread as being so. This team should be in contention in the NL Central for the next couple/few seasons -- and even the resident Brewer fan, the one team that could distance itself, agreed. I agree too but, being in contention in the division and being in World Series contention are two completely different things. To me the general tone of the thread is overly optimistic. The Cubs are a medicore team and I see nothing on the horizon that suggests otherwise. I agree, contending in the NL Central isn't terribly impressive. I think the immediate future holds more seasons like this. Now, if they could add another big bat* -- which is doubtful as they are likely near maxed-out payroll wise -- that could change. Otherwise, I agree with you. *Edit: Another starter may be needed, too. Is there really that much of a difference between being in contention for the division every year and in contention for the world series? Maybe in Las Vegas standards, but I don't think that there is. (Note: I'm not saying it should be our goal to settle for "contending within the division") If we make it to the playoffs, with the crapshoot that it is, we're automatically in World Series contention. Take the Cardinals, for example, who have gone to the playoffs 5 out of the last 6 years. They've won 2 pennants in that stretch. When they won 105 games (2004) they were swept in the WS. Last year, they won 83 games and took the series in 5. Once you're in the playoffs, you need to win 2 consecutive series, and you're already in the World Series. For the next few years, I think this team has what it takes to get to the playoffs -- from there, we'll have to see what happens. Who cares if our division is the worst in the league? I'll agree that the playoffs are a crap-shoot, and, by that definition, maybe the Cubs are contender. Perhaps instead of "World Series contender" we should talk of "consistent 90+ win team." That's a much better barometer of yearly success than contending by squeaking into the playoffs with 83-86 wins. That's fair. I'm not opposed to creating the best team possible obviously, and I don't think we're a great team by ANY standards, but if we could win a world series, I'd be willing to forget about that for a little while :D

So, yes. That's one person that used the term "dynasty" towards the Cubs. He was immediately reprimanded. The second quote above -- while perhaps still too sunny -- disagreed with the term "dynasty." You picked out one overly optimistic fan and then portrayed the entire thread as being so. This team should be in contention in the NL Central for the next couple/few seasons -- and even the resident Brewer fan, the one team that could distance itself, agreed. I agree too but, being in contention in the division and being in World Series contention are two completely different things. To me the general tone of the thread is overly optimistic. The Cubs are a medicore team and I see nothing on the horizon that suggests otherwise. I agree, contending in the NL Central isn't terribly impressive. I think the immediate future holds more seasons like this. Now, if they could add another big bat* -- which is doubtful as they are likely near maxed-out payroll wise -- that could change. Otherwise, I agree with you. *Edit: Another starter may be needed, too. Is there really that much of a difference between being in contention for the division every year and in contention for the world series? Maybe in Las Vegas standards, but I don't think that there is. (Note: I'm not saying it should be our goal to settle for "contending within the division") If we make it to the playoffs, with the crapshoot that it is, we're automatically in World Series contention. Take the Cardinals, for example, who have gone to the playoffs 5 out of the last 6 years. They've won 2 pennants in that stretch. When they won 105 games (2004) they were swept in the WS. Last year, they won 83 games and took the series in 5. Once you're in the playoffs, you need to win 2 consecutive series, and you're already in the World Series. For the next few years, I think this team has what it takes to get to the playoffs -- from there, we'll have to see what happens. Who cares if our division is the worst in the league?

Are you trying to say that Blanco isn't an experienced catcher? Because Blanco exactly fills the role of your faux quote. How does it not make sense? Ah, I guess that was confusing. I was trying to say that playing Soto over Kendall full-time would be a "risk", but when you're playing Blanco instead of Soto, it's really not a risk at all. He'd do at least as well as Blanco would and maybe better. I was saying that I could understand the Cubs not wanting to play Soto in a tight race over a good hitting catcher -- the justification on their part being 'the risk of him not performing and potentially costing us a valuable game would not be worth the potential benefit of his development.' That would make some sense. However, if they're going to replace him with BLanco, they might as well give him a few starts with the big-league club -- he won't cost us any more games than Blanco (theres a good chance he could be better than Henry) and he'd get a chance to develop as well.

who knows, maybe he could put together another month like June '06 (.365/.382/.673/1.055, with 3 HRs) :D Oh man would I love to eat that crow!

Still 6930 and waiting... Would I get them by 60?

If the Cubs came out and said "well, we really are in a close race and don't want to risk playing an inexperienced catcher at this time in the season" I'd understand, but we're putting in Henry Blanco to fill that role... it just doesn't make sense. Hopefully Hank tears it up! :roll:

Where is the World Series of Poker? It's not a freaking sport! I'd rather watch Sportscenter reruns... (But I voted for the Yankees)

Yeah, I mean if you're 100% sure she'll say yes and are huge baseball fans, it could be a nice thing, but it puts a lot of pressure on the proposee. No one wants to say no and get booed (or at least sighed at) or embarrass the guy they're seeing

[obligatory Northwestern post]

I looked at a radar and it looked decent... of course I'm no expert :wink: I have tickets for today... does anyone know the protocol as to what happens if it's PPD before the 5th? Would I get a ticket for another game, or do they not do that