Sammy Sofa
-
Posts
98,220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
208
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Sammy Sofa
-
http://allmyfavoriterockstarsaredead.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/nate-dogg.jpg
-
But who is saying that it is? That whole idea is that it's working off of quantifiable data, and the obvious reality is that not everything about the game falls under that umbrella. WAR is just the best effort. I guess I really just don't understand what exactly you're taking issue with; people who use it like it's perfect? Do you think it's been presented that way all along?
-
I don't think it "muddles" so much as expands on what is very much a work in progress. I mean, do we really care about its credibility with meatballs? All of those variations are just efforts to better refine what WAR can tell us, which is infinitely more valuable/important than whether or not the common whatever embraces it. I mean, wanting it to be "just WAR" seems completely ass-backwards.
-
Or it feels like a play on the "well, it's called the 'THEORY' of evolution"-argument. Just because some people act like it's set in stone doesn't negate it's value or mean that the people that use it correctly don't understand that it's not perfect. Not at all like that. The problem with war is it's attempt to quantify defense and baserunning. Hitting and pitching stats work because of what they measure, one on one matchups. Football stats don't work because of what it attempts to measure, and the same is true for defense in baseball. But everyone who should know that already knows that; WAR is used as the best metric of overall player value because that's what it is right now. It's not perfect and it's not set in stone, but it's the best available, and the caveats (especially in regards to defense) have been obvious from the get-go; it's very much an evolving thing. The article is just incredibly redundant.
-
So do you disagree with the idea that this type of criticism is applicable to plenty of other stats besides WAR?
-
Or it feels like a play on the "well, it's called the 'THEORY' of evolution"-argument. Just because some people act like it's set in stone doesn't negate it's value or mean that the people that use it correctly don't understand that it's not perfect.
-
I love you.
-
They could regress some, but they still have a lot of young talent and still have a 24 game advantage from last year over us. Well that's certainly not a thing.
-
I think that actually makes it more likely they hit the market, since they don't have a relationship with the new team, and more importantly, their relative value gets a bump because they don't have a draft pick attached. Has there been a deadline deal with a good SP in the new CBA that re-upped with that team? Garza, Dempster, and Greinke didn't, anyone else? Guys like Garza and Dempster are clearly not what this FO is willing to spend on. If someone like Greinke is out there and they can land him, hey, great, but I really only think Bailey is the only one along those lines who might end up out there. I just think he's going to be traded and he's going to cost so much (and coupled with his age) that whatever team lands him is going to go all out to re-sign him. -
Just to see where everyone stands on the Cubs sucking
Sammy Sofa replied to davell's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
See, as much as I don't want to believe this, I keep coming back to this thought over and over. I really think this is a part of it. i think they feel like if they can't go all in on spending, it's either all in or all out. Pretty much. -
Who is the Cubs #9 Prospect?
Sammy Sofa replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
Voted for Olt just because it seems like he has the best shot of this group of making an impact ASAP. -
these guys and the bad british announcing guys need to be subsidized to whatever extent required to get one or the other every friday I'm assuming it just takes [expletive] forever to put this together, because otherwise, yeah, need more.
-
So they finally did another one of those NFL bad lip reading clips:
-
I'm not terrible optimistic that the best ones are going to hit the market if they're traded.
-
Tanaka was a crucial necessity. How so? We're entirely unable to compete for __ years b/c we didn't sign him. Because the starting pitcher FA market looks like garbage for a while and the Cubs don't have a whole lot of pitching prospects to trade or rely on. They needed to get him.
-
Tanaka was a crucial necessity.
-
That's not fair.
-
Well, it doesn't have to be a new TV deal; I was talking about when YES kicked off. And the Rangers sure seemed to suddenly act like they have the money now.
-
Top of my head is that even true for anyone but the dodgers(who of course has yet to have their contract take effect)? Didn't the Angels get one like a year or two ago when they splurged on Wilson, Pujols, and Hamilton? Right you are, started in 2012 season. Rangers? Plus, obviously, the Yankees.
-
Obviously nobody's talking only about that year; they're talking about that year in terms of maybe being the culmination of a long stretch of bad baseball. Declining or stagnant attendance for years is also going to be accompanied by stank ratings, too.
-
Just to see where everyone stands on the Cubs sucking
Sammy Sofa replied to davell's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
See, as much as I don't want to believe this, I keep coming back to this thought over and over. I really think this is a part of it. I definitely think there's plenty of smoke to the idea that the owners are tied up money-wise and that the FO are dealing with financial constraints that they were not expecting when they were pitched to come here (or not expecting to last as long as they have or to this degree, etc.), so I don't buy into the idea that Theo was brought here effectively with the promise that he could play Baseball Mogul with a big league team. That said, I think with the way that things have gone that that's effectively where they've almost gone all in. That's likely mostly due to necessity, but you'd have to think there's a tempting appeal to basically be building your own team, and with the way things have gone that's basically where they are. I don't WANT to be thinking this, but again, if it was just the Ricketts [expletive] up then why have we heard literally nothing of anyone in the FO being frustrated with being sold a bad bill of goods from the Ricketts? Now my craziest thoughts have me worried that they're not going to be willing to part with some of these highly thought of prospects in trades...but that's just that: crazy. I think. -
Agreed.
-
Safe phrase to abide by. "Question Everything." and always wear pants, remember that one, too Mojo agrees Only if you're a gross dude.
-
Just to see where everyone stands on the Cubs sucking
Sammy Sofa replied to davell's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I went 73/25 Ricketts/FO. I was originally 90/10, but I can't help but think that Theo and co. aren't a little gun-shy when it comes to big money at this point (and maybe a little too enamored with the whole make your own baseball team from the ground up thing). I don't know how much of that is restrictions from the FO or feeling burned from the Boston days; probably a combination of both. Guys like Tanaka and Cespedes fit right in with what they say they're looking for, and they rumored/reported Cubs just fall too far under what they need to be spending to land guys like that, and I think if that was only because of the owners refusing to spend more you would have heard rumors of people in the FO being disgruntled or frustrated. -
That's Ginuwine, baby.
