RichHillIsABeast

Your opinion has my curiosity piqued. I would truly be grateful if you expounded upon it so as to further enlighten me. Only when an observation has been repeatedly validated can it be considered a fact. Even then I'd stick an asterisk by it. You also need compitent data takers, which is not a given in a "stat" for it to become a "fact." A stat is very close to becoming a fact, but I don't think you can make that leap in confidence. It's a minor point, but since this thread has run amok, I thought I'd throw that in there. I don't have a problem with stats. They're wonderful things, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from your data. I understand where you are coming from in this split hair, but I would strongly disagree with you on the following basis: The question is not whether Soriano hit a home run on any given day. The question is whether or not the governing body in question gave him credit for hitting a home run. The first question may be challenged on your basis above. The second cannot be reasonably questioned as it is documented and reported through many, many independent sources. The accumulation of baseball events is all done on this basis and therefore baseball statistics are actual facts. You are saying that in one case, the data is true and therefore the stat must be a fact. You are reasoning from the specific to the general, but that is not a valid argument. The confidence level in HR data taking has nothing to do with defensive data confidence or any other baseball data confidence. I believe Tantotiger even said (in your chat forums) that defensive stats are arguably not better than the scout's judgement b/c they are both involve human subjectivity. Obviously that data and the resulting stats are not facts as they can differ depending on who is taking them. It's also another thing to say that a certain stat is a "fact" and then to draw conclusions from it. Those conclusions may or may not be true depending on how you use facts to justify an argument. ^^^ Yes, I know it's PHIL 101 junk. :lol: Your argument would hold more true if anyone were debating defensive stats. However, the accumulation of individual offensive events in baseball is very well documented, widely witnessed and therefore can be regarded as proven fact. So there. :P No. You can have a high confidence level in the data that approaches that of a fact. SO THERE!! :lol: Anyone see that pic of the cat with two dog heads growing out of its neck?

Your opinion has my curiosity piqued. I would truly be grateful if you expounded upon it so as to further enlighten me. Only when an observation has been repeatedly validated can it be considered a fact. Even then I'd stick an asterisk by it. You also need compitent data takers, which is not a given in a "stat" for it to become a "fact." A stat is very close to becoming a fact, but I don't think you can make that leap in confidence. It's a minor point, but since this thread has run amok, I thought I'd throw that in there. I don't have a problem with stats. They're wonderful things, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from your data. I understand where you are coming from in this split hair, but I would strongly disagree with you on the following basis: The question is not whether Soriano hit a home run on any given day. The question is whether or not the governing body in question gave him credit for hitting a home run. The first question may be challenged on your basis above. The second cannot be reasonably questioned as it is documented and reported through many, many independent sources. The accumulation of baseball events is all done on this basis and therefore baseball statistics are actual facts. You are saying that in one case, the data is true and therefore the stat must be a fact. You are reasoning from the specific to the general, but that is not a valid argument. The confidence level in HR data taking has nothing to do with defensive data confidence or any other baseball data confidence. I believe Tantotiger even said (in your chat forums) that defensive stats are arguably not better than the scout's judgement b/c they are both involve human subjectivity. Obviously that data and the resulting stats are not facts as they can differ depending on who is taking them. It's also another thing to say that a certain stat is a "fact" and then to draw conclusions from it. Those conclusions may or may not be true depending on how you use facts to justify an argument. ^^^ Yes, I know it's PHIL 101 junk. :lol:

the ideas you've formed based on the 27 times you've seen soriano bat = facts I don't think so. Grow up.

Your opinion has my curiosity piqued. I would truly be grateful if you expounded upon it so as to further enlighten me. Only when an observation has been repeatedly validated can it be considered a fact. Even then I'd stick an asterisk by it. You also need compitent data takers, which is not a given in a "stat" for it to become a "fact." A stat is very close to becoming a fact, but I don't think you can make that leap in confidence. It's a minor point, but since this thread has run amok, I thought I'd throw that in there. I don't have a problem with stats. They're wonderful things, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from your data.

stats = facts I don't think so.

Jim Hendry is quickly climbing back into my good graces. I'd prefer Drew and other high OBP guys, but this is about the most productive player we can expect in his system, so I'm happy.

If he plays to his career level, yes. If he plays to his 2006 level, he's worth about 45 runs more. Either way Lugo would make us better cheaper. I'd stick Lugo at short. Izturis's D isn't that much better than Lugo's. Lugo might actually have the edge in range.

I don't like the signing. 1. Soriano has never played CF 2. Soriano is a good, not great, player and now he will be paid like a great player. Hampering the Cubs ability to acquire a great young player somewhere in the next five years. 3. Soriano has a career OBP of .325. He's only been above that average three out of his siz years in the majors and before this past season he posted craptacular .324 and .309 numbers. 4. Soriano is on the wrong side of 30 and he just posted career highs in almost every category. 1. Soriano is not playing CF. 2. Players get overpaid in FA. It happens every year. We don't have the farm to fix this team without FA. It looks like a 5 year deal with 3 option years. Not too bad considering this market. We'll have to see how the other FA contracts come out. 3. Soriano hits enough solo homeruns to make up for that. That's a lot better than drawing a walk. 4. Most players that hit FA are going to be 29+. That's the name of the game.

lmao

Murton is making the league minimum. I think Jones is gone. We still have a lot of holes in our rotation.

I think it's pending a physical on Monday.

I think it's more the departure of MacPhail. His conservative attitude towards moves really hamstrung Hendry. Hendry is a madman. Unleash the fury, Mitch! UNLEASH THE FURY!!!

I like. Me too.

Murton stays? How fricking awesome is that? Booyeah!! So far it looks like: 1B Lee 2B DeRosa SS Izturis 3B Ramirez LF Murton CF Jones RF Soriano

Trade him and others to Florida for Cabrera. Pie isn't going to net Cabrera. It's going to take an elite prospect to land him and then some. Pie is by no means "elite."

I have no problem with the money spent. We've needed an offensive beast in CF for a long time. The years? Nope. All you have to do is eat some cash down the line and trade him. It's a win now move. I'm tired of losing.

Nice. I'm down with Soriano in CF. I don't like him pushing Murton out though. Not at all. We'd better be getting one heck of a player via trade for Murton.

it does when you have howry, wuertz & wood. Expound on the logic of your statement, please. Rapada coming in doesn't squeeze a setup guy out. He doesn't push Ohman into a new role. Ohman just gets the boot. Have you checked out these guys' splits? They suck against righties. That's why they're LOOGYs. If Rapada is ready, which it appears he is, it makes Eyre expendable because you already have 3/4 guys in the pen outside of Eyre, and it's pretty much between Eyre and Ohman. Ohman is cheaper, so you go with him. Rapada doesn't necessarily squeeze out Eyre, Wood does. I wouldn't make the move right away though. If Wood shows he can handle the rigours of pitching an inning every other night, then you trade him. The question is do you trade him before he lets his own value drop or perhaps rise. Check out Ohman's splits. He's not cut out to setup. He's a LOOGY.

3/30MM for Pierre and ppl are shocked by the DeRosa and Blanco signings? It's a market flush with cash. The players' union must love this.

I have high hopes for DeRosa. I was checking him out on mlb.tv archives. He's a lot better offensively than his career line indicates. Last season was no fluke. Nice swing. He's pretty slick at 2B too.

You want to know what's even more scary than DeRosa at 2B? DeRosa was our backup plan in case ARam left. :shock:

And Novoa just b/c we're feeling generous.

it does when you have howry, wuertz & wood. Expound on the logic of your statement, please. Rapada coming in doesn't squeeze a setup guy out. He doesn't push Ohman into a new role. Ohman just gets the boot. Have you checked out these guys' splits? They suck against righties. That's why they're LOOGYs.

I really haven't watched DeRosa, either in the field or with the bat. The stats don't make me excited, but something could have clicked. He certainly credited his latest hitting coach for changing his approach this past season. Let's hope that's what did the trick and it wasn't a fluke.

DeRosa isn't going to be a platoon partner for Jones. Jones is trade bait. It doesn't make sense to get a platoon partner for him this early. He's our starting 2B, which I'm not too thrilled about. Let's hope Hendry's next moves are alot better.