WilcoFan

is your own life really so pathetic that you need to revel in other people's misfortune? maybe if you had more going on in your life, you would receive pleasure from things other than the professional and health-related setbacks of complete strangers. Yes it is. I have nothing going on in my life, and therefore I revel in the injuries of professional baseball players. Please help me, king of the internet message board. Or maybe you and your arrogant and pathetic personal attacks can just shove it. You are running away with the 2008 NSBB Cry Baby award. Keep up the good work. Oh wait...hold it...nevermind. Sorry, I thought for a brief second I cared about what you thought of me. Must have been acid reflux.

is your own life really so pathetic that you need to revel in other people's misfortune? maybe if you had more going on in your life, you would receive pleasure from things other than the professional and health-related setbacks of complete strangers. Yes it is. I have nothing going on in my life, and therefore I revel in the injuries of professional baseball players. Please help me, king of the internet message board. Or maybe you and your arrogant and pathetic personal attacks can just shove it.

You really didn't. You showed that there are complicating factors, sort of. You showed that you have a different set of criteria when judging the statistics of two players, and very little other than the raw data is what you use. You're still really missing the point. What you choose to use as your evidence and what you choose to ignore is as biased as anyone else's (which is fine-its the basis of discussion), yet you continue to argue that somehow you have a monopoly on "facts" and that somehow anything that doesn't jive with your own biases is ridiculous. You have continued to prove my point.

Something Optimistic? Well, it sure seems like Piniella doesn't really care for him. It could certainly be a short tenure with the Cubs for Mr. Craptober.

This is the problem-regardless of the defense that I might use, if it doesn't incorporate the specific statistical analysis and sample size that you have deemed appropriate, its considered illogical. For example, if I cited Mike Fontenot's minor league history that has shown him, over the long-term, to be statistically superior to Cedeno, you'll claim that Cedeno's numbers last year in AAA and in the small sample size this year are more important. Yet, if I used Theriot's numbers this year to support why he plays over Cedeno, the "sample size would be too small." The goal posts keep getting moved. This is not to say that these discussions aren't healthy, but to use these differences of opinion and claim that one has the factual high ground is simply wrong. And if I dared to use anything other than numbers (by citing situational attributes, mechanical problems for Hill, etc.), I would be "picking a fight," because apparently those ideas have been erroneously deemed to have no merit whatsoever. That's not even worth getting into. At age 22 in AAA, Cedeno had an OPS of .921. At age 22 in A, Fontenot had an OPS of .697 At age 24 in AAA, Cedeno had an OPS of .959. At age 24 in AAA, Fontenot had an OPS of .766 Cedeno is by all accounts a better defensive player. Cedeno has better offensive numbers this year. You can't just look at overall minor league numbers. If that's your argument then you just really don't understand the numbers. Cedeno started in the minors 4 years younger than Fontenot. If Hill was yanked for poor performance, then logically shouldn't Marquis be yanked for worse performance...dating back 3 years? There's a difference between finding excuses and making a logical argument. I'm not sure why you are arguing Fontenot versus Cedeno...that had little to nothing to do with my point. I'm amazed that, when I write a hypothetical post in which I allude to potential arguments that could be made (without (a.) claiming to believe them, or (b.) actually giving you a complete argument), you fall into exactly the category of people I was writing about when I made the original point. My point had nothing to do with Fontenot, Cedeno, Hill, or Marquis. My point had to do with the use of sample size and stat manipulation to make some condescending post that really doesn't have any more "facts" than any other post. Healthy discussion dies when one person tries to take their opinion (and the use of statistical analysis is still opinion, as the analysis is open to interpretation) and pass it off as fact. Thanks for proving my point. I highlighted it above, as well as the points where you just embody the argument I've made to a tee.

This is the problem-regardless of the defense that I might use, if it doesn't incorporate the specific statistical analysis and sample size that you have deemed appropriate, its considered illogical. For example, if I cited Mike Fontenot's minor league history that has shown him, over the long-term, to be statistically superior to Cedeno, you'll claim that Cedeno's numbers last year in AAA and in the small sample size this year are more important. Yet, if I used Theriot's numbers this year to support why he plays over Cedeno, the "sample size would be too small." The goal posts keep getting moved. This is not to say that these discussions aren't healthy, but to use these differences of opinion and claim that one has the factual high ground is simply wrong. And if I dared to use anything other than numbers (by citing situational attributes, mechanical problems for Hill, etc.), I would be "picking a fight," because apparently those ideas have been erroneously deemed to have no merit whatsoever. That's not even worth getting into.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Then you're being incredibly dense. And purposefully so, it would seem. I'm getting tired of the Lou apologists here Keep making posts like this and no one with an even remotely divergent opinion will want to post here anymore. Then everyone can agree on everything...that makes for good discussion. I loathe the decision to sit Pie, especially for what I feel is an inferior player. But if someone wants to argue in favor of it, great-maybe I'm wrong. Its within the realm of possibility that the guy comes in and hits .300 and does a solid job. More importantly, I certainly am not "tired" of people who defend the coaches--that's kinda the point of discussion. That's certainly why I post here. I think the "Lou Apologists" just might be picking fights because they feel that even the most remote defense of him is censored by the tyranny of the majority. At times, I can't say I blame them. If someone is able to form a reasonable argument in favor of a differing opinion, then there is good discussion. If someone defends Lou for reasons such as: 1. He's the manager!!1! 2. Have you ever even played baseball?! 3. Maybe Lou knows something we don't. Ever think of that? 4. I actually watch the games and trust me, Edmonds still has it. 5. Go back to your mom's basement!!1! lawlz! 6. Lolz, you want to play Pie against rhp just because his numbers are better than Johnson's against RH???!!! I actually watch the games and trust me, Pie is Patterson 2.0! --- Then these people's opinions don't deserve to be respected. I think you're picking the dumbest of the responses you might get in response to your opinion and pretending like that's the norm. You could count on one hand the number of responses that are concurrently as silly and rude as these on this site. I almost never see responses like the ones above to anyone on these boards...in fact, I see sample size manipulations masquerading as statistical analysis for the purposes of browbeating differing opinions far more often here than I see stupid knee jerk "I watch the game" posts.

What a preposterous load of crap. Wow. You couldn't have proved my point better if you tried. Thanks.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Then you're being incredibly dense. And purposefully so, it would seem. I'm getting tired of the Lou apologists here Keep making posts like this and no one with an even remotely divergent opinion will want to post here anymore. Then everyone can agree on everything...that makes for good discussion. I loathe the decision to sit Pie, especially for what I feel is an inferior player. But if someone wants to argue in favor of it, great-maybe I'm wrong. Its within the realm of possibility that the guy comes in and hits .300 and does a solid job. More importantly, I certainly am not "tired" of people who defend the coaches--that's kinda the point of discussion. That's certainly why I post here. I think the "Lou Apologists" just might be picking fights because they feel that even the most remote defense of him is censored by the tyranny of the majority. At times, I can't say I blame them.

If it was stopped right now, then I think the Cubs would be able to get a continuation right? We haven't batted fully yet. As long as the Cubs are batting, I think the half inning needs to be finished.

I hope this stirs up the type of argument you want. Best wishes. I'm sorry...I'll make sure all my comments from now on follow the party line. My apologies. You're so smart and know so much about baseball...its awesome. I'm assuming you don't have a point or you would have come up with something more creative.

I hope this stirs up the type of argument you want. Best wishes. I'm sorry...I'll make sure all my comments from now on follow the party line. My apologies.

He had nine days off between starts, and according to many, that destroys a pitcher's rhythm. Its not his fault he was bad today, just like its never Rich Hill's fault.

Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this team. Where's that fun "season's already over" thread from last season?

Horrible at bats by both Lee and Ramirez.

I have a real hard time getting on managers about individual game decisions, as there are so many complicating factors that most fans are not privy to (players' health, personal distractions, etc.), coupled with the fact that, regardless of the manager, I would probably disagree with about 65-70% of any decision made (and both of us would probably be wrong at least 50% of the time). As such, the best I can hope for is a manager who has what seems to be an overriding philosophy that helps the team. For the most part, Piniella has displayed in his decision making a philosophy with which I agree. There are plenty of instances in-game in which I disagree with him, but I doubt that would be any different regardless of the manager. Evaluating GMs, however, is another story...

Every experience I've had around him, and everyone I know who had experiences with him described him as a jag, so now that he's not on the Cubs, I have no problem reveling in his injury just a little bit.

2 games from the best team in the NL, looking for the sweep tomorrow with the ace of the staff going. Excellent start to the homestand.

I now want to punch John Paxson in the face. A coach wasn't gonna change the fact that the team has no superstar and isn't smart enough to tear it down and lose enough for a chance to draft one. They are in perfect NBA purgatory. Yep, they secured that spot in '03. Needed better luck in that lottery. Please don't bring that up. Lebron,Melo,Wade,and Bosh :( We were battling with Cleveland for the worst record in the league the first half of that season. Then we went on somewhat of a roll towards the end of the year to push us past LBJ, Carmelo, Wade, and Bosh land. Don't forget that we could've moved up to where the Heat were at. All Paxson had to do was trade Donyell freaking Marshall to the Heat. Yet he couldn't budge on that offer. Just terrible. Is that true? No. Miami refused to trade the pick for anything and had settled on Wade before the draft. The Bulls offered a huge package of players, but Miami was committed to Wade. The Bulls weren't even all that happy with Donyell Marshall-they traded him only 16 games into the following season. They wanted Marshall and a washed-up Pippen so the Bulls could move up a couple of spots to where the Heat were at. Paxson never returned the phone call. The information I've gotten from friends in the organization contradicts that. I'll agree to disagree with you there.

I think that I would support Grace instead of Brenly. Or even a 3 man booth I like Brenly. I'm just amazed by the way in which Grace waxes poetic about Chicago every time he's here.

I now want to punch John Paxson in the face. A coach wasn't gonna change the fact that the team has no superstar and isn't smart enough to tear it down and lose enough for a chance to draft one. They are in perfect NBA purgatory. Yep, they secured that spot in '03. Needed better luck in that lottery. Please don't bring that up. Lebron,Melo,Wade,and Bosh :( We were battling with Cleveland for the worst record in the league the first half of that season. Then we went on somewhat of a roll towards the end of the year to push us past LBJ, Carmelo, Wade, and Bosh land. Don't forget that we could've moved up to where the Heat were at. All Paxson had to do was trade Donyell freaking Marshall to the Heat. Yet he couldn't budge on that offer. Just terrible. Is that true? No. Miami refused to trade the pick for anything and had settled on Wade before the draft. The Bulls offered a huge package of players, but Miami was committed to Wade. The Bulls weren't even all that happy with Donyell Marshall-they traded him only 16 games into the following season.

I'm fairly certain that Mark Grace would pay the Cubs to let him work for them, just so he could move back to Chicago.

wouldn't it just be easier for there to be one post at the beginning of the thread that states "anything bad that happens today is the fault of either reed Johnson or Ryan theriot, and if they do anything well, it would have been done better by felix pie or ronny cedeno"?

It goes a long way toward preventing one from being a dumb one, though. Its an entirely separate set of skills. It may coincidentally help one be a better fan, but it has an equal likelihood of making said fan just as myopic as Hawk Harrelson, just for completely opposite reasons.

Banninated. I'm going to kind of miss him come MLB draft time. The dude was a jerk, but he knew his stuff. He was so high up his pedestal you couldn't see him through the clouds Am I the only one who misses Meph? He was a jerk, but he was really a smart baseball fan, and if you could just ignore his arrogance he was a good read. I guess I'm just sad to see us lose the mind that figured out EQA. An ability to understand statistics very well does not make one a smart baseball fan.