WilcoFan

As someone who is about as diametrically opposed to Jim Hendry's baseball philosophy as possible, I have to say at least it was nice to read his actual thoughts, instead of the distilled version he gives to the media. I would have to admit that some of the things he says make a lot more sense when he's candid about the entire set of circumstances that surround the story. I will never, ever agree with his obvious love for guys like Theriot, but his handling of the Prior, Farnsworth, etc. situations have become much more understandable. The guy who wrote this did a really nice job.

I got: Mets, April 21 Brewers, April 29 Brewers, April 30 Padres, May 14 Braves, June 10 White Sox, June 20 Brewers, April 3 Padres, May 15 Reds, August 20 Went for a lot of Brewers games, assuming it'll either be (a.) the best games, or (b.) easy to sell.

Do you honestly believe a guy like Mike North actually realizes the hole in the lineup that is Theriot? He loves his grit and energy, and probably thinks "guys like Ryan Theriot are the reason why the Cubs won last year."

I got this as well. It seems like you can build a set of games, but the choices will be limited.

Bets on whether Lieber, if healthy, outperforms Marquis this season?

Are you referring to the Mike Ditka that has a Super Bowl ring? The same one whose ego prevented a 3-4 year dynasty, yes.

I remember Stone advocating for this trade as well. And how impressed he was that the Cubs were able to get Izturis for Maddux. Steve Stone is a very good broadcaster, and knows a fair share about baseball. That doesn't mean he deserves the type of God-like worship so many people in Chicago bestow upon him. Next to Mike Ditka, he may be the most ridiculously worshiped former Chicago athlete of all time.

You realize that both Lilly and Hill were at least statistically equivalent, if not superior, to the #2s on each one of those teams except Cleveland, right? And Carmona had a 16.50 ERA in the ALCS last year. Apparently, being a "solid #2" doesn't always translate in a seven game series. Most playoff series are won with luck. Lilly and Hill are fine where they are.

Maybe post industrial revolution, not sure about all history though. Y2K slinks off and sits in a corner, disappointed in itself.

Well, hyperbole is "intentional and obvious exaggeration". By definition it is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of fact that Marquis is not the pitcher that Willis is. Just because he had a year where they came close is relatively meaningless. He said "never" which is true, Marquis has never been as good, and usually far behind. According to you, one is "terrible" and the other one "above average". You can also interpret that as true talent, which would make it meaningless even if he did pitch better once. I bet if you divide by their pitching runs, you will get a number larger than 25% though. So you've shot that hyberbolic statement of fact down, I suppose. You're going to have to tell me why he was statistically better, instead of dismissing my argument out of hand. ERA+ is good measure of how many earned runs crossed the plate, adjusted for context. That's it. It is not good at telling you how well a pitcher pitched. You've completely destroyed another notion. That being that he is "one of the best pitchers in baseball". I've yet to see someone take that absurd position in this thread. Ugh. As much as I enjoy minutiae, even I cannot muster the energy for a debate on the definition of "never" versus "sometimes," "statement of fact" versus "true opinion," and the relationship between defense and pitching on the 2007 Florida Marlins. It is really not worth delving into the minutiae that comes with a debate about what institutes "statement of fact." I think my point was clear to pretty much everyone regarding Willis, and the point I was making was a relatively minor one to begin with. Feel free to continue the discussion on your own.

And I posted because I was annoyed that someone used ridiculous hyperbole as a statement of fact and no one challenged the ignorance of the statement. There are considerable instances on this board of people using hyperbole to argue things like Mark Prior is a wuss, and they ALWAYS are challenged (rightfully so) using a literalist position. I'm not really sure why me challenging an equally ridiculous statement is such a problem. Sure, I relied upon ERA+, but that's simply because that one stat alone should be enough to dissuade people from relying upon ridiculous hyperbole simply to bash Marquis. More importantly, I wanted to underscore the fact that much of the reason why Dontrelle Willis is so revered by casual baseball fans is because of his terrific 2005, not because he's been a top 5 pitcher his entire career (even though many would consider him in the team photo). He is not light years ahead of any pitcher in the major leagues, let alone one who was statistically better than him last year.

Yeah...Jason Marquis got 24 over 3 and has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is. Jason Marquis 2007 ERA+: 101 Dontrelle Willis 2007 ERA+: 83 Jason Marquis is not good. Dontrelle Willis, aside from an amazing 2005, hasn't been particularly great, either. Average to slightly above average, sure. Not great, though. And nowhere near where his name recognition has placed him in the league. You aren't seriously saying Marquis compares Willis are you? Willis's career ERA+ is 110, Marquis has only had one season with an ERA+ over 110. Ummm...wasn't really comparing the two at all. Not long term, at least. I was responding to the section I bolded in the original post, i.e "Marquis has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is." In fact, Marquis was a better pitcher than was Willis in 2007. And Marquis is a horrible pitcher. Dontrelle Willis is a slightly above average pitcher. But he is perceived by many as being one of the best pitchers in baseball because of name recognition (and a ridiculous 2005). The usage of Marquis was in no way to compare the two, nor to say the Cubs are better off with Marquis' horrible contract. The argument simply was that Dontrelle Willis is not nearly as good as the name recognizers seem to think, and that hyperbole like "Marquis has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is" is not wrong because Marquis is good (he's not), but its wrong because Willis isn't as good as advertised.

Yeah...Jason Marquis got 24 over 3 and has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is. Jason Marquis 2007 ERA+: 101 Dontrelle Willis 2007 ERA+: 83 Jason Marquis is not good. Dontrelle Willis, aside from an amazing 2005, hasn't been particularly great, either. Average to slightly above average, sure. Not great, though. And nowhere near where his name recognition has placed him in the league.

I guess they're reporting that Hendry is "trying hard to acquire" Roberts, so I guess it might just be an exaggeration and not so much a out-and-out lie. I guess.

No.

If they trade Bailey, Bruce & Votto for Bedard, it will take me a long time to stop laughing. Wouldn't that just be so Dusty Baker? 1. Put quotes in newspaper about how you hate the fact that people say you don't play young talent. 2. Convince weak-kneed GM to trade/bury any promising young talent you might have in your system in favor of "proven" guys. 3. When criticized later, talk about how you would love to "play young guys, but I never had any young talent on my team to begin with." Bailey, Bruce and Votto for Bedard would have Baker's fingerprints all over it. As would the resulting career ending injury Bedard will undoubtedly get regularly throwing 135 pitches in 8-0 blowouts all season.

And if he gets on base at a better clip than Soriano, he'll be better. It will have nothing to do with the number of strikeouts, or the "way he swings hard."

I think this thinking is a holdover from the days before players had millions of pitches from every pitcher in baseball on video. It may have been important, given the few times certain pitchers were ever seen, for the leadoff hitter to give the players on the team an idea of what they were in for. Today, of course, this is irrelevant. Leadoff men need to get on base any way they can. If they make an out-whether or not its a strikeout, groundout, fly out, CAUGHT STEALING, or anything, they haven't done their job.

My initial response was unnecessarily terse, and for that I apologize-carryover from the earlier ridiculousness. I guess I just disagree with the level to which you think his opinion was absurd. I'm just going to leave it there, though. I wrote that i was going to leave this thread alone before-I should have stuck to that. No hard feelings...

"People"=me And you're wrong. But that's okay. I'll leave it at that.

My interpretation of your posts is a completely valid opinion and you have no basis to discard it. And the strategy of "act like a fourth grader who just repeats the same line over and over so that he can annoy the adult" wins out. I relent-you were right along along. That's pretty much all you want out of this discussion, and what's clearly more important to you anyway, so you should be pacified. Way to prove me wrong. You did an excellent job. Congratulations. At least now I know which posts to ignore.

Dusty's opinion is completely valid. Just because your statistics don't account for it, you don't have any cause to attack it. Wow, gotta love the sarcasm approach. Set me straight. As I wrote in another thread, "attack the post, not the poster" apparently only applies to direct shots, not passive aggressive condescending remarks like the above. No matter-But if you're going to sarcastically attack me, at least read Godel's theory and get it (and my opinion) correct. No where did I ever state anything close to what you wrote above.

Well, that's not really the point. I would say, that to an awful lot of people posting here that legwork should not have been necessary. A lot of people considered your position ridiculous, and they were all correct. Maybe they were correct by coincidence, or 'for the wrong reasons' or something, but they were right. Dusty Baker refuses to pinch hit for Carlos Zambrano late in a close game with runners on base (in a CLEAR situation that calls for a pinch hitter) against Houston because "he's got a gut feeling." Zambrano hits a home run. Dusty, therefore, made the right decision, correct? The reasons are as important as the conclusion, because the reasons develop the truth. Being right by coincidence is not really something to brag about.

Not really. it was a lot more proof than you had to support your claim. Not really. yes, really. you didn't have anything besides "i'm a high school baseball coach." not that it really matters who had more support since, in the end, i was right. No, IMB was right. He said in one post what you couldn't in 15-25. i said you were wrong. you were wrong. therefore, i was right. imb did show his work, however. Man, this reminds me of a movie... Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say …? Joey: "No, chocolate is." Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you? Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other. Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it? Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need. Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty. Joey: But that's not what we're talking about. Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about. Joey: But … you didn't prove that vanilla's the best. Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right. Joey: But you still didn't convince me. Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.

This type of response proves the point of my above statement so much better than the 3 paragraphs I wrote.