no, I am simply pointing out that if you base all your opinoins on stats, and keep saying that those types of opinoins are the only ones that can be made, you cannot have an opinoin (or at least one that has any meat to it) on an issue that has no stats to validate or deny it. it really has nothing to do with Mark Prior. I am just pointing out what i find to be troubling with the whole stats analytical or else arguement. I really dont think its that crazy to understand. but mayne OMC was right Facts, not stats. An opinion that isn't based to any extent on facts and rational logic is worthless. facts was not the word used. it was stats. Cuse was the one who asked everyone else to find stats (stats that are probably impossible to get) for him to back up his claim. On top of it, unless I've missed something, he has yet to provide one piece of support for his argument, other than that it's his opinion. Maybe I could actually be swayed to buy into it (doubt it, but maybe) if there was any sort of support. part of this whole thing was me wrapping my head around the sabermetric arguement. I am not really trying to sway anyone, more thinking this through "with a lil help from my friends". but abuck asserted the idea that unless your opinion is based on stats, it isnt worth the time or effort to put forth. I dont deny Cuse's arguement against Prior was unjustified, and even taht he was wrong on Prior. Hell, like the majority here, I think they really shold have tried to get Prior back, and I will miss him. but, if you look back, none of that is what I was arguing for. just the stats and opinoins part. I think there is more to baseball then stats tell. the more I see the saber-arguement, the more I believe this.