flyseye

Please tell me you are joking.

My predictions: Cubs finally win the world series and WVCBXL celebrates by buying us all a case of Westvleteren 12 . Roast takes a job at Wrigley again and gets 2 hot dogs stuffed up his nose while trying to eject a couple of 96 year old female inebriated spectators. Meph gets busted for plagiarism, and has to watch the Cubs world series on a twelve inch tv in a cell with a Cardinal fan named Bubba. Several high post count posters from NSBB mysteriously disappear into cyberspace when they realize that every single other poster has them on ignore. The world becomes a better place.

I really think, if the statement is even true that Wood would sign a one year deal to remain a Cub, that the one year contract would have had to be for at least 12 mil., probably more. Even then, I have trouble believing it. While Wood has already demonstrated that he will give the Cubs some kind of discount, I just don't see him walking away from a 3/30 or better contract that he can likely get from another team. You are talking about an injury prone pitcher walking away from at least a guaranteed 18-20 million dollars. The man would have to be a fool. If the Cubs offer arbitration, and Wood agrees, fantastic. I just don't see that happening.

I will just ignore the " not know how to read " BS, and just write it off as frustration. You might want to check who manages the Cubs. ( hint, it is not Hendry ). The fact that Hendry " alluded" to something in November means nothing.If Gregg is still on the team come spring, he will be given the first shot at closing. But your mind is made up, so be it. Lou put up with a lot of walks from Marmol last year during his bad streak, but feel free to twist things so they fit your argument. Do you think Wood is the best " closer " in baseball ? If not, which other ones, and feel free to include some oft injured ones, do you feel are worth 10 mil a year ? Gregg is a decent pitcher who will be asked to take over an over rated position on a good team for a fairly low salary. He might actually be able to get through two innings, and pitch more than twice a week. He might make it through the season without a lengthy stint on the DL. The Cubs have already over payed for enough positions. To add the " closer " to the list is foolish. Even if it is Kerry Wood.

"because he wants their bad decisions to be punished instead of rewarded" No more explanation is needed.

you wish bad things upon your favorite team because your feelings are hurt? what kind of backwards logic is that? because he wants their bad decisions to be punished instead of rewarded i still don't agree with the notion, but i don't think it has anything to do with his feelings being hurt... he was totally fine with letting wood go before this snippet about him being open to a one year deal came out. I don't know which is worse, the initial quoted post, or the 2nd reply. I cannot believe that some posters on this board either: (1) want to be right so badly that they wish ill upon members of their favorite team or, (2) Have such a man crush on Wood that they would wish ill upon a member of their favorite team. If Gregg comes over and accomplishes what ever Wood can accomplish at less than half the $$, then this is not a bad move,hurt feelings aside, correct ? I certainly do not see this as impossible, or even unlikely, as Wood was really not in the elite class last year in a position that most on this board feel is remarkably over rated to begin with. I liked Wood, but not for 10 mil. I hope Gregg has a great year as a Cub. I hope Wood has a great year for whoever he pitches for, except against the Cubs. I'll tell what's worse than both of those posts... someone who doesn't understand sarcasm And for the 485th time, nothing I said (which again, was not a serious post) was because of some man crush on Wood. I was in favor of letting him go if we had to give him a multi-year contract. Letting him go when we could have had him for one year is a terrible move for this team, especially when you consider how much gregg is going to get in arbitration Oh, and Gregg won't accomplish what Wood di, which is allow marmol to be used in the 8th where he;'s more valuable. We all know Marmol is going to close now....which make him less valuable and also makes him more expensive for the future Whatever. Just what the Cubs need, a 10 Mil, injury prone, closer. If Hendry offered that kind of money to anyone else in baseball to be a closer, you all would be throwing a freaking fit. Do not be in man crush denial. It is not becoming. Nobody KNOWS anything, but i put the odds at 50/50 that Gregg is fully capable of accomplishing what Wood did last year, and at a lot less money. No way is Marmol the closer with Lou at the helm, and Gregg on the team, unless Gregg bombs. By the way, in your world, who closes when Wood goes on the DL again ?

you wish bad things upon your favorite team because your feelings are hurt? what kind of backwards logic is that? because he wants their bad decisions to be punished instead of rewarded i still don't agree with the notion, but i don't think it has anything to do with his feelings being hurt... he was totally fine with letting wood go before this snippet about him being open to a one year deal came out. I don't know which is worse, the initial quoted post, or the 2nd reply. I cannot believe that some posters on this board either: (1) want to be right so badly that they wish ill upon members of their favorite team or, (2) Have such a man crush on Wood that they would wish ill upon a member of their favorite team. If Gregg comes over and accomplishes what ever Wood can accomplish at less than half the $$, then this is not a bad move,hurt feelings aside, correct ? I certainly do not see this as impossible, or even unlikely, as Wood was really not in the elite class last year in a position that most on this board feel is remarkably over rated to begin with. I liked Wood, but not for 10 mil. I hope Gregg has a great year as a Cub. I hope Wood has a great year for whoever he pitches for, except against the Cubs.

This isn't little league or even high school. Major league players can overlook a lot of crap if the player helps them win games. Manny's attitude didn't prevent the Red Sox from winning the World Series in 2004 and 2007. They almost certainly wouldn't have won it without his production. So using this logic, i guess the Dodgers must have lost in the playoffs because of Manny ? Being kind of a jerk may not cost a MLB player a lot of money, but being a first class jerk certainly will. ( see Dave Kingman, Juan Gonzalez, George Bell). While none of these players were in the class of Manny, they all gave up significant $$$ because of their piss poor attitudes. Manny will almost certainly give up some $$ because of his attitude, but some team ( Yankees, Cubs ) will probably pay him well out of desperation. For the salary he will want, combined with his attitude/ age/ lack of defense, I would pass unless he could be had for a bargain. My prediction, Look for Manny to be DH'ing for the Yankees next year.

Well it is relevant if you have people stating they are meaningless. I agree with everything you said, and agree that to some extent I was just arguing semantics. I still feel I made a relevant point. To take this one step further, what I have gathered from reading numerous sources is this : Won loss records, as a measuring statistic are meaningless for relief pitchers, and a poor stat to judge a starters effectiveness. Bill James actually went so far as to state : ""However, I would have trouble now with my original argument that the pitcher has no ability to win, other than what is reflected in his runs allowed. There may in fact be some ability to win, in the way the old-time baseball guys imagined that there was. There may be some pitchers who have some ability to win games 3-2 and 9-8. Sabermetrics has traditionally discounted the existence of this ability at any level. I would now argue that it may exist at some fairly low level."" He goes on to explain that his initial method was flawed, but I will not get into that here. Wins and losses are a terrible means for determining a pitcher's effectiveness is a statement with which I would never argue. Wins are meaningless on the other hand I find quoted a lot by people who read stats, quote stats, but do not fully understand them. It certainly is the new cliche. That does not make it correct.

Jeez, you guys aren't even any fun. Where's Lowblow when you need him. I give you proof of a few things that can be determined by looking only at a pitchers won/loss record. And the best you can come up with is a completely irrelevant " I thought we were better than this", yet another pointless Neifi reference , and a cheap shot comment about the " new guy " accented with a totally needless and not at all effective "yikes", while at the same time twisting my position into one where I am DEFENDING the won/loss record, which you are all intelligent enough to know is not true. Well at least none of you stooped to using any smiley faces.

Wow, this is a mess. Your first sentence simply states yet another example of the win stat not being totally meaningless. As for your second sentence, you have already done a fine job of that yourself. In your failed attempt to be clever, you have, in fact, shown an example where even PA's are not meaningless. I really am done now.

Why do you keep bringing up that the information can be gotten elsewhere ? What does that have to do with a stat being meaningless or not ? You are simply putting a spin on this that means nothing. I demonstrated without question that you can glean much information by simply looking at a pitchers won/loss record. This alone proves that won/loss records are not totally meaningless. Actually, if looking only at a single stat, won/loss probably tells you as much about a pitchers overall performance over a season, or a career, than any other single stat. Nothing else tells you much of anything without at least combining that info with innings/games pitched. EVERYBODY ( except maybe Kruk and Morgan) knows that there are more accurate ways to judge a pitcher. This is hardly a revelation to most. That fact doesn't render won/loss records totally meaningless. Look, I am through discussing this. I have never read/heard a single person who's opinion I value make the inane blanket statement " wins are meaningless " in the context with which it is used by some. That is because they do not want to sound foolish. Edit: FWIW I agree 100% with Truffle's statement "it's a stat that shouldn't mean nearly as much as it does to many people ". This is very true. Still doesn't =meaningless.

Wow, um, no. Look through the career leaders in PAs and find me a below average player. So then, to follow your logic, a player with a high amount of wins = an above average player, making the win statistic far from meaningless ?

I pretty much agree with this . Meaningless= totally without value. Lets say all you know about pitcher Joe Blow is that he went 20-9 for the year. At the very least you can glean from this limited information : Joe Blow was probably healthy the entire year, one of the most important factors in evaluating a pitcher. You don't really think there were better offers for Rich Harden than the somewhat pathetic one we gave do you ? Of course not. Simply because Harden, despite his fantastic numbers, is unlikely to win very many games because he is only capable of limping to the mound for 5 innings at a time, 15 times a year at best. So we have determined that Joe Blow probably managed to at the very least stay healthy, simply by his won-loss record. This fact alone removes the win statistic from the meaningless category. 2. That despite anything else, Joe Blow managed to go 5+ innings at least 20 times. No small feat. Nothing earth shattering, but still not in anyones definition I have ever met as " meaningless". 3. That more than likely Joe Blow at least, somehow, someway, managed to keep his team in the game a significant number of times. Once again, earth shattering info? No. Meaningless ? No again. If you look at the previously mentioned Bert Blyleven, and look only at his 279 or whatever wins, you can, at minimum, assume that over his career he managed to stay relatively healthy, and pitched well enough for a long period to keep a job at the major league level. This is not meaningless information. It has value. Do inquiring minds want to know more ? Sure. But the information is far from meaningless.

Lame argument. Would you like me to waste both our time listing the vast majority of the pitchers on the other side of that coin, or shall I not bother ? Why use a stat that looks at something that is influenced by more than good pitching when you can just look at numbers that tell you how good they actually pitch? Why use inferior tools when superior tools are readily available for everyone. It's archaic, and the fact that wins come partially as a byproduct of good pitching doesn't justify using it to evaluate anything when you can see much more by looking elsewhere. Please point out where I said that one should not look at the other stats. I made the very simple to understand statement that wins are not meaningless. Please don't try and spin this into something other than what I said.

Lame argument. Would you like me to waste both our time listing the vast majority of the pitchers on the other side of that coin, or shall I not bother ?

Nobody said that. What was said is that you cannot give the award based SOLELY on wins, which I agree 100% with. I get really tired of reading that wins are a meaningless stat for pitchers. Bull. The true statement that " wins are not the best way to judge a pitcher, particularly short term " does NOT translate to " wins are a meaningless stat". Short term they are sometimes a poor way to judge a pitcher, long term, not so much really. I am sure most will agree that there has never been a bad pitcher win 300 games. I am fairly sure that there have been few, if any, bad pitchers to win 200 games. Sure, there have been 200 game winners that were not quite as good as another who may have only won 175 games, but this still does not translate into " wins are a meaningless stat for pitchers". Good pitchers are going to win more games than bad pitchers over the course of a career. Wins are not a meaningless stat.

Cubs starting shortstops on playoff teams in my lifetime: 1984- Larry Bowa - OPS+ 49 1989- Shawon Dunston - OPS+ 83 1998- Jeff Blauser - OPS+ 69 2003- Alex Gonzalez - OPS+ 81 2008 Theriot so far OPS+ 99 Theriot has been an important part of the best Cubs team I have seen in my lifetime, and I am 52. He is far from the greatest shortstop in the game, but this year he has been solid at the plate, and consistent in the field. Looking for things to belittle him over seems rather odd to me, coming as it is from Cubs fans. Edit: Oops forgot, 2007 Ryan theriot OPS+ 72

Mick Kelleher, 1976

Answer: Not very. Question: Which of Tapani's 19 wins would you say " don't matter " ? That's not the point. It never has been. Nobody is saying wins don't matter. Of course they do. Just that W-L is not an accurate stat for judging the worth of pitchers. It is the only point, at least mine, if you read the thread.

Answer: Not very. Question: Which of Tapani's 19 wins would you say " don't matter " ?

If you do not think that referring to others as stupid or ignorant because they do not understand something you might is condescending, I don't have much else to say. Come on. It's not an inability to understand. It's a flat out refusal to be open minded about things even when obvious common sense is presented. These aren't complex concepts that only certain people can grasp. It's simple and a lot of people just refuse to embrace it because it goes against what they've always believed (obviously, this idea goes beyond the W-L stat, baseball, sports, etc. and applies to many aspects of life)... So now it is your contention, unlike in the first quoted post where you stated these people are " stupid " or "ignoramuses ", that they are just stubborn ? It is now your contention that these ideas are not complex concepts that only a chosen few can understand ? That approach sounds much less condescending. Thank you.

If you do not think that referring to others as stupid or ignorant because they do not understand something you might is condescending, I don't have much else to say.

So you think broadcasters and writers overinflate a stat that is simple but inaccurate so that casual fans will watch the game? Not buying it. And if that is what they are doing, shame on them for being lazy. So it is your assumption that the broadcasters, many of whom actually played the game, know less than you do ? Not buying it. They are simply keeping the broadcast somewhat generic so as not to alienate the millions of fans who really don't care about WHIP,or whatever, or want to listen to it being explained. Like I stated, I do not particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think that they all know less than I do about the game. I guess to flat out answer your question, yes I do think they over inflate simple stats so the broadcast appeals to a wider group. Surprising as it may seem, many, probably most, of the people watching a ball game would find many of the things discussed on this board about as exciting as watching the grass grow.

1. The fact that it is painfully obvious and most likely has been known for several decades makes it that much more frustrating when a sports writer or broadcaster, who gets paid to discuss the sport, can't grasp that simple concept. 2. I don't know of anyone that acts condescending towards the casual fan who is enjoying a game with their kid. How often do you really see that happen? 3. My guess is that when anyone uses the phrase "won/loss records don't matter," they're speaking in the context of pitcher's records. When looking at the big picture, I could care less about an individual's won-loss record. The team's won-loss record is what counts. If the Cubs win 100 games, does it really matter if Zambrano personally won 14 of them or 21 of them? You really think that the sportscasters are so ignorant ( Joe Morgan excluded ) that they don't know the difference ? Come on. The sportscasters have to appeal to everyone, including the millions of so called casual fans who take their kids to the ballpark . They know what statistics matter, but frankly they aren't going to be too popular of a sportscaster if they try to blither on and on about stuff like this to the "average" fan. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think they " cant grasp that simple concept ".