brinoch

Nomar with a walk there... nice patience tonight. I like what I'm seeing by him.

Nomar with a walk there... nice patience tonight. I like what I'm seeing by him.

All right!! Murton with a homer!

Imagine how bad their OBP's would look if you deducted the extra out each time they hit into a double play. I actually think you should do that. I also think pitchers should get a concomitant deduction in their WHIP for inducing a DP.

My apologies for not responding sooner -- I've been out of town, so I'm playing a bit of catch-up here. Regarding whether or not someone made the debated assertion -- I accept that someone made such a statement based on the exchanges in this thread. I also really don't feel like digging through a bunch of threads to support a rather stupid, weak point that I made anyway. I'd rather simply stipulate that such a point was made. Again, my apologies -- I was making points that were more or less mutally supporting to your argument. In the meantime, I simultaneously responded to the statement included in your post of "some on this board..." The simple chart I posted, for example, was not denigrating your argument or misinterpreting it. I was supporting your argument. My rather terse responses were probably too harsh to properly demonstrate that which I was trying to direct you towards. Namely, that I believe, and I think that most people would agree, that a hit>walk>out. As for making the characterization "...some on this board" I didn't PM you with a warning and I didn't quote your post. I was making a general statement about drawing conclusions and generalizing about what others believe is something to be avoided. As a Mod, I do this pretty often in threads where the board's rules are being flouted or bent by multiple posters in a minor way, but some action needs to be taken lest others, in the future, complain that I was inconsistent (though of course, I am human and don't have the time to monitor every thread). I also happen to think that your statement was a strawman argument, though without the intention of putting words into anyone in particular's mouth -- just a general statement by you that I think left a false impression which you used as a rebuttal in your argument. And that is "...there seem to be some on this board (not saying you are one of them) who seem to think otherwise." (With respect to which is better: hits versus walks.) There are probably one or two people who really think that way, but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head (hint: they are welcome to reveal themselves at this point). I also think that such an opinion might have been posted sarcastically. Pretty much the only time I think a walk is better than a hit is when the pitcher is giving batters nothing good to hit due to wildness -- in that situation you let the pitcher walk you, rack up pitches and be happy take the free base. Something Randall Simon, for example, doesn't understand. That said, if he throws you a meat ball down the middle, or hangs a curve, you ought to smack the crap out of it and possibly get extra bases. Hope this clarifies things.

Agreed. Let's just worry about winning tonight and getting back to .500; thinking anything else at this point is akin to drinking the blue kool-aid.

Ugh. Macias in the on-deck circle. I hate Baker.

Not acceptible -- and there have been a bunch of simlar posts. Y'all know the game thread ettiquette. End of group warning.

Wow. :shock: That was brutal. I hope they are both all right.

Yes, I'm a Cards fan. I've already 'admitted' to that. Another word of advice. People tend to be more reactionary in Game threads. While we welcome fans of opposing teams, NSBB is first and foremost a site for Cubs fans. As mods have said before, opposing teams fans might be best served to tread lightly in the game threads, especially when you haven't posted elsewhere. BTW, Welcome! Wise advice.

Macias and Perez should be playing every day. Hollandsworth should play first, too. Lee bites.

I doubt it. Think playoff games. Whimper.

Speechless. Wow.

At various times I've taken TKD, Jiujitsu, and Shorin-Ryu. They were all useful, but the focus on kicks and distance taught in TKD limited its brawling usefulness, in my opinion. Jiujitsu was very good, since it focused on locks, limb destruction and, well, general pain-infliction by whatever was the best response to your attack. Of all, I found SR to be the most useful. I think it was probably the teaching and the focus on practicality.

You are welcome. Hmm. Nice try. And this was in reference to you how? Thank you for playing. Haha. BANNED!! Now, now. He hasn't been banned for arguing with me.

Welcome to the Forum!!

You are welcome. Hmm. Nice try. And this was in reference to you how? Thank you for playing.

So the statement saying his OBP is "inflated" by average is not saying that?? That is exactly what that statement is suggesting. The statement (paraphrased) it doesn't matter how you get on base as long as you do, a hit is as good as a walk; has been used more than once on these boards. Check the numerous Dunn threads and you will find several examples of this. Where in my post did I say a walk was a bad thing?? I am not sure what the point of all your player comparisons are as in my post I stated "all things being equal". So if two players have identical OBP's I'll take the one with the higher batting average everyday of the week; again "all things being equal". So if one of them has 60hrs and the other has 2hrs....well then that changes things. Maybe you don't have to stand for the argument but maybe you can pull up a chair and give it a better read next time. You know, you're cruising for a bruising. Seriously. I have no patience for this kind of posting. If you really want to tangle, we can get into it, but if you continue deliberately misrepresenting my words and refuse to read the context of my post, I will end this debate because I simply refuse to participate in ridiculous bantering and misinterpretation. I don't really have any issue with anything in your original post other than the strawman argument. Those posts you cite in the Dunn argument, the ones where people are saying that walks are better than hits -- please, find them and cite them. So, then, how is this a debate between you and me? Why are you being a smart-ass and trying to irritate me for no purpose or gain? Read my post. I'm knocking down a strawman that rears its head time and again about the "preference of the board" with respect to walks and hits. My chart is a simple support of your contention, though you evidently didn't recognize it. There's a reason I didn't quote posts -- I wasn't singling out one poster or post. Now, your exaggerated statement that "some on this board seem to think otherwise" is something I don't agree with, and serves as a strawman argument -- which is not acceptable. I really don't think anyone on this board believes that walks are better than hits. And if you think some do, then I challenge you to demonstrate such a preference, rather than making a claim unsupported. Some other random, variable thoughts: 1. Saying a walk is as good as a hit is not the same as saying a walk is better than a hit. I agree with you, that a hit is better than a walk, as was ably demonstrated in my post: Hit>Walk>Out. Obviously, as both hits and walks are better than outs, both would be acceptable outcomes. However, a hit is preferable, all in all. 2. OBP inflated by AVG is poorly phrased. I think, from the context, that O_O means an OBP inflated by high AVG only supported by an abnormal BABIP, but I could be wrong. I do not agree that anyone's OBP can be "inflated" by AVG -- or walks. Given that they are both rather integral parts of OBP, I find it difficult to accept the contention that either "inflates" OBP. 3. Can you find me a statement in my post that says anything about chopsx says walks are bad? Right. Because I didn't make that statement; nor did I attempt to slyly infer it. 4. I will not tolerate insulting statements which denigrate my reading comprehension. Nor will I accept hostile, inflammatory responses looking to create reaction. I can read and understand, thank you very much. Indeed, I read your post and understood it just fine.

Here's a real simple chart to keep in mind that I think is reflective of the extreme majority of the board: Hit>Walk>Out Characterizing people as preferring walks to hits is a ridiculous strawman argument, and I can't stand by and let it pass. I can't recall anyone saying such a thing. What people *do* prefer are hitters who have the plate discipline to take pitches -- and, yes, walks -- rather than swing at pitcher's pitches and make outs. A perfect example of this debate is Jose Macias vs. Todd Walker, or Neifi Perez vs. Jeromy Burnitz. Their averages are about in the same neighborhood, but Walker and Burnitz are head and shoulders above Macias and Perez, respectively. On base percentage is arguably the most important individual offensive metric. Walks are an integral part of that -- as are hits. But a guy who only gets on base via hits isn't as valuable, offensively, as one who takes a good number of walks.

Twice already this game we've had a man on second with no outs and failed to score.

Now, Macias, dude. He can flat out hit. He's saved us. Hitting almost .300.

I'm not weighing in this debate, but the Cubs do stink right now.

Good job by the Reds -- glad to see it. =D>

Think about it. Over the 2004 and 2005 seasons, the Cubs had invested close to $18M in Remlinger, Hawkins and Borowski. That amount would have paid for Jeff Kent. I know - it's not an apples to apples comparison. Whether it is or is not, it's just further proof that paying obscene amounts for bullpen arms is a waste of money. The correlation between salary and success is lower in the bullpen than anywhere else on the field. As the Angels have proven the last 5 years, great bullpens can be made for very, very cheap. Yet, the Cubs continue to pay millions to guys based on 60 good innings the previous season. Yet, the difference between a 3.00 ERA and a 4.00 ERA over that many innings is 7 runs, within the whim of pure luck, and certainly not enough to conclude that the guy with the 3.00 ERA is the better pitcher. Yet, teams are falling all overthemselves to acquire the guy with the lower ERA. (See, e.g. Kolb, Danny.) Position players are much safer bets because the sample size is so much larger. Yet, our "genius" GM keeps throwing money at the bullpen. It's simply a waste of money. I think this is a very keen point. I would argue that someone with a long history of excellent pitching out of the bullpen is worth a good contract, but I just can't support it. They tend to break down. Certainly, guys like Billy Wagner and Eric Gagne are tremendously valuable, but how much more than a position player at the same price?