SABR Gamer

Where did anyone argue with that? Actually please find one person who said Rizzo doesn't need to get better than he is now. People are just saying you should stfu because you aren't saying anything remotely useful or adding any kind of new information to the discussion. You don't understand WAR. Similar to the first point, show me one person who said Rizzo turning into a 4 WAR player is all the Cubs need to contend. A 4 WAR 1B is going to be a good option for the middle of the order for pretty much any team. Again, where did anyone say this wasn't true. Nobody called him generational. I suggested it wasn't impossible earlier in the year when he was on a tear around the time of his extension, that's the closest I'm pretty sure anyone got to saying that. Do you really not realize that? Because it really seems like you don't. So did everyone else. I'm not sure you know how to comprehend this language. Lol, not at all. It's all you buddy.

calling adam jones, adam laroche and hunter pence "that guy" is really a stretch. You're being an enabler.

Yeah, that's definitely what everyone here has been saying. You nailed it. Sorry for thinking we all are wanting to succeed. He is dead on, If Rizzo jumps to an .820 OPS he can certainly be our middle of the order bat. Of course we still be losing 90 games, but that's obviously fine. Now if your plan says we get Stanton to hit behind him, then I'll agree. Until something is added, you can't simply say he's fine at that rate, because the stats say differently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5d5jxJ5vbM

Yeah, that's definitely what everyone here has been saying. You nailed it.

Rizzo could still end up being an .850+ OPS guy, I mean [expletive], even TT said he'd be there already with a BABIP lower than he had last year. The guy is only 24, playing his first full year and has had terrible BABIP luck. Let's give him a little more time before we jump to any final conclusions (most of you obviously haven't). Hell, Rizzo ending up as a close to .900 OPS guy isn't completely out of the question yet. That would easily put him as one of the top 1B in baseball, especially if he can be above average defensively, which seems to be a pretty realistic expectation.

Flex spot, pick one: Denarius Moore vs WAS Rueben Randle vs KC Willis McGahee vs CIN Ahmad Bradshaw vs JAX Also, I just got Gronk back, so any idea what kind of value I could get for Owen Daniels? 12 team league. ETA: forgot my league has 12 teams, not 10.

It's an 8.1 rWAR now. 2nd most valuable player in the game, according to B-R. (I just realized I've been saying bWAR forever and that's not right) He's gained 1 WAR in a week? Since NYCF posted that on September 14th, Josh Donaldson has a slash line of .407/.543/.667/1.210 Also I think when he posted that he was speaking broadly. I think his WAR may have been somewhere between 7.3 and 7.6, maybe? Yeah, I was going by fWAR, not rWAR, and I think it was like 7.1 when I made that post. His fWAR is now 7.8 so yeah, lol he's basically added another win in 10 days. ETA: Which puts him tied with Miguel Cabrera....and only behind Andrew McCutchen and Mike Trout in all of baseball. Where is my gun?

This isn't 2001, we don't "need" Rizzo to be a 1.000 OPS guy.

http://video.blackhawks.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=894&id=446251&lang=en

Guys who are 24 usually aren't as good as they are going to get.

he's very likely the best defensive 2B in baseball This guy apparently doesn't understand the defensive spectrum.

ugh Hopefully it's just Bennett being his usual overly-descriptive self, and his shoulder isn't actually "messed up."

Josh Donaldson has a [expletive] 7 WAR.

http://randomgifs.com/images/50cent2.gif

Jay can do no wrong. I love him far more than I should love a man I'm not related to.

Yes. "Treymon and CubinNY publicly apologize to NYCF"

Looking back on this, not sure why I thought I would need a copyright and not a TM!

If I had known it would cause people to be nice to me, I would have encouraged my wife to whore it up years ago. Despite what some of my posts to you have said in the past, I've always been a fan of you as a poster. You get on some people's nerves but you have a lot of good things to say.

It'd be a TM and it'd get refused. Well damn, we can make a knock-off. You guys get producer creds for being the inspiration.

While it wasn't necessary, I do appreciate the NSBB Avengers coming to my defense. Thanks guys. Now can we get this thread back on track? ETA: I'm applying for the copyright to the NSBB Avengers, so nobody think about stealing it. Kyle as Tony Stark seems like a good place to start the casting. Early favorite for Loki is imb! Easily the best trouble maker on this site, and asking me if he could have sex with my sister definitely helped his cause.

Based on your opinion? What facts back that up? The facts say I'm right. Straight from Merriam-Webster: Christ, can we end this now? I've proved myself right many times now and you guys just keep saying no without anything to back it up. I understand the damn difference. I also understand that when people say "average" they are referring to the mean. The whole nature of the initial exchange was playful and obnoxious, so I added an (accurate) obnoxious comment of my own. That is the end. There is nothing else to this.

LOL, this is all dumb anyway because it was meant as a throw away comment at the end of a couple joke posts. No need for it to turn into a really dumb argument (I am guilty of allowing it to become that though).

So you want to ignore the part where you were wrong? I've taught statistics to undergrads and grad students. You are dead wrong and can leave the thread now. Probably best to not post for some time too. LOL, A) I am directly quoting my own professor who is Ivy League educated, and B) if you want to just google the word "average," what I said comes up almost immediately. As I said, "mean" is the generally used definition of average, but the mode and medians are still technically averages. Your professor is a moron if he told you that and google is not a source. Mode is the most frequent value Median is the exact middle value Mean is the statistical average. Bye bye now. Wow, you really think this is about not understanding the difference between mode, median, and mean? I'm definitely not suggesting that the mean and median are the same thing. This is about you guys not understanding the definition of an english word. ETA: M-W has them listed as synonyms as well. Is that not a valid source either? You know better than the dictionary? This is laughable. Also yeah, my teacher who got his PhD from Columbia and is a professor at NYU is an idiot, you're right. ETA2: Also, just because you are being a dick, If you really want I can email you copies of my perfect score on the math section of both the SAT and ACT to prove I understand the concepts of mean, median, and mode.

when i post a copy of undergrad transcripts showing that i got an a in statistics you will technically have to leave the board forever in shame So you want to ignore the part where you were wrong? I've taught statistics to undergrads and grad students. You are dead wrong and can leave the thread now. LOL, A) I am directly quoting my own professor who is Ivy League educated, and B) if you want to just google the word "average," what I said comes up almost immediately. As I said, "mean" is the generally used definition of average, but the mode and medians are still technically "averages." Or not, and you guys can stop embarrassing yourselves.

when i post a copy of undergrad transcripts showing that i got an a in statistics you will technically have to leave the board forever in shame So you want to ignore the part where you were wrong?