Transmogrified Tiger

Sorry, but you're failing to apply logic to this debate. The plan was never to develop great pitchers and then trade them. The plan was develop a core of players (which Zambrano and Prior are apart of) and then trade others for the difference makers. If Hendry doesn't have those others to trade for a difference maker, than he either failed to develop them, or squandered them frivolously. Either way, the plan was not carried through well enough. Remind me again how Hendry acquired offensive "difference makers" named Lee, Ramirez, and Garciaparra (and, hopefully, Pierre). To say that Hendry, can't/won't/hasn't done exactly what you're advocating is either misguided, uninformed, or both. By taking advantage of monetary dilemmas in the Lee and Ramirez deals, and by orchestrating a crazy enough deal that he was able to deal quantities of prospects rather than more proven qualities, the Nomar deal. In this(and other cases), the team isn't in a financial bind(although money plays a role in every deal), and there are teams willing to give the more proven commodities that Hendry is unable to provide, because of the reasons I stated before.

Z and Prior aren't the only arms in the system. When you draft loads of pitchers, you use the depth to get what you want. The problem, as TheDude pointed out, is that we have been unable to develop anything between the studs(Prior, Z, Wood) and the hopefuls with potential(Cruz, Pinto, Guzman, etc.). Part of the reason is that they are unable to bring anyone in between the two extremes is that there isn't much space in the rotation to develop. When you've got 3 studs like the above, then you're already at a "disadvantage". However, knowing that you build around pitching this has to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, Hendry contradicts the overriding "draft pitching and trade for hitting" philosophy with his FA SP acquisitions, by acquiring mediocre to poor talents to fill those spots(Maddux, Rusch) instead of developing the younger players to the point where they fill the need or are valuable enough to trade elsewhere. BTW, Welcome!

Soto and Jose Reyes are still on the roster. If Barrett got banged up, they'd start Blanco and call up a kid. If he went down for the year, they'd probably pick up some journeyman off the waiver wire (the way they got Neifi and about 5 other shortstops in recent years), or trade for some vet from a crap team. Who's better...Soto or Reyes? I don't know who's a better defender, but Soto is the superior offensive player, and is also regarded as a good defensive catcher.

Soto and Reyes are both on the 40 man.

He wasn't that great last year, and 3B is a deeeep position. He was 8th in 3B OPS last year.

Maybe, but that is often where people let impressions take over reality. People who watch Jeter everyday claim he's one of the greatest with the glove. But nearly every other source puts him in the middle of the pack at best, and quite often in the bottom half. I'd like to see somebody break down video from every ball put in play. Take all the plays that went between the 2B and 3B, time every ball from the time it leaves the bat to the time it hits the OF grass (or is fielded), measure the distance from where the SS was. There has to be a way to translate that into seeing who really were the better fielders and which guys that may look flashy actually don't get to as many balls as they should. That'd take a lot of time though, and I'm not sure if it would work. this isnt really fair though. the shortstop might be able to see what pitch the pitcher is going to throw, or have a good handle on the batter's scouting report and adjust accordingly. i think bill james wrote about this is one of his old abstracts. i think he referred to it as "invisible range." Don't all shortstops have the opportunity to do that though? yeah, but i think it's safe to assume that some shortstops are better at it than others. therefore, measuring only how far the player had to go to get the ball would overrate a player with great visible range but poor invisible range, and underrate a player with great invisible range but poor visible range I don't understand how that's bad though. Shouldn't the person with the superior positioning be rewarded?

So let me get this straight. You think she retracted the charges because of money? Why didn't she just settle a lawsuit and save herself the trouble of being with some guy who's abusing her? There's a lot of ways she could have cashed in on that situation without actually staying in the relationship. IIRC, a victim severely exaggerating or even making up claims is pretty commonplace as well.

I don't think Pie's ever going to be Abreu or Giles patient, but I don't think it's out of the realm of comprehension for him to put up a .060 IsoD. Combine that with the ability to hit .300 and a .200+ IsoP, a .300/.360/.500+ line is fantastic for a CF.

Pie's been able to hit for average everywhere he's been, which has helped mitigate his inability to take walks so far. His IsoP has improved each of the last 3 seasons, and therefore his SLG, OPS, RC27, etc.. He's been at least one year younger than normal at every level, which is a huge factor. Add in the fact he's got a great arm and every tool in the book, and it's not difficult to see why people are high on him. I don't think I can emphasize enough the age thing though. That's what sets his performance apart from others in addition to his tools, and it gives more hope to improving his plate discipline in the future with time on his side.

There are a lot of them in the Big Ten. Weber, Davis, Ryan, Izzo and Monson are all pretty bad. I don't think there's anyone who can work the refs and get more calls than Izzo though. I haven't seen much of Monson, and I don't think Davis and Weber are that bad. Ryan is the worst IMO. It's funny you say that about Izzo though. Big Ten Wonk had an emailer today that showed Michigan State has virtually no home court advantage fouls wise.

That's the last conference game, so you're right no matter what. :wink:

You've never listened to Tom Izzo apparently. Oh no you didn't....

Maybe, but that is often where people let impressions take over reality. People who watch Jeter everyday claim he's one of the greatest with the glove. But nearly every other source puts him in the middle of the pack at best, and quite often in the bottom half. I'd like to see somebody break down video from every ball put in play. Take all the plays that went between the 2B and 3B, time every ball from the time it leaves the bat to the time it hits the OF grass (or is fielded), measure the distance from where the SS was. There has to be a way to translate that into seeing who really were the better fielders and which guys that may look flashy actually don't get to as many balls as they should. That'd take a lot of time though, and I'm not sure if it would work. this isnt really fair though. the shortstop might be able to see what pitch the pitcher is going to throw, or have a good handle on the batter's scouting report and adjust accordingly. i think bill james wrote about this is one of his old abstracts. i think he referred to it as "invisible range." Don't all shortstops have the opportunity to do that though?

WE'RE 75% THROUGH WITH THE GAME BRENT. GETTING 60% OF YOUR ALLOTTED FOULS IS NOT A BIG DEAL.

Good grief Musberger, getting your 3rd foul with 12 minutes left in the game is not a brain racking decision.

I want Wisconsin to win this game, and he's not making it very easy for me. That probably should've been a charge on Augustine though.

Isn't Euclis still there? Is he in the mix for the 1B job?

Statistics are the same as rankings? Wow, my dictionary must be way off. They're both used for exactly the same thing, arguing exact definitions is semantics beyond the point. In the example, both are used to determine the worth of the player or team.

So because they use it to determine the field, that makes it more accurate? That would mean that a team's last ten games should determine their ranking. And it also should mean that Wisconsin is the 8th best team in the country. I've already gone over why it's more accurate. Your stance on the issue is changing with every post. First the polls are better because they're widely used, then RPI isn't worthwhile because it's a small factor considered(compared to not at all with the polls). Now being used to select the tourney makes it less valid somehow?

Apples and oranges. Statistics are not the same thing as rankings. A lot of guys had more wins than Roger Clemens last year, but how many would you rank ahead of him as being a better pitcher? They most certainly are the same. You're proving my point for me. How many times do you see the media point to wins as an evaluator, compared to WHIP for example? What's popular isn't necessarily what's right.

RPI is probably one of the smallest of the factors considered when selecting teams. They look at how you've done over your last ten games, quality wins, quality losses, etc. And not the polls. That's what we were talking about.

I look at it this way - if RPI was more effective than the polls, then that's how teams would be ranked. That's what would be in the papers and all over ESPN. The tournament selection committee uses RPI. It doesn't use the polls. EDIT: Because ESPN shows AVG/HR/RBI for all the players in their graphics during games, does that make it more effective than AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS, or a number of other stats?

But it most certainly considers the opponents, which is a huge part(the most important part actually) of the example you provided.

Because I don't trust a machine that uses mathematical formulas to determine a game that is based completely on human actions. RPI doesn't take into account margin of victory or any of that. Again, RPI is not flawless. That still doesn't mean it's not more effective than other methods. That's incorrect.

I'm not saying it's head and shoulders above it. They're definitely close. It's just my opinion that the Big East is better. But I wouldn't go as far as to call RPI reliable. The polls are probably more reliable in my eyes. They generally pick a more accurate top 25 than RPI does. I can tell you right now, there is no way that Wisconsin is a top 10 team. And there is surely no way they should be ranked ahead of UConn. That's because they've sustained the losses they have. Pomeroy's rankings has UConn #1 over the last 5 games, and Wisconsin #101 over their last 5 games. I really don't know how you can say that the polls with all their what-have-you-done-for-me-lateliness, bias towards longtime powers, and general human element are more reliable though.