Transmogrified Tiger

Just Premium, I believe. I'm supposed to take your word for it? Pfft.

I think Premium members can choose to hide information. Or maybe regular users too.

Big Mac? That's pre-Beane and pre-"Moneyball" though, isn't it? I thought Beane was in on the trade to St. Louis, but I could easily be wrong. Hmmm, either way though it's another example of the top talent being linked to steroids, and not the "gamers that don't have enough talent".

Big Mac? That's pre-Beane and pre-"Moneyball" though, isn't it?

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out. It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth. If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on. I know I wouldn't want a system where I don't get blamed for failure, and get credit for success. Nor would I. I don't think any of us would. And yet a lot of us assume that Dusty would. I find that interesting, if not a bit hypocritical. However, it is far from proven that Dusty employs the system described above. It is real easy to look at someone's actions from one point of view and see someone running from responsibility and to look at the same actoins and see someone explaining why he thinks things happen or whatever. We need look no further than our current president. Our nation is deeply divided. He gives the same speech or takes the same actions, but one group hears one thing and the other group hears another. To believe that you know with any amount of certainty that Baker sets up ploys to avoid blame is to say that you are able to read a man's thoughts. Anything short of telepathic ability on your part leaves you with just your opinion. And I think it is a well supported one. Proven? Far from it. In a way, you are right. The logic that is being used is sound. But this logical situation is just a theory. No one has proven that Dusty actually does this. Is there evidence for it, yes, most certainly. Is there evidence against it? Yes. I was being sarcastic. It would be great to never be blamed yet always get the credit, however unethical it is. The rest of my post that you didn't reply to was the evidence for it, what's the evidence against it?

Giambi and Tejada are the only ones that have been brought up right? They are the most talented to begin with, not the one's who necessarily need an extra boost(although every bit counts). If what you're saying were true, wouldn't we be seeing Scott Hatteberg and Marco Scutaro test positive?

Notice that Neifi is near the bottom of OBP on that list SJCF. He's 12th of 13 qualified SS in RC/G, which is Runs Created as a rate.

If you're going to get rid of Nomar, make it Cedeno/Walker. Walker can lead off, and we wont overpay for a leadoff hitter like we would with Furcal. Walker is another bad defense guy with no speed. No thanks. We can easily afford Furcal, and he adds a very needed dimension to this team, just as Juan Pierre or Kenny Lofton will in CF. And it's not like we can't afford Furcal with over $40MM to spend. Considering Cabrera got 8x4 and Renteria got 10x4, I think 9x4 should be just about right for Furcal, and I'd pay it. Shoot, we paid Nomar + Walker $10.75MM in 2005. Considering Cedeno will make the minimum, anything at 10/year or below for Furcal and you're actually saving money. Also note--Patterson got $3MM for 2005. That money pays for Kenny Lofton in all likelihood. A modest $3MM more gets Juan Pierre. So just for the sake of argument: For a net $3MM payroll increase, you go from Patterson, Nomar and Walker to Pierre, Furcal and Cedeno. Or for no net change in payroll, substitute Lofton for Pierre. Are you kidding me? I do that so fast it makes your head spin. OBP, defense, speed please. And yes, I know Pierre's defense is sub-par, but his leadoff abilities compensate. Pierre on top of his game is overrated, and not better than Walker. And he's been embarrassing this year. Lofton's BABIP is outrageous, check the Wilkerson v. Dunn thread for Diffusion's analysis on why Lofton is in for a big decline. EDIT: You've been clamoring for the Cubs to cut Patterson because of his performance this year, even though he has been fairly good for a CF in the past. Why does the opposite hold true for Pierre?

Going by VORP, Lee is the 18th best SP in the AL. His teammate Millwood is 5th.

So is the rivalry "bs" or is it something that will benefit us? I think your two paragraphs somewhat contradict each other Personally, I want the sox to lose mainly because of a friend of mine that goes on and on about ozzie ball and how it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, not to mention some retribution for his behavior after the '03 playoffs. The paragraphs aren't contradictory. I'm very much for an organizational rivalry, but some people let the "fan" rivalry cloud their judgement. It's better for the Cub fans that the White Sox enjoy some success, because that puts pressure on the Cubs. This is simple free-market economics. Instead, there are far too many Cub fans that would be all too happy to see the ChiSox disbanded, and if you think the Tribune is bad now, just imagine them being the only game in town. It goes both ways. If the White Sox were more prominent, would the Trib spend more to get the lost fans back, or would they use a loss in fan base to justify cutting back spending?

That's something else that gets overlooked too. It's not only that the Sox are the inter-city rivals, but I'd really love for them to miss the playoffs so that people could see that they weren't winning because of some garbage concept of Ozzieball or grinderball. The Sox won because of unreal pitching, that's the end of the story, not because Podsednik was a catalyst or sacrifice bunts aren't criminal wastes the majority of the time.

Boston is off tonight.

I'm not saying that it's a snap, but they're only 3.5 games from being out of the playoffs, and that goes down to 3 if they lose the game they haven't played yet that they're "behind" in the standings counting-wise.

I wonder what Bonds's career OPS+ is if you remove 2001-2005. Eyeballing it it looks like it drops him to the bottom of the top-10 Career OPS+, with Cobb, Foxx, and McGwire.

There goes my theory that they were auctioning off all the Mary Kay Edmonds left in the visitors clubhouse.

Here's a closer look at Lofton's BABIP numbers. Can you see a trend? 1991-95: .343 BABIP 1992-96: .345 BABIP 1993-97: .361 BABIP 1994-98: .346 BABIP 1995-99: .342 BABIP 1996-00: .334 BABIP 1997-01: .320 BABIP 1998-02: .301 BABIP 1999-03: .301 BABIP 2000-04: .291 BABIP 2001-05: .302 BABIP The reason for looking at things in five-year trends is primarily because it gets rid of sample size issues. A single slump or hot streak can throw an entire season's worth numbers. I think there are two plausible things you can project from here onwards. 1) 2000-04 was out of line, and Lofton's BABIP has stabilised around .300 2) 2001-05 was out of line, and Lofton's BABIP can be expected to continue to decline as had been the case from 1993-07 onwards. Anyway, there's basically no case for using Lofton's career BABIP mark of .327 (that's updated through 2005) as a sort of baseline for 2006 projections. I think you're looking instead at a figure between .280 and .300, depending upon which of the two options above is true. Personally, I'm heavily inclined to learn towards the latter, option 2. Of course, the trouble with projecting a certain number is year-to-year variance. Saying that if Lofton played his 2006 season 10000 times he'd average a .285 BABIP doesn't mean that when Lofton plays his 2006 season once (as he will) he won't have a BABIP of .350 or a BABIP of .220. But it means that he's most likely to have something around .285, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that he can't have a .360 BABIP again, it doesn't mean that he won't, it just means that's it's not likely. What does a BABIP of .285 for Lofton's 2006 mean? Basically, it means that he's thoroughly useless as a baseball player, and we shouldn't sign him. Now really I should do the five-year segments thing to come up for a proper AVG/OBP/SLG projection with a .285 BABIP, but for now I'll just roughly translate Lofton's 2005 numbers... .256/.322/.319 Just say no. Well I said that it might be generous to give him that....:D Thanks for following through with the numbers, that's the point I was getting at. Lofton's '05 is way out of line from what we should expect.

Dubois has played all this year at 26, and spent 4 years(not exactly an eternity) in the minor leagues. The comparisons are there, Dusty handled their successes nearly the exact same way. Fortunately, Murton hasn't faltered yet so we haven't seen what he'll do if that happens. In baseball terms, it is an eternity. There is a reason why Dubois didn't see his first real big league action until 26, sorry for the misinformation I provided stating he's 27. Maybe Murton hasn't faltered because he's just better than Dubois. I think some just had too high of expectations for Dubois. I still think Murton is in a different class than Dubois. The expectations are pretty much irrelevant. I'm not trying to make a point that Dubois and Murton would have similar results, I'm trying to show how the two rookie OFs were treated, and how Dusty pats himself on the back for their success(despite hindering them), yet doesn't take any blame for their failures. Maybe it's not his fault. Maybe DuBois just isn't that good. The same arguments were made for Choi and 2 years later he's in LA and still struggling. Choi was a better prospect than DuBois too. You're missing the point entirely.

Lofton's BABIP: 2003: .302 2004: .291 2005: .365 Career(thru 2004): .322 That BABIP drops to career norms(which may be generous considering the previous years and that he's 38 next year) and his line looks like .290/.350/.375*/.725. *.375 is max SLG, and therefore .725 is max OPS I would like Milton Bradley to play CF please.

Dubois has played all this year at 26, and spent 4 years(not exactly an eternity) in the minor leagues. The comparisons are there, Dusty handled their successes nearly the exact same way. Fortunately, Murton hasn't faltered yet so we haven't seen what he'll do if that happens. In baseball terms, it is an eternity. There is a reason why Dubois didn't see his first real big league action until 26, sorry for the misinformation I provided stating he's 27. Maybe Murton hasn't faltered because he's just better than Dubois. I think some just had too high of expectations for Dubois. I still think Murton is in a different class than Dubois. The expectations are pretty much irrelevant. I'm not trying to make a point that Dubois and Murton would have similar results, I'm trying to show how the two rookie OFs were treated, and how Dusty pats himself on the back for their success(despite hindering them), yet doesn't take any blame for their failures.

Wrong. Some people would cry foul, true, but others would not. We had this discussion 2 years ago. And again, we're not talking about benching Lee or Zambrano. It's benching Hairston/Patterson or Neifi for crying out loud. Rival teams should thank us for giving those spots a chance at success.

Dubois has played all this year at 26, and spent 4 years(not exactly an eternity) in the minor leagues. The comparisons are there, Dusty handled their successes nearly the exact same way. Fortunately, Murton hasn't faltered yet so we haven't seen what he'll do if that happens.

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out. It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth. If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on. I know I wouldn't want a system where I don't get blamed for failure, and get credit for success. There's nothing that disproves this circular logic that's been proved several times. Dubois had early success, Dusty had praise but always some criticisms that somehow justified him not playing. When Dubois finally got to play, Dusty said that this was the plan all along, and that he's been trying to put him in the best situations to succeed. In other words, good job Dusty, Dubois wouldn't have done that well without you. Ridiculous. Then when Dubois struggles, there's not a mention of said "system", and he gets replaced much quicker than Hollandsworth did while putting up similar numbers. Same thing with Murton. Has early success, Dusty says good job, that he's putting Murton in the best situations to succeed. Again, hooray Dusty. Murton continues to hit, all other options sans Hairston are removed, and Murton splits time with Hairston, with all praise for Murton being tempered with "he can't hit for power(paraphrased)". Now Murton keeps hitting, and it's a result of Dusty's plan all along. Sorry if I don't buy that.

I haven't watched any of the game, but he is 2 for 4. :| Oh he is? Ah, well based off of the last page of posts prior to mine, I just assumed that he was 0-fer and stunk in the field. Well, good for him. Gotta get that trade value up. Well, he's 6 for his last 17 with 4 doubles. Baby steps I guess.

I haven't watched any of the game, but he is 2 for 4. :|

Barry being on Roids takes him out of consideration for best hitter of all-time, but he's the best hitter of this era if not more than that. I'm not sure I'd go as far as 70 years, but he's still pretty good at swinging the stick.