David

Right. I'm a moron. Realized that right after I posted it. The fact that the baselines end so shallow threw me off.

Huh? Looks like about 440-450 to me... Or do you just mean at the spot where the actual catch was made?

According to Wikipedia, only four players ever hit a homerun into the center field stands at the Polo Grounds after the 1923 remodeling: Luke Easter Joe Adcock Hank Aaron Lou Brock The unofficial length from homeplate to the centerfield stands was 505 feet. :shock: On the other hand, check out the dimensions to left and right... How did people not hit 100 HR a year at that place?? :shock:

That botched double play ball, on the other hand...

On the one hand, at least Deuce is showing he is capable of going against the grain with regard to conventional wisdom.

Most of us find them at Yahoo, I think. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/gallery;_ylt=ArYG.n7KrvtrQPSFzu_CmygRvLYF

So Roberts had this to say about possibly being traded... http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-schmuck0219,0,3568900.column

Yea, baseball isn't really his thing. lmfao and he just said that Theriot is too winded from windsprints to join him and he'll be on tomorrow.

You want some cheese with that whine? There is no news. We've had a smattering of published media reports, a few comments from Mr. Miles and massive amounts of speculation disguised as "rumor" from "sources" or "guys". It's not like he's wrong. I don't necessarily take issue with the things he's pointing out, but he's completely right.

A heads up in case anyone is interested.

Looks the same to me. Look at his legs. Still stick-figureish.

Good deal apparently means fleecing Hendry. Apparently.

Belkast just posted the following... When someone said something to the effect of, "Well, duh, isn't that obvious? Who wouldn't?" he responded... Then when asked if Angelos would have enough respect for Roberts to give him what he wants...

lol... MacPhail is so annoying for some reason. I can't even stand to read one of his quotes.

This would back up the bigbird report from today... From Roch's (O's beat writer) blog at Baltimore Sun http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/roch/blog/

4th Rnd. 37. Justin Verlander 38. Erik Bedard 39. Aramis Ramirez 40. Cole Hamels

I think that's the worst blog name I can imagine. No way I'm going there. lulz.. Check it out, though. He's got some random entertaining stuff. Nice job, Wilco. Have fun.

It'll be a LONG LONG time, if ever, before that changes. I mean, I don't even see it changing in the next 30-40 years. Maybe the new-school stuff will be mainstream enough after another generation or two, though, who knows.

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have. The reason average isn't that important is that it can't stand on it's own. If a guy has a .300 average but a (let's say) .320 OBP, he is not a good offensive player. It doesn't matter that he can hit for high average because overall he's making outs too often because he doesn't get on base in other ways. On the other hand, if a guy has a .240 average but a .370 OBP, he's a pretty good offensive player (might even be very good, depending on how much power he hits for), regardless of the low average. OBP encompasses BA and tells you more about the hitter on top of it. There's really not that much of a reason to look at his BA, other than if you want to evaluate how likely a player is to continue to perform at the level he has previously exhibited. In other words, you might want to look at it to see if a given player's OBP is highly batting average dependent, because if it is, without getting too far into detail about stuff like BABIP, it's probably less repeatable, particularly as the player ages. If a guy hits .240 hes a terrible hitter regardless of his OBP. Hits are better than walks. Hits can get you more than one base, and can actually drive in runs. Id rather have the .300 .320 guy, but it depends on his power and speed too. I give up.

How so? You can say that about any stat then. If a guy hits .300 one year, then there is no reason to expect him not to hit .300 the next year. Same with HRs. If a guy hits 30 HRs one year, then there is no reason not to expect him to hit 30 the next year. Except that HR's can dramatically decrease with age while average actually can stay close to the same, so i dunno. Every stat can be expected to be repeated, but it might not happen. Some things are more likely than others to be repeated. In fact, you can go as far as to say that some things are likely to be repeated while others are unlikely to be repeated. Good statistical analysis of a player can paint a good picture of what is and isn't sustainable. It stems from the fact that certain things are more luck dependent (it's often reasonably easy to tell when a player has performed at a certain level, be it good or bad, due to luck - again, good or bad - or skill/ability). It's not fool-proof, but, again, without getting into too much detail, there is a difference.

Huh? What does this even mean? The way it's phrased, it seems like it's intended as an insult, but U of I is a very good school, so I don't really get it.

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have. The reason average isn't that important is that it can't stand on it's own. If a guy has a .300 average but a (let's say) .320 OBP, he is not a good offensive player. It doesn't matter that he can hit for high average because overall he's making outs too often because he doesn't get on base in other ways. On the other hand, if a guy has a .240 average but a .370 OBP, he's a pretty good offensive player (might even be very good, depending on how much power he hits for), regardless of the low average. OBP encompasses BA and tells you more about the hitter on top of it. There's really not that much of a reason to look at his BA, other than if you want to evaluate how likely a player is to continue to perform at the level he has previously exhibited. In other words, you might want to look at it to see if a given player's OBP is highly batting average dependent, because if it is, without getting too far into detail about stuff like BABIP, it's probably less repeatable, particularly as the player ages.

How do you draw the line between realllllly stubborn and trolling for responses? It's a thin line. It almost seems like it can't be serious. The posts are TOO perfect. amirite?

Oh, the ironing. Oh, and opinions can be wrong. You talk about objectivity, yet people have refuted your arguments with objective facts and legitimate arguments, but you have yet to respond with anything but your own subjective opinion and regurgitations of what you hear the "experts" (most of whom are stubborn themselves and completely close-minded to anything that conflicts with conventional wisdom) say. Your only response when you get called out is that it's your opinion (which can't be wrong - what a beautiful thing) and that the Cubs (and Steve Stone) agree with you (despite the fact that nobody in the organization has said a thing to back up your argument - you're making the inference based on the Cubs' pursuit of Roberts - I get it). It must be great to take a stance in a debate that can't be refuted or argued with.

Congratulations... you are the first person I have ever put on ignore. I have a big thing about the ignore thing and how I think it's stupid, but I'm definitely considering it for the first time, too. I have never done it anywhere for anybody... nobody before has been this aggressive in pushing their flawed agendas, though. The only problem is that people will keep responding to him, and I'll be able to see it when they quote his posts... if we could just get everybody to ignore him, that'd be much easier. I remember a couple others who were as bad, but they usually eventually went off at some point and got banned. I'll give wrigley one thing. He's persistent and seemingly unflappable. Alligator blood.