17 Seconds

can somebody tell me how rose has been this year so far? i haven't been able to watch any games yet so all i have to go by is his numbers. im just wondering why they're lower.

what is Castro's ceiling supposed to be?

what's with the uneven spacing of "Twins" on the home white? that looks really awkward and like somebody else mentioned, i immediately thought of the nationals when i saw the gray

Are you serious? Are you Tommy Chong? I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. All of it. The bolded part is just outright stupid. The bolded part is weird, but the rest is true

BS. Driving stoned is no better than driving drunk. Driving drunk is wayyy worse Have you even seen a person having trouble and stumbling while trying to walk? Have you seen a high person slur their speech and then puke everywhere? Have you ever seen a person pass out in a smoke shop from smoking too much weed? I'm not saying it's okay to drive stoned, but it's not at all the same as driving drunk.

the draft pick goes to denver anyways

somebody needs to tell that guy that bill bavasi isn't a gm anymore

Nobody gave Case McGehee a first place vote. says here somebody did http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4660425

I want to know what clown gave Case McGehee a first place vote

He did? I assume you're talking about this post- He's still taking my statements out of context. He is still arguing how strikeouts affect a players numbers, and that's something I never even brought up. I'm talking about how it doesn't matter if a player achieves his production with or without strikeouts. He's implying that I said strikeouts don't affect production, when I never did. The original argument started when the other guy tried to devalue Granderson's production because of how much he strikes out. So if he puts up an .850 with a lot of strikeouts, is that crappier than an .850 OPS with a low amount of strikeouts? No, not really, and that's the only thing I've been saying the WHOLE time. I never said strikeouts don't affect how good he is.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined. That's what I thought. While that comment itself isn't entirely true, it's a nice shortcut for certain arguments. When comparing Granderson to another player for the purposes of deciding whom to acquire, for instance. In that sort of situation, the end result of their approach is what matters, and faulting somebody for the strikeouts at that point serves no purpose. What you're arguing generally only has use for a hitting coach who is trying to squeeze the most out of his player... and most people on a message board are interested in playing GM and manager, not hitting coach. I get what you're saying Rob. When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less. This post makes it very clear that you never understood the context of my original argument. I can tell you only skimmed through my posts and didn't understand what I was saying. We're talking about getting Granderson.... who is a guy who has pretty much proven what type of hitter he is. He will strike out. Would I like him more if he struck out less and produced a little more. Obviously. The original argument was as simple as this: The high strikeout totals mght hinder him from being even better than he is, but they don't diminish the good prouction he currently gives. Meanwhile, you keep trying to talk about how strikeouts AFFECT production, as opposed to whether or not they dimish the actual production. You're still counting strikeouts against a player twice.

Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs. Are you really not getting this? I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's. That's now 5 times I've explained it. And I'm explaining that looking at outs AFTER the fact makes you look foolish. The reason is simple. All strikeouts are outs. Not all balls in play become outs. You can continue tabulating the number times you've made ridiculous statements if you like, although I'm at a loss for why you'd want to. You're not even making sense now. The fact that Rob backed it up despite the fact that he hates me pretty much shows you you're talking nonsense and that you just cant admit that you initially misunderstood my argument. Does it need to be explained to you a 7th time that I'm talking about how strikeouts shouldn't be counted against a player's production when he's shown what it is? Like Rob said, you're counting K's against a player twice. Strikeouts are already reflected in a players line. If a player is putting up an .850 OPS, you shouldn't be trying to discredit that because he stries out a lot, which is what the original poster did. Hopefully you'll just cut your losses at this point.. If you can't follow how much sense I'm making here, then that's on you. Just go on believing that strikeouts are the same as other kinds of outs, and let the knowledgeable baseball fans here continue with the discussion. Looking through the posts on the last 2 pages, it appears that everybody understand the context of the situation except you. I'll say it for the 18th time. My argument was never that strikeouts don't hurt a players production. my argument was that when you look at a players production, it doessn't matter much if he got it by striking out a lot or striking out a little. it's the same production. The context of the argument was started by the guy who devalued Granderson's prouction because he strikes out a lot. IF THE PRODUCTION IS EXACTLY THE SAME, THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HOW HE GOT THAT PROUCTION. An .850 OPS with a lot of strikeouts isn't much different than an .850 without strikeouts. Could that .850 OPS be higher without thhe K's? Of course, but AGAIN, that's not the context of the conversation. As 3 people have now said, you appear to be counting strikeouts against a player twice. Seriously, it's obvious that you misinterpreted by original argument and just can't admit it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-14-cubs-granderson-nov14,0,2987407.story

I mentioned that too, even though it has nothing to do with the original argument.

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true. You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs." Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you. Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs. Are you really not getting this? I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's. That's now 5 times I've explained it. And I'm explaining that looking at outs AFTER the fact makes you look foolish. The reason is simple. All strikeouts are outs. Not all balls in play become outs. You can continue tabulating the number times you've made ridiculous statements if you like, although I'm at a loss for why you'd want to. You're not even making sense now. The fact that Rob backed it up despite the fact that he hates me pretty much shows you you're talking nonsense and that you just cant admit that you initially misunderstood my argument. Does it need to be explained to you a 7th time that I'm talking about how strikeouts shouldn't be counted against a player's production when he's shown what it is? Like Rob said, you're counting K's against a player twice. Strikeouts are already reflected in a players line. If a player is putting up an .850 OPS, you shouldn't be trying to discredit that because he stries out a lot, which is what the original poster did. Hopefully you'll just cut your losses at this point..

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs? If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points). When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out. Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit. Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS. Would Granderson be better if he didn't strike out so much? Yes. But when we're comparing the production of two players, you don't get to double-count their strikeouts against them. Their strikeouts are already reflected in their final line. Which is exactly what I've said over and over.

The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them. We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much. And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period. So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs. This statement is only correct if you assume a 0.000 BABIP. I'd suggest you try harder to follow what I presented. I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that. But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements. I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less. I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player. I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers. Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time. You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true. You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs." Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you. Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs. Are you really not getting this? I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's. That's now 5 times I've explained it.

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs? If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points). When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out. Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit. Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS. The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them. We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much. And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period. So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs. This statement is only correct if you assume a 0.000 BABIP. I'd suggest you try harder to follow what I presented. I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that. But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements. I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less. I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player. I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers. Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time.

You must not have read all my posts, considerin g you're making a completely different argument (and I've already said this). was never saying that strikeouts don't affect how good a player is. I'm not debating whether or not granderson would be better if he K'd less. I'm saying that he's still a good player with them. Hopefully I don't have to say it a 3rd time.

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs? If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points). When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out. Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit. Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS. The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them. We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much. And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period. You could just as easily make the argument that shortening your swing with 2 outs to avoid a K is what costs you a chance to hit and instead increase your chances of making weak contact. This has nothing to do with any argument I was making though, so I don't see the point. So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs. Would he be better if he K'd less? Maybe, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about whether or not he's good as he is.

I agree with you on the Bradley thing, but that's simply not going to happen. I think when talking about this winter we need to just assume he's gone. Whether or not that's the right move is a completely different debate. As far as Byrd goes, I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly. Defensively, he has a good reputation, and according to UZR he's almost exactly average, with a -6 last year, +5.9 in 08, and a +.3 in 2007At worst he's probably a little above average, which considering he would allow us to move Fukudome to RF he would still give us a pretty good net gain in the outfield defensively. And he's a type B FA, so there is no cost in players for him. As for Home/Road splits, I think those might be a minor issue, but nothing huge. First off, there's generally a gap in guys with regards to home/road splits. For instance, in 2009 the average MLB player hit .267/.340/.429 at home and .258/.326/.406 away. Also, Wrigley Field is a pretty damn good hitters park too, so there shouldn't be much of a dropoff going from Texas to Wrigley. I mean he's not a guy to go "Oh my God it's Marlon Byrd!" But he's a pretty good player that can probably be gotten relatively inexpensively. When a guy plays in Texas and has huge splits, it's an issue. If we got Byrd I think we could expect like a .750 OPS. Arlington kind of has Coors syndrome, where home/road splits are more pronounced because the other parks in the division heavily favor pitchers. that's a good point. ok .780

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. The point is that he producsed in spite of them. Like I said before, a .950 OPS with 140 K's isn't much different than a .950 OPS with 90 k's. I'll say it again- the K totals don't really matter when you've proven that you're going to produce. If Granderson was putting up identical numbers but was just striking out less, he wouldn't really be much better. He'd just be making outs in different ways. Do I really need to show you even more awesome players who strike out more than Granderson? Aren't those guys just "wasting chances" to drive in runners when they K? But again, what does this have to do with Soriano?

Obviously you aren't understanding anything right, considering nothing I said was even remotely close to that. We're not talking about whether or not he'd be better if he K'd less anyways. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Especially considering that the K rate of Mark Reynolds isn't at all similar to Granderson. The point is that he doesn't K "all the time" like you said he did. He strikes out a good amount, but not at an alarming rate. Don't forget that his K totals also are higher due to the amount of ABs he gets. Yeah he had 140 K's last year, but he also had over 700 at-bats. Anyways, once you've established that you can succeed in spite of your K's, they don't really matter that much. A .950 OPS with 150 K's isn't much different than a .950 OPS with 80 k's. They're really only a concern when you question whether or not a young player can succeed in spite of them. I also get the impression that people see high K totals and for some reason associate that with the way Soriano K's a lot (horrible discipline, chasing pitches constantly). Just because a guy strikes out a lot doesn't mean he's that kind of hitter (as you can see from the list I provided). Guys who walk a lot are usually going to strike out a lot too. That's just how it is. I just don't understand the comparison to Soriano. The reasons you gave aren't true at all. Granderson is a good defender, has above average patience, and doesn't K nearly as much as Alfonso.

Based on....

You're the second person who has compared Soriano to Granderson, and it's been equally ridiculous both times. Granderson has above average patience, and if not for his ridiculous BABIP last year, he'd have 3 straight years with a high OBP. So yeah, he does get on base well. Oh, and Granderson doesn't K "all the time" (and it wouldn't even matter if he did). Some players with a higher K rate than Granderson last year Longoria Youkilis Votto Kemp Fielder DeRosa Ibanez Drew Upton Choo Wright Werth Bay So to summarize, he's nothing like Soriano.