17 Seconds

the problem is that the only position that figgins is good at is 3b, and obviously he can't play there.

i don't think it would take castro to get granderson, and i wouldn't have a problem giving up vitters. i'd rather lose vitters than jayjax, actually

good joke

Only a pot head would think nobody can tell that they are a pot head or that they are acting like a normal person when stoned. Hate to lay it out there, but we can tell, and most of us are cool with it. not everyone can tell...i dated a girl for quite some time and she could never tell when i was or wasn't stoned. pretty sure my boss can't tell i'm stoned right now either ;) The boss probably just assumes you're always stoned. your opinions on this matter seem very naive.

Only a pot head would think nobody can tell that they are a pot head or that they are acting like a normal person when stoned. Hate to lay it out there, but we can tell, and most of us are cool with it. i really don't think you understand how many people smoke. sorry, but you're wrong. of course you can tell some people smoke, but to say that you can recognize every person who is stoned is pretty ignorant. i'd say the amjority of the time, you can't tell.

so you would have been okay with him winning over greinke even though zack was clearly better?

but still definitely not acceptable

cubbie kindbuder

it still drives me crazy that miles got a 2 year deal. even if he put up his career numbers last season, there was absolutely no need whatsoever to lock a crappy middle infielder up for 2 years. it's especially bad considering how strapped for cash hendry is going to be this offseason. that 2.7 million dollars is looking pretty big. if we ended up getting granderson, that 2.7 million would have been nice to spend on reed johnson to complete what would be a pretty monstrous platoon.

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.