17 Seconds

he was never given the chance to adjust Read your PM's. My PMs haven't worked for a while

he was never given the chance to adjust

it's not like vitters is already 23 or something. he's a long way away. by the time he's ready ramirez will be probably be expendable..... if not sooner think about it. when vitters is 25 and getting ready to enter his prime, aramis will be 37 and about done... if he isn't before then. depending on who you believe, a hitter's prime is either 25-29 or 27-32.. something like that. statistically, ramirez is already getting ready to exit his prime and vitters is still only 19 i don't really see the conflict between vitters and ramirez. if anything, vitters might not be ready by the time aramis' run is over.

When you're saying "yuck" to a 5-5-1 stretch that's a pretty good sign.... especially with a young team. We all knew they'd go through rough patches. If this ends up being the worst of it that would be really really good Winning less than half your games is never a good thing. I think it's important that they avoid as much of this type of thing as possible, because in today's NHL, it takes a lot of points to be a top 5 seed. And if this team is seeded 7 or 8, I doubt they stand a chance of winning more than 1 or 2 playoff games. i never said it was a good thing. i said when 5-5-1 is your worst stretch of the season, THAT is a good thing

i'm not comparing them i terms of who is a better player though. i'm just comparing their 2 obvious similarities.... walks, and strikeouts.... since that's what we're discussing.

tell me about the batted ball types of each player that caused the significant gap in avg, while you're on a roll. also a little unsure why you left out a player's best season, since it's more recent and of better predictive value. but i agree with your second point. i guess they look a little bit similar. you said it yourself- pie's best season was at age 22. patterson was playing his first full season with the cubs at 22, so we can't compare that. you said compare them at the same age and same levels, so that's what i did. i really don't understand why we keep bringing up average. we're talking aout contact, we're not talking about the result of that contact. batting average has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. we're arguing whether or not he's a contact hitter, not whether or not he's a contact hitter who makes the most of that contact.

oh and during those stretched, patterson drew 99 walks to pie's 101 no similarities here

really? let's look at it. patterson's 3 minor league seasons at ages 19(A), 20 (AA), and 21(AAA) 1286 ABs - 265 Ks pie's 3 seasons at the same ages (19,20,21) and same levels (A,AA,AAA) 1230 ABs - 295 Ks No similarities, huh? really i don't see how we can even be having an argument about this. i think it's pretty obvious pie is a low contact guy. i don't know how you can try to spin that.

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors Not really what? His IsoD is .054 that's not terrible and with a BA of .299 he's not a low contact hitter either. hitting for a good average means you're a good contact hitter? it doesn't mean you are a low contact hitter. He's got a a BABIP that's well with in average ranges too. All and all it kind of says that Pie is not either of those things. Adam Dunn is a low contact hitter. Dave Kingman was a low contact hitter. Mark Bellhorne was a low contact hitter. i don't know why you're talking about batting average and babip. if you strike out a lot, you're a low contact hitter. felix pie strikes out a lot. in 2006 ryan howard struck out 181 times but hit .313. low contact hitter or not? Pie's ks are not that high. they don't have to be. that wasn't the point. that was just an example of how batting average doesn't show whether or not you make a lot of contact. lots of guys hit for good average and strike out a lot and lots of guys hits for poor average and don't strike out. pie strikes out a lot. whether or not he hits for high average doesn't change that. just because he is a low contact hitter doesn't mean he can't still be successful over his minor league career Pie has k'd .21%. The average is right around 20. That's neither high nor low. The fact that he has a decent batting average also provides more evidence that you and Tyrant are wrong. the key here is we're talking about minor league numbers, not major league numbers. players with strikeout totals like pie's in the minors generally see those numbers increase in the majors, which is what we've seen with pie so far in his limited time in the majors. i don't really see how you can honestly try to argue he's not a low contact guy. i also don't see why you keep talking about batting average. we've already established that having a good average doesn't in any way mean that you are a good contact hitter. it means that when you do make contact, you make hard contact/find holes. strikeout totals can affect batting average. that doesn't mean bating average shows strikeout tendencies.

Maybe "hate" was the wrong word, but you could tell he was kind of in his doghouse. He at least could have pitched during garbage time to try to get it together. Judging by his PCL performance, that probably wouldn't have helped anyways though

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors Not really what? His IsoD is .054 that's not terrible and with a BA of .299 he's not a low contact hitter either. hitting for a good average means you're a good contact hitter? it doesn't mean you are a low contact hitter. He's got a a BABIP that's well with in average ranges too. All and all it kind of says that Pie is not either of those things. Adam Dunn is a low contact hitter. Dave Kingman was a low contact hitter. Mark Bellhorne was a low contact hitter. i don't know why you're talking about batting average and babip. if you strike out a lot, you're a low contact hitter. felix pie strikes out a lot. in 2006 ryan howard struck out 181 times but hit .313. low contact hitter or not? Pie's ks are not that high. they don't have to be. that wasn't the point. that was just an example of how batting average doesn't show whether or not you make a lot of contact. lots of guys hit for good average and strike out a lot and lots of guys hits for poor average and don't strike out. pie strikes out a lot. whether or not he hits for high average doesn't change that. just because he is a low contact hitter doesn't mean he can't still be successful

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors Not really what? His IsoD is .054 that's not terrible and with a BA of .299 he's not a low contact hitter either. hitting for a good average means you're a good contact hitter? it doesn't mean you are a low contact hitter. He's got a a BABIP that's well with in average ranges too. All and all it kind of says that Pie is not either of those things. Adam Dunn is a low contact hitter. Dave Kingman was a low contact hitter. Mark Bellhorne was a low contact hitter. i don't know why you're talking about batting average and babip. if you strike out a lot, you're a low contact hitter. felix pie strikes out a lot. in 2006 ryan howard struck out 181 times but hit .313. low contact hitter or not?

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors Not really what? His IsoD is .054 that's not terrible and with a BA of .299 he's not a low contact hitter either. hitting for a good average means you're a good contact hitter?

When you're saying "yuck" to a 5-5-1 stretch that's a pretty good sign.... especially with a young team. We all knew they'd go through rough patches. If this ends up being the worst of it that would be really really good

Exactly. He just never gave him a chance. And so....what....he could get Reed Johnson more at-bats against RHP? Come on.

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? To be fair, he could still be decent despite that. I mean, .280/.325/.425 or something like that would have been good enough for a cf with really good defense. I'm not saying he would have done that, but he certainly could have

Who is arguing that he proved he'd never be able to hit? or that he won't improve? Tyrant kind of did.... for 2008 at least-

??? I think you're misreading the second quote or something. Where did I ever say anything about the reasoning for his struggles? I never did. Read it again. The other dude was citing IP totals for some reason, as though he was possibly implying that Wuertz is injury prone or something. I don't know. All I said was that a big reason his IP totals were low was that Lou never used him. I never said anything about that affecting his performance. And you are? I don't get why are being critical of Lou here, other than for the sake of being critical Don't you remember that stretch of the season where Wuertz was on the roster but never ever pitched, even in garbage time? I remember it being discussed plenty of here and the game threads being full of "is Wuertz dead?" posts every day for like 3 straight weeks. I'm not really even criticizing Lou for it, I was just pointing out that he was on the roster but wasn't be used. It was just a simple observation.

I would have put more stock into what that guy said if he didn't throw out that really unrealistic sounding supposed deal. I can't imagine Vitters not being involved... and if he's not deal would be a lot bette than those 4.

How was it dumb to platoon two decent players for a full season and get great production from the CF slot? If anything, using a platoon like that to such great effect was pretty atypical for the Cubs. Well they gave up on Pie before anybody knew they'd get freakish production from Edmonds Or, it was obvious that Pie wasn't going to be able to contribute offensively in 2008, so they looked elsewhere for production. It was obvious by those whole 30 PAs that he struggled in to start the season? In has last 40 PAs before Edmonds took his place and Pie was sent back to AAA, he went .286/.350/.400. He was improving. I'm not a Pie fan at all, but the dude was never given a chance in 2008.

How was it dumb to platoon two decent players for a full season and get great production from the CF slot? If anything, using a platoon like that to such great effect was pretty atypical for the Cubs. Well they gave up on Pie before anybody knew they'd get freakish production from Edmonds

And now you know why 75% of the board has him on ignore. Did you even read the thread or are you just trying to be a dick? So I question why somebody says they're giving Vitters no chance at being great, and suddenly I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing and I'm being an ass or something. Okay, whatever. It's just a copout because he realized he said something that didn't make sense, so he tries to make it into me being a douchebag or something instead of talking about that. I'd say the people who have me on ignore are probably people who have said dumbass things. Sorry if you're one of those people.

i'm not getting defensive or flustered at all, what are you talking about? We were just having a discussion and then you got all defensive and start talking about me just wanting to argue. Why? Becuase I replied to a post I didn't agree with? Isn't that what internet message boards are for? To discuss and debate things? Whatever, I don't even care. You'r right. Vitters has no chance to be great and he sucked ass last year.

but tht's not what you said. you said- so because of his good-but-not-great season last season at an extremely youn age you're not giving him a chance of being great? that makes no sense. i'm not pumping up vitters and of course i'd trade him for vitters. i just don't understand why you're not giving him a chance, especially considering he was pretty good last year. and he didnt turn 19 until the end of the season youre focusing on the wrong thing, which unless you merely just like to argue i dont know why. this all spiraled far away from the original point -- that vitters shouldn't be a deal breaker in acquiring jake peavy. so i'm not allowed to reply to posts you make if they aren't the original point you made? isn't this a message board? you can do whatever you want. just seems that youre looking for something to argue about. constantly. If I'm arguing, then most internet message board stuff is arguing. You just need to stop getting so defensive because you're getting flustered at people questioning you.