17 Seconds

While I agree with what he's saying, and while I don't believe Levine, I'd believe what Levine had to say every single time over Olney. I don't get what Olney has to do with any of this. Did you not read the whole e-mail? He says it's hard to believe that Levine would have info over "Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city." While I agree that I don't think Levine has any info here, if Levine came out with a report that no one else had, or Olney came out with a report that no one else had, I'd believe Levine every time over guys like Olney. Just because Levine isn't a "big time" ESPN guy doesn't mean he can't have info. No I read the whole e-mail, I just think you're putting too much into what he said. He wasn't even saying Olney was more reliable or better than Levine. Olney was just an example and probably just a name that came to his mind. His point was if what Levine is saying is true, SOMEBODY else would have picked up on it by now. He's not saying Olney specifically would have picked up on it by now, he's saying that at least one of the hundred of guys who cover this stuff would have heard about it by now if Levine has.

While I agree with what he's saying, and while I don't believe Levine, I'd believe what Levine had to say every single time over Olney. I don't get what Olney has to do with any of this. Did you not read the whole e-mail? He says it's hard to believe that Levine would have info over "Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city." While I agree that I don't think Levine has any info here, if Levine came out with a report that no one else had, or Olney came out with a report that no one else had, I'd believe Levine every time over guys like Olney. Just because Levine isn't a "big time" ESPN guy doesn't mean he can't have info. When is the last time that Churchill ever got a scoop over any of the above mentioned? When did He or I ever say he did? He hears thing from a friend (who has been discussed here before) who is really reliable. Now, whether or not the friend is telling him exatly what is really going on is another story, but the definitely he gets stuff from re: The Cubs is definitely above any of those guys. He only gets bits and pieces though. By the way, he told me about a pretty big trade a few hours prior to when it broke anywhere else. Anyways I don't really seeing the point in your post. What are you trying to say? Churchill never claimed to be a reporter and never claimed to break anything. He tells me stuff because I ask. I don't really get your comment. It's like you don't like what he told me, so you're trying to find ways to discredit him when he hasn't really been credited with anything in the first place.

I see why you are having such a tough time grasping this. YOU are the one that's NUTS! It is BOSTON that is desperate, not the Cubs! The Cubs would be dealing from a position of strength, and regardless wouldn't be putting Soto or any regular, other than Soriano, in such a package. Most teams wouldn't be willing to give up such an offensive threat, and that makes a deal for Soriano even more attractive. Remember, I didn't say this was GOING to happen, only that it might. But if the Red Sox were indeed willing to see Beltran as a real offensive threat, how much more valuable would Soriano be to them? Are you Alfonso Soriano's mom or something? No, the old timers on this board know who I am, but for your info, I am someone that reads a lot of "lines", and because of my pedigree in the game, I know what needs to be done, and how to get it done. I am also able to read between those "lines", and keep my ears open. Although my contacts in the game are diminishing due to age and health issues, I still have a few of those, too. I'd love to believe you have a clue what you're talking about. Most people here would love to believe Soriano has positive trade value. But most people here live in reality, where it's clear that Soriano's contract was atrocious even when they thought he could stay healthy and play center field. Now that we know he can't do either of those things, the Cubs are stuck paying a superstar salary to a pretty good but declining player who is already more trouble than he's worth. You're talking two different things: Whether I have "clue" or not, and whether Soriano has any trade value. The answer to the latter is YES, how much will be settled like most barters, by what you get in return, WHEN that bartering is finished, not before! We'll see if Boston can get what they are looking for without coming after Soriano. Is that possible? Sure! Not likely, but sure! To the first, I'll debate any portion of the game you or anyone else would care to debate, but I'd hate to embarrass anyone, that's not my thing...but sometimes I have to come close just to get the attention of some of these dolts! You're really not understanding. If Hendry called Theo Epstein and said "You can have Soriano, all you have to do is take on his entire contract", Epstein would say no. Soriano is not even close to being their type of player, and even if he was, they wouldn't want that awful contract. If Boston was really as desperate as you say they are, they would have caved and given Teixeira that extra 15 million or whatever it was.

While I agree with what he's saying, and while I don't believe Levine, I'd believe what Levine had to say every single time over Olney. I don't get what Olney has to do with any of this.

I've been explaining to to him over and over again, yet he insists that a guy stepping on his leg awkwardly and tearing his ACL is a freak injury because he hasn't done it before. Then whn I ask if every new injury is a freak injury he ignores it and tells me I'm being nonsensical.

I love how you don't have time to respond to me when you can no longer defend your weak arguments because you "have a fie and kid", yet you constantly take shots at me and reply to my other posts. awesome and yeah, you're right. a professional baseball player stepping awkwardly on his leg is just freaky. i mean, what are the chances of something like that happening? just.. weird.

Here's just another reason why I can't buy what Levine is selling From Churchill-

If you want to pretend that you have, fine, whatever. If you want to pretend like an athlete stepping awkwardly on his leg an tearing an ACL is a freak injury, fine. But you didn't answer my question. Everytime bradley suffers a new injury while doing something he's done many time before, is that a freak injury? That's exactly what you're saying, and then you call me nonsensical. Right. By your definition, there are a ton of freak injuries every season, which pretty much means by definition that they are not freak injuries. But yeah, stepping on your leg funny is just freaky. That iwll never ever happen to any player ever again. An athlete stepping on his leg funny? That's just weird.

You're apparently still mising the point that Bradley surely has stepped on his leg funny countless times (as you've told us all baseball players inevitably will), yet only once has it resulted in a torn ACL. Sounds like that meets any reasonable definition of freak injury. By that logic, every time Bradley has sufferered an injury he hasn't suffered before, it's a freak injury. He must suffer from a lot of "freak injuries", and in that case you could say he's likely to keep suffering these new "freak injuries". When someone says something was a freak injury, that generally implies it's not part of a pattern and shouldn't be considered in any kind of pattern. So if Bradley tears a tendon his finger next season (and hasn't done it in the past) while swinging a bat next season, are we just going to say "meh, it's a freak accident"? It was a freak situation, not a freak injury. So basically you're say that anytime a player suffers an injury that he hasn't suffered before while doing something he's done in the past, it's a freak injury? Derrek Lee breaking his wrist by getting run into was a freak accident. Prior getting hit with a line drive was a freak accident. They are freak accidents because you know there is almost no chance they happen again. Bradley stepping funny on his leg could easily happen again, and based on his fragile body, could result in another similar injury. If he tore his ACL in 2010 while running the bases, would you be saying "holy crap...... that's like impossible! 2 torn acl's in the same lifetime? freaky!". No. How can a torn ACL be a freak accident when athletes suffer them all the time? Have you once turned on ESPN to see them talking about an athlete who suffered a ton ACL and thought to yourself "wow, that's crazy. what are the odds of that happening? No, of course not, because it happens all the time. Well I can certainly appreciate your efforts to escape the fatal flaw in your own logic, but when you've reached the point of calling a pitcher getting hit with a line drive a freak accident, and a 1B colliding with a baserunner a freak accident, yet still maintain that a guy getting tackled by his own manager is not, then it may be time to quit while you're behind. Are you serious? I've already explained to you thatr the cirumstance was freakish, but not the actual trauma his leg suffered. Just for some reason you keep ignoring that I've admitted that and even explained it. We've already been through this. Just because the situation in which the injury occured was weird doesn't mean the actual trauma to his leg was weird. It's not like Bud Black picked him up by his leg and started spinning him around. Getting restrained by Bud Black did not tear his ACL. Catching his leg awkwardly is what tore his ACL. twisting your leg a little bit funny is not a freak accident. Having a baseball hitting your elbow at over 100 MPH is a freakish. You're twisting up what we're discussing here. I've already admitted that the situation was freakish, but not the actual trauma that tore his ACL. Since we're discussing his ability to stay healthy, the circumstance in which his leg got twisted up doesn't matter as much as the fact as that a simple slip of his leg, something that probably happens a lot during a full season, caused his ACL to tear. In the context of this conversation, a torn ACL while slipping as your manager is holding you back is no different than a torn ACL while jumping back to the bag on a pickoff attempt and landing on your leg in the same awkward manner. It's just another example of how somewhat normal types of "trauma" put Bradley on the shelf. No he'd never twist his leg like that while being held back by a manager again, but he could easily twist is like that again by doing something normal and baseball related. I know you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying. You're usually a good posted but for some reason you're just trying to start stuff right now. The fact is that a player could twist his leg like that in any number of ways during a season. The fact that it happened in that situation isn't really relevant to what we're discussing.... which is the ability of Bradley to stay on the field. You know perfectly well that Bradley twisting his leg that slightly could EASILY happen during a regular season and it wouldn't be considered a freak thing. I'll say it again since you you are trying to make this into something it's not. It was a freak situation, not a freak accident. Pitchers almost never get hit on the elbow with a line drive Players almost never get their wrist run into by a guy going full speed Players step awkwardly on their legs during a season Do you really not see the difference? The first 2 clearly weren't due to a player having a tendency of being injured, aka being soft. Tearing your ACL by stepping on your leg a ittle funny could easily be the result of a fragile body. You're still trapped by your own faulty logic. The more you argue that stepping awkwardly is a common occurrence for a ballplayer, the more you reinforce that it has surely happened to Bradley many times without an injury occurring. So if a particular type of trauma is suffered countless times with no adverse effects, and one time with severe effect (torn ACL), what does that prove, exactly? Not whatever you're trying to make it prove, that's for sure. We've already been through this. So every time Bradley suffers an injury while doing some normal baseball related activity that he hasn't suffered before, it's a freak injury? That's exactly what you're saying, and then you talk about my faulty logic. Right. The fact that he's done the same activity multiple times and this is the first time it's resulted it's an injury doesn't make it a "freak injury". I'm sorry, but that's just really dumb. An athlete stepping on his leg funny is not a freak injury. If you really don't see how that is not a freak injury, then I don't know what esle I can say to you. You just keep ignoring my explanations for some reason.

It's like you guy aren't reading what I'm saying. Answer me this. The pressure that was put on Bradley's injury that caused the injury..... could that have easily happened during a nomral baseball related activity?

I see why you are having such a tough time grasping this. YOU are the one that's NUTS! It is BOSTON that is desperate, not the Cubs! The Cubs would be dealing from a position of strength, and regardless wouldn't be putting Soto or any regular, other than Soriano, in such a package. Most teams wouldn't be willing to give up such an offensive threat, and that makes a deal for Soriano even more attractive. Remember, I didn't say this was GOING to happen, only that it might. But if the Red Sox were indeed willing to see Beltran as a real offensive threat, how much more valuable would Soriano be to them? Dude, you really need to stop. There is NO way the Red Sox would be dumb enough to take on Soriano. NONE. You keep talking about Beltran, but you're leaving out that he doesn't have the awful contract Soriano does. You're also leaving out that he's more valuable due to playing center. Seriously, stop comparing Soriano and Beltran. They are completely different situations.

you're like the poster child for how not to use stats. seriously, this is the worst usage of numbers i've seen on here in a long time. and yes, dunn is CLEARLY a better offensive player, and i proved that with basic stats. then you try to make up stats and use counting stats that don't even make sense. all the important rate stats CLEARLY show dunn is a better hitter. you just don't understand how to properly look at stats, that's all. either that or you just don't want to admit you were wrong. there's a reason everyone is basically telling you you don't know what you're talking about. it's because, well, you don't know what you're talking about. i mean seriously, look at some of the things you've said. runs + rbis = production? wow. just, wow. then you used skewed counting stats to try and show a "negligible" difference in on base ability, despite the fact that dunn consistently has a significanty better OBP than Ibanez every single year. that's not negligible. there are many more but i think my head will explode if i even try to explain to you how they make no sense. now off to the message board of the red sox, an organization who has fully embraced pretty much all of the statistics and common theories we're explaining to you right now. i mean, jesus, they employ bill james.

Is this is more or less harsh than what the NSBB consensus said last year about Jim Edmonds. So? Just because you catch lightning in a bottle once doesn't mean you start looking at crappy players and thinking about how you can do it again. Plus he said 90%, not 100&

lol where is this productivity stat kept i looked all over Ah, I see what might have tripped you up. What you do is you take runs scored and runs driven in and you add them together, see? It's a little something people like to call simple arithmetic. that might make a little bit of sense if players wrere isngle handedly in charge of scoring runs and driving them in

this has to be somebody else in diguise just trying to start stuff up. nobody can be this dumb. i feel dumb now for wasting time trying to explain to him very simple concepts. it's like trying to explain to someone that it's not a good idea to tell racist jokes to black people i also think it's pretty ironic that he says he's off to the forum of a team that has fully embraced sabermetrics and pretty much everything that he is calling stupid right now. i hate obp.... you guys are dumb... looks like i'm off to the a's board

Levine is pretty reliable but I just can't buy this. How is he literally the only one who has heard anything remotely close to this? You'd think at least one other person would be reporting something similar if true. Instead, they're all reporting the complete opposite. It just feels really hard to believe.

You're apparently still mising the point that Bradley surely has stepped on his leg funny countless times (as you've told us all baseball players inevitably will), yet only once has it resulted in a torn ACL. Sounds like that meets any reasonable definition of freak injury. By that logic, every time Bradley has sufferered an injury he hasn't suffered before, it's a freak injury. He must suffer from a lot of "freak injuries", and in that case you could say he's likely to keep suffering these new "freak injuries". When someone says something was a freak injury, that generally implies it's not part of a pattern and shouldn't be considered in any kind of pattern. So if Bradley tears a tendon his finger next season (and hasn't done it in the past) while swinging a bat next season, are we just going to say "meh, it's a freak accident"? It was a freak situation, not a freak injury. So basically you're say that anytime a player suffers an injury that he hasn't suffered before while doing something he's done in the past, it's a freak injury? Derrek Lee breaking his wrist by getting run into was a freak accident. Prior getting hit with a line drive was a freak accident. They are freak accidents because you know there is almost no chance they happen again. Bradley stepping funny on his leg could easily happen again, and based on his fragile body, could result in another similar injury. If he tore his ACL in 2010 while running the bases, would you be saying "holy crap...... that's like impossible! 2 torn acl's in the same lifetime? freaky!". No. How can a torn ACL be a freak accident when athletes suffer them all the time? Have you once turned on ESPN to see them talking about an athlete who suffered a ton ACL and thought to yourself "wow, that's crazy. what are the odds of that happening? No, of course not, because it happens all the time. Well I can certainly appreciate your efforts to escape the fatal flaw in your own logic, but when you've reached the point of calling a pitcher getting hit with a line drive a freak accident, and a 1B colliding with a baserunner a freak accident, yet still maintain that a guy getting tackled by his own manager is not, then it may be time to quit while you're behind. Are you serious? I've already explained to you thatr the cirumstance was freakish, but not the actual trauma his leg suffered. Just for some reason you keep ignoring that I've admitted that and even explained it. We've already been through this. Just because the situation in which the injury occured was weird doesn't mean the actual trauma to his leg was weird. It's not like Bud Black picked him up by his leg and started spinning him around. Getting restrained by Bud Black did not tear his ACL. Catching his leg awkwardly is what tore his ACL. twisting your leg a little bit funny is not a freak accident. Having a baseball hitting your elbow at over 100 MPH is a freakish. You're twisting up what we're discussing here. I've already admitted that the situation was freakish, but not the actual trauma that tore his ACL. Since we're discussing his ability to stay healthy, the circumstance in which his leg got twisted up doesn't matter as much as the fact as that a simple slip of his leg, something that probably happens a lot during a full season, caused his ACL to tear. In the context of this conversation, a torn ACL while slipping as your manager is holding you back is no different than a torn ACL while jumping back to the bag on a pickoff attempt and landing on your leg in the same awkward manner. It's just another example of how somewhat normal types of "trauma" put Bradley on the shelf. No he'd never twist his leg like that while being held back by a manager again, but he could easily twist is like that again by doing something normal and baseball related. I know you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying. You're usually a good posted but for some reason you're just trying to start stuff right now. The fact is that a player could twist his leg like that in any number of ways during a season. The fact that it happened in that situation isn't really relevant to what we're discussing.... which is the ability of Bradley to stay on the field. You know perfectly well that Bradley twisting his leg that slightly could EASILY happen during a regular season and it wouldn't be considered a freak thing. I'll say it again since you you are trying to make this into something it's not. It was a freak situation, not a freak accident. Pitchers almost never get hit on the elbow with a line drive Players almost never get their wrist run into by a guy going full speed Players step awkwardly on their legs during a season Do you really not see the difference? The first 2 clearly weren't due to a player having a tendency of being injured, aka being soft. Tearing your ACL by stepping on your leg a ittle funny could easily be the result of a fragile body.

You're apparently still mising the point that Bradley surely has stepped on his leg funny countless times (as you've told us all baseball players inevitably will), yet only once has it resulted in a torn ACL. Sounds like that meets any reasonable definition of freak injury. By that logic, every time Bradley has sufferered an injury he hasn't suffered before, it's a freak injury. He must suffer from a lot of "freak injuries", and in that case you could say he's likely to keep suffering these new "freak injuries". When someone says something was a freak injury, that generally implies it's not part of a pattern and shouldn't be considered in any kind of pattern. So if Bradley tears a tendon his finger next season (and hasn't done it in the past) while swinging a bat next season, are we just going to say "meh, it's a freak accident"? It was a freak situation, not a freak injury. So basically you're say that anytime a player suffers an injury that he hasn't suffered before while doing something he's done in the past, it's a freak injury? Derrek Lee breaking his wrist by getting run into was a freak accident. Prior getting hit with a line drive was a freak accident. They are freak accidents because you know there is almost no chance they happen again. Bradley stepping funny on his leg could easily happen again, and based on his fragile body, could result in another similar injury. If he tore his ACL in 2010 while running the bases, would you be saying "holy crap...... that's like impossible! 2 torn acl's in the same lifetime? freaky!". No. How can a torn ACL be a freak accident when athletes suffer them all the time? Have you once turned on ESPN to see them talking about an athlete who suffered a ton ACL and thought to yourself "wow, that's crazy. what are the odds of that happening? No, of course not, because it happens all the time.

Oh and just for fun.... RBIs per at-bat last 5 seasons Ibanez .13 .14 .20 .18 .17 Dunn .18 .19 .16 .20 .19 so not only are you dumb for bringing up something as stupid as rbi's, but ibanez isn't even better at it

that is pretty much the worst usage of statistics i've ever seen. my favorite parts were when you talked about rbi's and fielding percentage. plus it was pretty cool that you used counting stats even though they are clearly skewed since dunn has way fewer at-bats due to walking so much. excellent LOL. Whatever. I owned your ass. You said "clearly" twice. There's nothing clear about who's better offensively. Since when are RBIs a bad stat to cite? And when you say that Ibanez is a horrible fielder and I reveal that Dunn is, in fact, worse you should feel somewhat stupid. If I had gone into greater depth, I could have told you that their range factor is about the same and that Ibanez has 19 more assists from the outfield in the last 3 years. You owned my ass? How? By posting skewed counting stats and then stats that don't even have anything to do with juding a player's worth? I mean, seriously, you just used FIELDING PERCENTAGE to argue defense. Not only fielding percenage, but fielding percentage for an outfielder. Yeah, you really "owned" my ass. Do you know what Ryan Braun's 2008 fielding percentage was? wait for it 1.000 So based on what you're arguing you would say that Braun is an elite left fielder, or even the best, right? Anyways, this doesn't even matter since I never even said Ibanez was as bad or worse than Dunn defensively. I said that he's really bad, which he is. I mean, that's just common knowledge. I'm not huge on defensive metrics (I'm talking real defensive metrics, not garbage like fielding percentage, range factor, and assists), but I'm sure they show that he is, in fact, a really bad defender. Is he as bad as Dunn? I don't know, but it doesn't matter since I never said he was. Is he really really bad? Yes. As for offense, you're picking [expletive] stats that don't mean a lot. Slg percentage last 5 seasons Ibanez .472 .436 .516 .480 .479 Dunn .569 .540 .490 .554 .513 OBP last 5 season Ibanez .353 .355 .353 .351 .358 Dunn .388 .387 .365 .386 .386 In Dunn's worst season (by far) of the last 5, his slugging percentage was still better than 4 of Ibanez's last 5 season. His worst OBP was still better than all 5 years od Ibanez. Now, of course these aren't the only stats and you're probably going to argue "but Dunn strikes out a lot and hits for bad average dude!". Yeah, you're right, but none of the other stuff that Ibanez has an advantage in is even close to as relevant as those 2 stats, which represent the 2 main goals of a hitter- get on base (avoid outs) and get as many total bases as possible. Dunn blows Ibanez away in both. I know you'll probably complain about park factors, so here are thier adjusted OPS+ for the last 5 seasons Ibanez 116 115 125 121 124 Dunn 146 141 114 136 129 So yeah, I'd say "clearly" Dunn is the more productive hitter. I'm sure there a ton of other metrics that prove it also, but these seem like the simplest ones for you to understand. The only question is if the difference between Ibanez's "really bad" defense and Dunn's "a little more bad" defense closes the wide gap created by Dunn's advantage in offense. I'm going to go with "no" now who got their ass owned

I think we have different definitions of "freak accident". To me, a freak accident something happened that will pretty much never happen again and is just bad luck and flukey, not that it will happen again and he just won't be injured by it. I think it's the act, not what it results in. Just because it happened under a weird cirumstance doesn't mean it couldn't have happened while doing a normal baseball related activity. Stepping on your leg funny is not a freak occurence, the situation is happened in is. If I had to choose between "bad luck/freak occurance" and "fragile body" for the reason as to why it resulted in a torn ACL, I'd believe the latter due to Bradley's track record.

"we had a couple costly mistakes that i thought were going to cost us" says rivers

whatever, i'd say that's more the colts losing than the chargers winning. they'll be done after next week

you mean the colts player did. none of those calls were bad

i'm pretty sure that's dungy's last game with the colts