17 Seconds

We're not "Soriano leadoff lovers", we're "getting the best performance out of an overpaid outfielder making 18 mil a year" lovers.

It's the fact that everything you say has been refuted heavily with logic and reasoning. Soriano is more suited to hitin the middle of the order? If by "better suited" you mean his numbers dropping dramatically and a record number of LOB, then yet, he's "better suited". Everytime I see your name I get ready to read a ridiculous post.

Your posts make my head hurt.

Is that a mohawk or a mullet?

Oh that's easy: Kent Merker and Neifi Perez Wasn't Neifi on "the list". Neifi only tested positive for adderall for adhd.

See, I can quote him too. Anyways, he said "they don't like his contract", not "they can't take on his contract because of payroll issues". Just because they can unload Marquis' salary doesn't mean they suddenly like Crisp's salary more.

Bruce Miles said earlier in this thread that the Cubs aren't really interested In crisp and that they don't see him as an upgrade. I'd very much believe Miles over Levine. A large part of Mr. Miles' point was that the Cubs don't like Crisp's contract. If you can move Marquis in the process, that becomes largely irrelevant. Not really. I believe his exact words were "they judt don't see him as an upgrade".

:D I'm not positive because I can't find the stat, but I think Z had good run support last season.

Bruce Miles said earlier in this thread that the Cubs aren't really interested In crisp and that they don't see him as an upgrade. I'd very much believe Miles over Levine.

It's called a prediction. Id like to hear you basis for this prediction, cause the Astros rotation is horrible outside of Oswalt. and decent starters behind him (Backe, Wandy, Williams and Sampson). Decent? That's like having 4 Jason Marquis' after Zambrano.

It's called a prediction. Id like to hear you basis for this prediction, cause the Astros rotation is horrible outside of Oswalt. and decent starters behind him (Backe, Wandy, Williams and Sampson). Decent? That's like having 4 Jason Marquis' after Zambrano.

It's called a prediction. Id like to hear you basis for this prediction, cause the Astros rotation is horrible outside of Oswalt. The Padres offense is horrible outside of maybe Adrian Gonzalez and Khalil Greene. Their offense always is like that that and they sill wtin 80+. Anyways, their offense wouldn't look as bad if they didn't play at Petco.

So I'm pretty sure I'm about to get banned from OH. Some guy proposed a Roberts/Payton/Sherrill trade for Gallagher/Colvin/Murton/Cedeno/Patterspn/Veal trade and I responded by saying it would be a terrible trade for the Cubs. Of course, I immediately feel the wrath of Roberts lovers, having to endure such statements as "Gaha, it's ludicrous to say that that's a bad deal for the Cubs. You'd be getting out all-star second basemen and our closer! You saying that would be a bad deal for the Cubs literally made my jaw fall to the floor!" Seriously, did Roberts cast some kind of spell on these guys or something?

I'm sure the Orioles fans appreciated it when he majorly scooped the Tejada trade! Since then, it's been a whole bunch of nothing though. I think it is real, real, hard to say he scooped the Tejada trade when everyone whose been paying attention knew that the O's were trading Tejada and almost every major sports media outlet posted Tejada to Houston rumors for 48 hours before the trade was consummated. You can believe what you want. Stupid spelling! Rosenthal published in article earlier that morning saying that the talks were off between the Astros and Orioles. Couple that with the fact that he knew the exact 5 names (which were never mentioned anywhere) and I think it's "real, real, hard" to say that he doesn't get at least some kind of info.

fixed Yeah. I was actually going to type that exact statement but changed it in fear that people would self-destruct at the realization that Roberts probably isn't coming.

The fact that there hasn't been even a peep about Roberts over the past week or so is kind of strange.

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't. Go read what I said. I said that 2006 made his leadoff splits look more pronounced, particularly in terms of OBP (because of all the IBBs he got). And seriously, stop trying to put words into my mouth just because, in your head, you misinterpreted what I said. First assuming that I had no idea that Soriano had hit leadoff before 2006, now this. Here is your exact quote. Your point about his 2006 numbers being more pronounced DIRECTLY followed your statement about the Soriano "crap" needing to stop. I don't see how I was wrong to assume that you were using the second sentence to qualify the first.

Oh, and get out of here with that "causational link" garbage. I have no idea what that means, and I don't care. What I do know is that you're making an argument without backing it up at all. Fine, say what you want about burden of proof, but forgive me if I don't take you seriously when you choose to dodge the real questions because of a technicality. If I tell a guy that Albert Pujols is better than Omar Infante, and he says "no he's not", then you're right, the burden of proof isn't on him to explain why Pujols isn't better. However, if you plan on being taken seriously, you should back up your words and explain why you think Soriano's numbers drop off so much other than "it's a coincidence".

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't.

By the way, the purden of proof was just as much on you for making the statement that Soriano's number dropoffs had nothing to do with where he batted during those times. You have done ntohing to prove that or defend it, other than saying that 2006 was the reason his splits are pronounced, which is untrue. If someone knew a site where I could view career totals while omitting a season, we'd be able to see that the pronounced didfference is still there. If you're going to make a claim like that, then yeah, I'd say the burden of proof is on you for it.

First you said the only reason his splits were so bad was because of his big 2006. Now it's "well, splits don't convince me". The 2006 argument was weak. As for reasons to why he bats better in that spot, it's very simple. I'll copy and paste what I just said a few posts ago. Honestly, why is it so hard to understand why his numbers go down? You're doing it again. Splits merely show the correlation. The splits would HAVE to be there for there to be any correlation. That doesn't mean that hitting leadoff was the CAUSE of the difference. Did you completely ignore the entire other part of my post that explained why the pslits are there? Did you just happen to forget to read that part? You said that the reason his splits were so different were because of 2006. That's completely false. If you took out 2006 and compared his splits for the rest of his career, they'd still be very pronounced.

What are you even talking about? This is a baseball message board, not a message board to flex your muscles and try to impress people with how smart you are. I'll make this very simple for you. Why do Soriano's numbers always drop when he's not batting leadoff. The "career year" argument was very poor. If you're the one (among many, of course) proposing that one causes the other, you have to prove that link. The burden of proof isn't on me. I could just as easily say, "Hey, not playing in Texas makes Soriano a better hitter. Prove that it isn't true." Ah again trying to show how smart you are by using specific types of fallacies. That that garbage elsewhere. We get it, you're smart. You must have girls all over you. I mean, we all know that's what guys who get tons of chicks do right? They try to act smart on the internet. Anyways, it's nice to see you again dodging the real subject. Burden of proof? I backed up my arguments with reasonings and facts. If you expect me take your argument seriously, you'd better come up with something better than "uhh, well his numbers are skewed because of 2006", or "it's just a coincidence."

First you said the only reason his splits were so bad was because of his big 2006. Now it's "well, splits don't convince me". The 2006 argument was weak. As for reasons to why he bats better in that spot, it's very simple. I'll copy and paste what I just said a few posts ago. Honestly, why is it so hard to understand why his numbers go down?

What are you even talking about? This is a baseball message board, not a message board to flex your muscles and try to impress people with how smart you are. I'll make this very simple for you. Why do Soriano's numbers always drop when he's not batting leadoff. The "career year" argument was very poor.

No, it doesn't need to stop. You're ignoring his years with the Yankees at leadoff. Furthermore, you're ignoring his past shows a history of struggling in RISP situations. When it comes to moving Soriano around, I view it as a choice. You can choose 1. To have a .890 OPS #1 hitter. 2. To have an .810-.820 OPS #3-5 hitter. I choose #1. What does need to stop is trying to convince ourselves that Soriano is something he isn't. I don't know why we have to be so stubborn on this issue. You don't see the Indians trying to force Casey Blake into an RBI slot when he isn't that guy. You didn't see the Red Sox pushing Bill Mueller to hit 2nd when he was much more comfortable 8th. But people here won't be happy until we see Soriano hit .260 with a .310 OBP and 28 home runs, his meaningless 100 RBI, and his near-record LOB total. Only then will we be getting our $17 million a year worth. What is the difference between Brian Roberts hitting 1st and Brian Roberts hitting 2nd? I'd like to know why people have a mental block on this. They start sweating profusely and stammering. "Why... Roberts can't hit 2nd. Because... because... he's a LEADOFF MAN. It would cause a rip in the space-time continuum!" Soriano does his best hitting with the bases empty. I'm merely pointing out that people are incorrectly confusing correlation with causation in the case of Soriano's leadoff splits. It's flawed and faulty logic. No, you made the statement that Soriano's career leadoff numbers were only so much better than his non-leadoff numbers because of a monster year in 2006, which is flat out wrong. Even if Soriano in 2006 only put up the typical numbers he puts up in years where he leads off, the career differences would still be very pronounced. It sounds to me like you were unaware that Soriano had hit leadoff in previous years. Now you're realizing that he did, and are trying to cover it up but saying the above statement, which doesn't even make sense with what you originally said. Actually, you're completely wrong in just about everything you said here. But that's fine. Do you think I just started watching baseball in 2005 or something? Who the hell doesn't know that Soriano hit leadoff with the Yankees? Repeat with me. Correlation =/ causation. It's one of the most common logical fallacies that people fall victim to. Cause and effect. You're completely dodging the real issue. Please explain to me why Soriano's numbers go down when he doesn't bat leadoff.