17 Seconds

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.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning. now I understand the problem. I prefer to have a bad team, unlike you, with your good team preferences. Now all makes sense. Jon had a fantastic post about all of this in one of the Soriano threads early last season. He broke it down all beautifully and it showed pretty clearly that there wasn't a significant difference between Soriano's production batting leadoff and elsewhere. Yeah, I definately don't see how that's possible, since all the other numbers pretty clearly show a significant dropoff. Let's see this post. I honestly don't see why people find it so hard to believe that he's not as good in the middle of the order. Even if you didn't look at numbers and just watched him play, you could see why there is a problem with him batting there. In his career he has been a very bad hitter with runners on, and especially runners in scoring position. Compared to his overall career numbers, everything drops dramatically, especially his power. Did any of you actually watch the games last year? Watching him bat in situations with guyson what painful. Breaking ball in the zone- foul Breaking ball in the dirt- strike 2 swinging High fastball- strike 3 swinging So we've established that he's not a good hitter with guys on. So let me think, where would be the worst place to bat him? I know, how about right in the middle of the lineup, so he can come up to bat with runners on all the time! Yeah, that makes no sense to me.

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.

Please explain to me what Ray Durham has to offer over Derosa.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning. now I understand the problem. I prefer to have a bad team, unlike you, with your good team preferences. Now all makes sense. Once again. you do nothing to back up your claims. Well done. I've provided all that I am able to provide. Which is nothing? Yeah, forgive me for not being overhwhelmed with the possibilty of you being correct.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning. now I understand the problem. I prefer to have a bad team, unlike you, with your good team preferences. Now all makes sense. Once again. you do nothing to back up your claims. Well done.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning.

Please just stop.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Says who? People have only speculated this. I really don't think Soriano would be moved down even if they got Roberts, which at this point seems unlikely anyways. That was an assumption... hence the bolded part. So? You said "would likely", which is untrue. That's like me saying Roberts "would likely" bat cleanup if the Cubs got him. Except that Roberts hitting leadoff over Soriano is likely, while Roberts hitting cleanup isn't. That's my whole point. I don't think Soriano being moved from the leadoff spot would be likely. I think they'd bat Roberts Second.

Says who? People have only speculated this. I really don't think Soriano would be moved down even if they got Roberts, which at this point seems unlikely anyways. That was an assumption... hence the bolded part. So? You said "would likely", which is untrue. That's like me saying Roberts "would likely" bat cleanup if the Cubs got him.

You keep leaving out one key fact: that Utley has proven he can produce in the middle of the lineup. Soriano has not.

Says who? People have only speculated this. I really don't think Soriano would be moved down even if they got Roberts, which at this point seems unlikely anyways.

Derosa got on base just as much as Roberts last season. Derosa isn't being considered hitting leadoff though. You said they need a guy who can get on base.

Derosa got on base just as much as Roberts last season.

Just stop it. If he got Roberts SOriano will probably still bat leadoff. the addition of brob & fuko balance out a lineup by giving it much higher obp, Wait, how does Roberts give the lineup a better OBP than Derosa? Explain that.

I *really* don't think Derosa can be an adequate shortstop at this stage of his career. Not a crack on Derosa, just saying.

Great. If you can swing a deal where all you give up is Murton and Cedeno, then I'm all for it. Anyways, I think giving up Cedeno could hurt this team a lot more than people think. I'm not at all saying I'm a fan of Ronny, but entering the season without a real backup plan for Theriot is a very frightening thought. Entering the season without a real backup plan for Theriot makes Lou more desperate. We saw last season that when he gets desperate, he gets creative, and no clear backup for Theriot gives a decent shot that DeRosa would get more at-bats at SS, which would help even more than Cedeno would there. Derosa as a backup plan for shortstop? Yeah, that sounds like a terrible idea.

Great. If you can swing a deal where all you give up is Murton and Cedeno, then I'm all for it. Anyways, I think giving up Cedeno could hurt this team a lot more than people think. I'm not at all saying I'm a fan of Ronny, but entering the season without a real backup plan for Theriot is a very frightening thought. There are always guys available. I'm not saying we need Jimmy Rollins or something. It's not hard to find an upgrade over someone like Theriot Bullpen help will be needed even less that the upgrade from DeRosa to Roberts. The Cubs already have plenty of people in the bullpen, and even if a reliever or two goes down that will still be the case. I'm not as sold on the bullpen as everyone is. Seems like a lot of quesiton marks. Can Wood stay healthy? Can Marmol continue his torrid pace? Can Howry continue to pitch well? Relievers his age aren't exactly a sure thing. I think it's entirely with the realm of possibilty that we end up needing bullpen help.