Warpticon

Oh, I agree that he is the best available CF, if he's available. But I have my doubts about the 3-some, at that price. I'm also not so sure the Mets will deal him. They might be more interested in moving Beltran, especially if they are interested in Manny. Then I gladly take Victor Diaz. Ditto.

Your body is lying to you. Never listen to your body. Mi mind's telling me noooooooooo but my BODY My BODY's telling me YEEEEEEEE-HE-HEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS

Inge really is a Macias with much better defense and more of a clue at the plate. I'd like to have him as a supersub type, but he can probably start for somebody and get more money.

And Murton homers!

Wow. Neifi's (.307 OBP) batting second, and Walker, Barrett, and Murton are 6-8, with respective OBPs of .353, .347, and .415 on the season.

If they ever thought to trade him for so little (burnitz and patterson with some throw-ins? Come on), it'll be in return for us paying ALL of his salary.

Okay, so did I miss the anti-Maddux-bashing transaction or something?

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly. So are you coming down on Hendry for bringing in the wrong guys, or coming down on Baker for using them "incorrectly"? Obviously Walker hasnt been used as a leadoff hitter because Dusty didnt find that as an option. But how exactly do we know if Walker is a good leadoff hitter for us if we never used him in that role? .294/.370/.505/.904, 15 2B, 12 HR, 30 RBI, 45 R leading off in 2004--228 ABs. Does the fact that a player has done well in one spot of the order in the past, especially based on a small sample size, really mean that he will do that well in that spot in the future? It seems to me like it shouldn't make that huge of a difference. Is there any evidence that it actually does mean anything? I'd like to see Walker come back next year, but not as the leadoff man. He should only be used as the leadoff man if the team cant get a half decent deal for a high OBP player. Walker is good, but considering his decent power, high batting average, and relatively low K totals, I think he'd be better suited for the 2nd spot. Not that it makes a gigantic difference, but that's the way I'd prefer it. Okay, I'm not understanding. First it was a matter of not having any evidence that he could succeed since he hadn't batted leadoff, then when we show his excellent numbers leading off, it's not enough and it could mean something else? That first sentence applies to EVERYBODY. In ANYTHING, EVER. Okay? All we have is past performance to try to project future performance. Look, the guy hits everywhere, and there's zero evidence that he's bothered by leading off. Maybe a .370 OBP is a stretch, but not much of one. .350-.360 is pretty much a foregone conclusion with Walker the last 5 years--Boston being the lone exception. You want his three-year splits batting leadoff? .297/.353/.459/.830. 46 2B, 18 HR, 63 RBI, 97 R, 602 AB. That's not such a small sample size, is it? That's a full season of being a very good leadoff hitter. That's pretty close to his "normal numbers," as well, so I don't know why it'd be a terrible thing if he regressed to those. It's much better than most teams have leading off. Maybe he'd be better batting 2nd, but he'd be better than any of the other options batting 1st. I'm not saying he'd be bothered by leading off. Maybe I didn't read some of the posts carefully enough, but I don't believe I actually said I thought Walker would be uncomfortable in the leadoff spot. Like I said in that post, I am not inclined to believe that where a player bats has a huge affect on their performance, which is why I think we should expect a .350ish OBP from Walker if he were to lead off, as opposed to the numbers he had there last year. That would probably make hiim our best option to lead of now though. I guess that you weren't necessarily saying he would put up those exact numbers from the leadoff spot in the future, but it bugs me when people use stats sorted by spot in the order. I was just responding to your question that we wouldn't know how Walker could do in the leadoff spot because he hasn't been used there, when he's actually batted there more than anywhere in his career and has done quite well. I think we have a very good idea of what Walker would do in the top spot, but he doesn't play there currently for, as far as I can determine, the sole reason that he's not a base stealing threat.

Haha, I hadn't even noticed that. That's just odd.

It's not that big of a risk if you get him cheaply enough, though, and if you keep Cedeno as first option off the bench at SS/2B, you get the best of both worlds. I like Fookie, but I don't want him for four years hwen Cedeno stands a decent chance of producing similarly within 2. And I don't want him for 8+ mil when there are similar, cheaper options around. Julio Lugo won't demand nearly as much money or contract length and is a very similar offensive player. I guess I wouldn't be heartbroken if the Cubs sign him, but considering where the offensive problems lie, it doesn't seem to be the wisest use of money.

If you can get him to agree, a 3 or 4 million base salary for Nomar at short, Walker at 2nd, with Cedeno backing both up, is my ideal middle infield. No need for Neifi, as Cedeno can do anything he can do or better, so get rid of him.

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly. So are you coming down on Hendry for bringing in the wrong guys, or coming down on Baker for using them "incorrectly"? Obviously Walker hasnt been used as a leadoff hitter because Dusty didnt find that as an option. But how exactly do we know if Walker is a good leadoff hitter for us if we never used him in that role? .294/.370/.505/.904, 15 2B, 12 HR, 30 RBI, 45 R leading off in 2004--228 ABs. Does the fact that a player has done well in one spot of the order in the past, especially based on a small sample size, really mean that he will do that well in that spot in the future? It seems to me like it shouldn't make that huge of a difference. Is there any evidence that it actually does mean anything? I'd like to see Walker come back next year, but not as the leadoff man. He should only be used as the leadoff man if the team cant get a half decent deal for a high OBP player. Walker is good, but considering his decent power, high batting average, and relatively low K totals, I think he'd be better suited for the 2nd spot. Not that it makes a gigantic difference, but that's the way I'd prefer it. Okay, I'm not understanding. First it was a matter of not having any evidence that he could succeed since he hadn't batted leadoff, then when we show his excellent numbers leading off, it's not enough and it could mean something else? That first sentence applies to EVERYBODY. In ANYTHING, EVER. Okay? All we have is past performance to try to project future performance. Look, the guy hits everywhere, and there's zero evidence that he's bothered by leading off. Maybe a .370 OBP is a stretch, but not much of one. .350-.360 is pretty much a foregone conclusion with Walker the last 5 years--Boston being the lone exception. You want his three-year splits batting leadoff? .297/.353/.459/.830. 46 2B, 18 HR, 63 RBI, 97 R, 602 AB. That's not such a small sample size, is it? That's a full season of being a very good leadoff hitter. That's pretty close to his "normal numbers," as well, so I don't know why it'd be a terrible thing if he regressed to those. It's much better than most teams have leading off. Maybe he'd be better batting 2nd, but he'd be better than any of the other options batting 1st.

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly. So are you coming down on Hendry for bringing in the wrong guys, or coming down on Baker for using them "incorrectly"? Obviously Walker hasnt been used as a leadoff hitter because Dusty didnt find that as an option. But how exactly do we know if Walker is a good leadoff hitter for us if we never used him in that role? .294/.370/.505/.904, 15 2B, 12 HR, 30 RBI, 45 R leading off in 2004--228 ABs.

I'm just going to announce that I'm an idiot. I've been following the game via this thread and only just now realized that the game was on TV.

This is a fun inning.

Random Zambrano stat: baserunners are 1 for 10 stealing against him this year.

I have bolded two things. Guess which one upsets me (note that neither is surprising, including the point that he's going to end up missing more than 10 weeks). There usually is a big difference between being allowed to compete for a roster spot and being handed the starting CF job. And I sure hope that is Sullivan's opinion that Pie is a "viable" lead-off hitter. Speed, yes, proven ability to get on base at the major league level, not so much. Not to mention that he is now no longer even the most viable leadoff man on the Jaxx roster, with Patterson having been promoted.

I would suggest that many of you learn the definition of the word "fact" before using it again.

Wow, not this garbage again. What's obvious is that you don't mind speaking authoritatively about things you have no way of knowing.

I hope we're not going to have a thread for everybody who clears waivers, because we'll have hundreds of threads.

Okay, so OPS has its flaws, and is very rough, but it tells us something, at least, and is easy to calculate. Lots of more complicated metrics exist, but it seems to me something simpler that just works around the limitations of OPS could be pretty effective. By adding OBP and SLG, you're essentially giving singles double credit, since they're included in both. So, my thought was...why not add either IsoP and OBP, or IsoD and SLG? The results of either would be the same, but it would essentially eliminate the duplicacy of the value of singles. I have no idea if this would actually be more accurate in judging a player's offensive value, if it has any higher correlation with runs scored, or any of that, but I'd love it if somebody with the means to figure that out could satisfy my curiosity.

I don't know that I've ever seen day/night splits so blatantly variant. That's downright bizarre.

Like I said, if there is no opposing stance, then why even ask the question? What does that have to do with what I said at all? I said don't just MAKE IT UP. You know, like you did with the whole "You're being hypocritical because you were behind Clemens last year and then changed the rules to support Clemens this year" bit. You'd be hard pressed to find many on this board with that stance, but you seemed pretty determined to make that the way people here stand. (and if you weren't tying those beliefs to us, then why counter with them when we're the ones you're talking to?) And since you chose to comment authoritatively on something you did not understand, then you were being ignorant. Period. Incidentally, "Ignorant" isn't an insult, contrary to popular belief. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant; it's simply lacking information. You should at least acknowledge that you lack information, though, and certainly not label people based on missing information. I certainly don't see any cause for you to be offended over being called ignorant when you're calling people hypocritical for having beliefs you don't know that they have. At least when I called your comments ignorant, I did so on the basis of things actually mentioned in this discussion, unlike your comments on hypocrisy. I meant that it would be "hypocritical" for Clemens to win the award this year for the exact opposite reasons that he won last year. THAT'S why I think Carpenter should win, because that's the precedence that's been set. I never said that anybody here agreed with it. I simply pointed out that it's the precedence, so what should be good for the goose should be good for the gander. Nobody here has to agree, but if the voters use that philosophy when voting, then it would indeed be hypocritical of them. My stance is that Carpenter should be considered for the Cy Young Award. That's my "stance" (the pages of evidence and opinions that I've presented aren't "my stance", they are simply provided to support "my stance"). You're saying that my stance is "made up". Based on the title of the thread, there are only two possible stances: 1) Clemens should win 2) Carpenter should win I took the 2nd stance. You said it was "made up", which only leaves one possible stance. If there's only one possible stance, then why ask the question to begin with? As for "ignorance", it means "showing a lack of knowledge or intelligence". I consider that an insult. In my opinion it's an ugly word. That's my stance on "ignorance". Is my stance on that "made up", also? Jesus, man. It's pretty evident that what I was talking about was this: If you meant the voters specifically, then that's one thing, but I hope you can see that it doesn't exactly read that way. The STANCE that everybody (which would presumably include the people present, since you didn't specify who you were talking about) had changed their minds for the sake of Clemens was what I was referring to as ignorant. Although your whole "Clemens wants to hit the showers, while Carpenter wants to stay out and win" argument seems lacking in foundation as well, the above was what I was referring to. I figured that would have been evident, as my entire post was referring to THAT specifically, but I guess not.

Like I said, if there is no opposing stance, then why even ask the question? What does that have to do with what I said at all? I said don't just MAKE IT UP. You know, like you did with the whole "You're being hypocritical because you were behind Clemens last year and then changed the rules to support Clemens this year" bit. You'd be hard pressed to find many on this board with that stance, but you seemed pretty determined to make that the way people here stand. (and if you weren't tying those beliefs to us, then why counter with them when we're the ones you're talking to?) And since you chose to comment authoritatively on something you did not understand, then you were being ignorant. Period. Incidentally, "Ignorant" isn't an insult, contrary to popular belief. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant; it's simply lacking information. You should at least acknowledge that you lack information, though, and certainly not label people based on missing information. I certainly don't see any cause for you to be offended over being called ignorant when you're calling people hypocritical for having beliefs you don't know that they have. At least when I called your comments ignorant, I did so on the basis of things actually mentioned in this discussion, unlike your comments on hypocrisy.

It also helps if you don't just make up the opposing stance.