vance_the_cubs_fan

You've summed it up perfectly. Everytime I hear Dusty speaks he reminds me of some students I have. I will be looking right at them as they are talking and not doing their work. I'll say, "Stop talking," and they will look back and as serious as can me respond, "I'm not talking," right after I've stood there and watched and listened to them. What's a shame is my students are ages 11-13, and how old is Dusty?

I think value can still exist regardless of the value of the parts surrounding the player. He still has value, even if the over all goal of reaching the playoffs is not achieved. How much worse would the Cubs have been if they hadn't had Lee? A lot. Wins in themselves are valuable and even if you use win shares, Lee has contributed to as many as Pujols. In fact, Lee's win shares likely make up a larger percentage of his team's win shares than Pujols since there are fewer of them to go around. So, in essence Lee has contributed to a larger percentage of his team's win shares thereby indicating he was more valuable to his team than Pujols has been to his. Am I reaching here? Yes. Value is too nebulous a concept. I prefer to look at the numbers and let them define the value. And unless you stake your camp on RBI, Lee has Pujols in every other metric.

I'm aware of that. I know for example that doubles and homeruns account for the XBH stat. I simply included the volume to show that with the exception of RBI, Lee still leads in whatever category you choose to look at. Like I said, if you think the MVP should take into account the ability and performance of someone's team mates, then by all means, Pujols is the winner. If the MVP award should be independent of the performance of one's team mates, then it's still a no-brainer for Lee.

C. Bye-bye Burnitz. A. Walker is a keeper. B. Patterson is a goner. C. I think the Cubs will use Hairston in a utility role. D. A. No more Nomar. In L.A. C B C, The Rusch BandWGN moves on to other climates. [/img]

Let's look at the numbers as of today. BA Lee: 334 Pujols: 332 Edge: Lee RBI Lee: 94 Pujols: 100 Edge: Pujols HR Lee: 39 Pujols: 35 Edge: Lee OBP Lee:427 Pujols: 426 Edge Lee, but a draw for all purposes. SLG Lee: 678 Pujols 618 Edge: Lee OPS Lee: 1105 Pujols: 1044 Edge: Lee SB Lee: 15 Pujols: 13 Edge: Lee Doubles Lee 43 Pujols: 33 Edge: Lee XBH Lee: 84 Pujols 70 Edge: Lee IsoP Lee: 334 Pujols: 286 Edge: Lee While Pujols isn't a slouch in the field, I doubt there is a debate that Lee is also the better fielder. While the gap in numbers have closed since mid summer, Lee has maintained his lead in nearly all statistical categories. The only stat other than RBI that Pujols can currently lay claim to is team wins. So if the success of your team mates plays into the MVP, then I guess Pujols gets it. However if the most deserving player should be MVP, it's still hands-down belongs to Lee.

This is another ridiculous comment by Baker. The team's fundamentals have gotten progressive worse instead of better during his tenure.

I'm definitely taking the under.

Fredi Gonzalez.

No offense to you, nick23, but that's a widespread misperception on this board. The Cubs are first in BA in the NL, second in HRs, lead in total bases, and are 6th in runs scored. That's hardly 'no offense.' The Cubs' problem is that they allow more runs than they score. Period. That's a function of bad pitching, bad pitching, bad pitching and bad pitching, with some bad fielding thrown in. Stand pat on the hitting, improve the fielding (especially up the middle) and add one good starter, 2 good relievers and one great closer, and I guarantee you the Cubs will be a playoff team. That having been said, I agree with you about Furcal. He makes this team better with his defense alone. It was awfully brave of you to take on the groupthink here w/ stats. Rather ironic too. "No offense" and "bad offense" do not describe this Cub lineup. It's middle of the road, just like the pitching and the defense. The Cubs need to improve all 3 areas and get a new manager, and hope for some luck for a change. Oooh boy. I always love threads that bring up the "group think." Hey guys...I forgot to mention. Sandwitches and group think at my house this Friday night.

Here's an article on Furcal's second DUI. So, yes it was his second offense in four years. It occurred on Sept 10, 2004, so yes it happened during the season. I doubt it affects his market value, but it should at least factor into any club's decision to sign him.

It would be nice to steal Harris back from the Nationals and use him in a utility role.

Roast, you'll need to pick again.

ChiCubsFan left me a list and selects K, Matt Stover.

pic plz

I wasn't saying you were a troll. You made some erroneous assumptions without basis to my intent. I was simply stating how we could make the same. I don't think we want you to dissapear. I would prefer that you stop making arguments that aren't really pertinent to the subject..ie bringing Cordero into this. I think you know it's not, but like creating another argument. I think it is more to than ERA. Way too far back in the thread, I mentioned the number of starts in which Clemens had given up more than three runs. When I did the research, it was none. Now I think it is one. I think UK among others have demonstrated the stats which indicate Clemens dominance. Search far enough, and I think at the start of the thread I included much more than ERA in the discussion. You seem to want to boil it down to Clemens only has a better ERA, but there's more to it than that. And of course, I can fathom that others would see it differently. While I think there is a remarkable amount of evidence that indicates Clemens should be the winner, I'm quite aware of those that would disagree. I just haven't seen a convincing argument in favor of Carpenter. The matter of one inning per start simply isn't convincing enough. And no, I can't look past the fact Carpenter had a disaster start in April unless I can then look past Clemens 5 run start against the Brewers. Both are part of the performance, regardless of when they occurred. Clemens still has a consistiency of going six or more innings and giving up 2 runs or less that is remarkable. It boils down to much more than Clemens with a better ERA. His performance this year, even when broken down with game logs, is much more dominating than Carpenter. He's had one, only one start in which he allowed over three runs. That is unheard of! While Clemens may not have pitched a 9-inning game all year, he has gone eight on multiple occasions. If he were five and out on multiple occasions, I might have to give you that caveat, but he's averaging just under 7 innings a start and I don't think that handicaps him. Finally, regardless of what Joe Morgan or anyone else says, I refuse to let a heavily team dependent stat have a great influence on who I believe is the better pitcher.

I believe there was a comment about Cubs and wins, which could be borderline trolling. :-k I actually placed it in Rivalries since the two main candidates for the Cy are players on our rivals. It could have been placed in Baseball Discussions; either place would have likely been appropriate. Once again you're making a baseless assumption. I posted the thread at Northsidebaseball, which should logically imply (if I were dealing with someone who has any logic) that I wanted to discuss it with Cubs fans since this is (regardless of the section in the forum) a CUBS forum. And BTW, many of us wondered why there was a rivalries section. Some of us would have preferred there not to be one. I don't think anyone is offended. We just find some arguments to be ridiculous. And as we've said, just because the voters did it, doesn't mean it should have been the case. We don't agree much with Joe Morgan around these parts, even if ESPN thinks he's a genius. And you're right, the Cy Young is about even because there are still a number of baseball people that think wins are an appropriate measure of a pitcher's performance. Those people are wrong.

Thi$ one i$ going to end in a land$lide! $$$$$wwwweeeeet!

I think I've made my feelings on this matter crystal clear.

You can just edit the text to say "Deleted"

Myself or 1908 can do it. In other words, Tim is really busy, so pester 1908 as much as you can with such petty issues. :lol:

K-town, well to clarify, I really don't need to ask my buddy "Vance", since he's me. I haven't had a split personality, at least not yet. I started the thread because the discussion kept popping up in other threads and it was a subject that I felt lent itself to a discussion. I love hoe you assume the worst of our motives here, while on face value we've assumed the best of yours. We could assume that any Cardinal fan here is here to troll. Instead we choose to give them opportunity to "prove" themselves. You've done ok, in that regard, with a few exceptions. K-town, apparently you have some issues with Cubs fans. You ask a lot of questions as to our motives, but this is a Cubs fan site. You assume that we were trying to bait you (or others like you)into a argument. My guess is less than 10 percent of this forum are Cardinal fans. It seems more likely that I started the thread to discuss this issue with Cubs fans rather than bait a Cardinal fan. Now, if I posted the same thread on Cards Talk, maybe I would be trying to bait. You do a lot of complaining about us. You also had the nerve to tell IMB no one invited him. He's been around these forums a lot longer than you. If you don't like him and his opinions, I suggest it is you who should leave, because IMB isn't going anywhere. No, I doubt we had 25 pages discussing it last year. I think last year it was a fargone conclusion that Clemens would win it. We may not have agreed, but it wasn't the point of discussion that it is this year. I know that several of our posters were likely hyping Zambrano for the award. I'm not saying he deserved it, but his numbers were at least strong enough to hype him here. I'm fairly certain I didn't travel to other fan sites to hype him. I kept it where it was appropriate. No one thinks it's silly for you to be tooting Carpenter's horn, but some of the crap you've tried to use to do it is.

ChiCubsFan left me a list again and selects WR Reche Caldwell.

I can sympathize that you have seen what the voters have done. I just don't think that makes him deserving. I likely would not have given it to Clemens last season either. Just thinking back, without examining all the numbers, I'd have probably gone with Johnson. I don't think Carpenter is just as deserving. I do think Carpenter had put together a season which is remarkable and in a number of other seasons would be the run away winner. However, I'm not sure I've ever watched a season where a pitcher has consistiently pitched as well, start after start, as Clemens has this year. I believe the Cy, regardless of how previous voters have voted, should go to the pitcher who has pitched the best. That is Clemens this year.

I hate to say, "I told you so," but I did.

You admit that you're arguing for Carpenter because you're a Cardinal fan. That in itself devalues the rest of your argument. It has said that you were already predisposed to choose the Cardinal player for the award and therefore have looked for whatever evidence you can to support that argument. Why do we have 20 pages? Because first and foremost we're baseball fans. We like to discuss baseball. While, for the majority of us, that includes Cubs baseball because that is the team which we have the most interest, it doesn't preclude us from having opinions about baseball in general. It has nothing to do with Cardinal bias. Yur agrument has everything to do with bias. Why do you feel the need to argue with Cubs fans over this issue? Do you post the same arguments on an Astros board, or an Angels board, or a Brewers board, or a Braves forum? I can point you to those if you want. My guess is that you just want to argue here because you believe there's a bias that doesn't exist. You assume we're all saying "Oooh Boy...we want Clemens to win it so we can laugh at Cardinal fans." It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that we've looked at the evidence and have come to the intelligent conclusion that Clemens is the best pitcher. While you might argue the Cy Young shouldn't go to the best pitcher, that's another point that we disagree upon. My guess, which you've all but admitted, is that if Carpenter had Clemens numbers and Clemens had Carpenter's numbers you'd be here still arguing for Carpenter and making the arguments we are. The only difference in that situation is that we'd likely not be arguing with you, because we would agree.