vance_the_cubs_fan

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes11/Cityslickers1.jpeg "Day Ain't Over Yet."

I know there's a fat Ponson joke here but I just don't feel like making the effort.

I'm as big a Walker fan on this board to be found, but not trading him would be stupid unless we decide to sign him to an extension. His contract is up at season's end at which point he will sign with another team and we get nothing. Getting something, regardless of what it is, is better than nothing so it makes the most sense to trade him. Will I miss him? Yes. Will it make the team worse? Probably Will it make the team worse in 2007? Likely not. Personally, if I were GM I'd offer Walker a 2 year deal at the same money he's making now and hope he accepts. Since I know management will just let him walk at season's end, I really hope we get something for him.

Sabbath by the narrowest of margins right now.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think if we had a manager that valued OBP Hendry might listen to him and look to acquire that kind of players.

I'm glad he turned it down. Hopefully Jim won't offer it again.

I missed this part in my haste... hey, another little dance around the no personal attacks rule, that's twice in one thread. I'm the only one that said it, Vance. it's obviously directed toward me. yeah, I know 'what you said was stupid' and 'your claims are ignorant.' big diff. NY makes the point. when a guy is lingering around 10, and probably not in single digits, he isn't in the discussion, and no reference to his team generated stats or how well he followed his blockers (Walter/Barry/ Juice say 'huh? what's that?') changes the fact that he simply wasn't as good as probably a dozen others. maybe we should start discussing Mantle with Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Aaron and Bonds. When discussing the best backs in history, there are only four invited into the discussion: Payton, Smith, Brown, Sanders. The others don't have the resume' to get in. There is a lot of evidence that can be used to support a case for each. To exclude the guy who holds the top spot in the key rushing categories is stupid, ludicrous, outrageous, and many other adjectives. I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the belief that you don't include in the discussion the back who holds the key records. The same is true if we're discussing the best HR hitters of all time. To begin the discussion without including Aaron is ludicrous. We may after debate decide he isn't the top HR hitter, but to leave him out of the discussion is stupid. I'm not attacking anyone in particular, but the idea of such. My opinion on that doesn't change. If you don't like team generated stats, fine. Show me a metric...that measures on-field production independent of "team" and we'll use it. Until you can do that, my conjecture is as good as yours.....and I have at least some stats to back up my claim that Smith is the best. You have nothing but conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion.

We had to change it to that last year. My guess is IMB used the Yahoo default settings and forgot to change it back.

Just curious Vance, but who do you consider the better quarterback, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? I don't need an explanation, just a name. Manning. Thank you Vance and I now understand how you look at things. This isn't a good or bad thing, I just wanted to know how you rated football players and now know why you back Emmitt Smith. Again, not a bad thing, just information for me. In anything, I'll go for objectivity as much as I can. In baseball, that's much easier than in football. I'll admit, I'm subjectively inclined to go with Smith as well. I can also understand arguments for Payton, Sanders, and Brown. What I do have a problem with, and it has been displayed here, are those who ignorantly claim that Smith isn't even in the discussion. Maybe if you're discussing size of running backs or times in the forty, then Smith isn't in the discussion, but if best has any ties to productivity, then the back who has the best numbers should begin the discussion. While we are able to come to differing conclusions, partly because more than any other sport, production in football is team dependent, the stats may not tell the whole picture. That being said, it is also ludicrous to discount a player because he has good team mates as well. Furthermore, just like in baseball, the stats are a good way to battle subjectivity because it is unlikely anyone has watched every game of every season with an eye critical enough to make a valid observation apart from statistics.

you're fricken nuts. Aikmen was far better than Anderson. sacrificing Aikmen for Smith. whatever. I prefer intellectual honesty myself. Well, initially I said the stats I looked at pointed to Aikman. My point was that neither Aikman nor Anderson are good enough to be included in the best ever. Aikman's superbowl rings might get him an invite to the table, but he has no chance of taking the seat. That right now belongs to Marino who is tops in all the statistical categories that matter. And intellectually honest, Smith is still the best RB of all time.

Just curious Vance, but who do you consider the better quarterback, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? I don't need an explanation, just a name. Manning.

Explaining why he's sticking with Grudz over...Walker? Who was Grudz competing with? That's the one and he was referring to Walker after the Cubs had signed both prior to 2004.

Making fun of the fat drunk isn't nearly as fun when the season is already over. If it's any consolation, the season's over for every NL team not named the Mets. Ain't no way the Cards, Reds, 'Stros, Dodgers, et al, are even gonna compete when it comes time for the World Series. I wouldn't be so sure. The Mets pitching leaves a lot to be desired. I think the NL is wide open for the taking.

All tied up as the favorite is making a push.

Making fun of the fat drunk isn't nearly as fun when the season is already over.

If you want me to say Anderson is better, I will. I don't think Aikman is the best all-time QB. In fact, I don't think he's top twenty...maybe even not top thirty. He was a good QB, probably a very good one that bordered on great. He fit within the system and distributed the ball like he should. He has three Super Bowl rings which is more than a lot of QB's can claim. I'd take Archie Manning over Aikman, but Manning was the only decent player on some horrible Saints teams. On the other hand, even subjectively, I think Emmit Smith is the best back in NFL history. He followed his blockers with precision and showed an incredible burst through the hole. He was hard-nosed and tough and had an inate ability to get the ball in the endzone, season after season. He played with tenacity and heart though he lacked the physical skills of many other backs. He was smaller than most and not nearly as fast, but that didn't stop him from getting the most out of his abilities. As if my subjective analysis isn't enough, he also has the numbers to back up the claim as the best back of all time. And if I want to take it one step further, he's a proven winner helping produce three championships for his team.

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make. thanks for helping me make a point. your position is untenable. Your position is no better. You act as if you've taken the "objective" viewpoint, yet it comes in as choosing the player whom your a biased for. While I may not always want my QB running, I definitely want my RB running and scoring TD's and Emmit did that better than any back in the history of the game. Comparatively, Sanders was a better running back during the years they were both in the league, together. But when you add the Emmit's longevity, I think he surpasses Sanders. I think the longevity was one of Smith's strengths. Look at the career length for most backs. Most aren't productive for long periods. Smith was great for a good portion of his career and at least productive for the remainder. Smith had a toughness that showed in how he ran as well as how he was able to keep going long after a time when most RB's had quit. Once again, for anecdotal evidence I present his game against the Giants in which he accumulated more than 100 yds all while running with a seperated shoulder that he could hardly hold his arm up in the huddle.

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make. thanks for helping me make a point. your position is untenable. Your position is no better. You act as if you've taken the "objective" viewpoint, yet it comes in as choosing the player whom your a biased for. While I may not always want my QB running, I definitely want my RB running and scoring TD's and Emmit did that better than any back in the history of the game.

When he's playing well is the time to trade a guy who isn't going to help you in the future. Agreed.

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it. if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports. using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport. one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance. So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back. When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know. What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had. I've asked you several questions like the one I am about to ask, yet I haven't received an answer. Ken Anderson or Troy Aikmen. who's the better quarterback? what do the stats say? Considering Aikman had more passing yards, completions and a higher completion percentage, I'd take Aikman. And I do rank Marino as the best QB ever, despite the lack of championships. more yards...by 104. better complete percentage by 2%. what about yards per attempt, yard per completion (12.37 to 11.37), touchdowns, TD/Int ration, rushing yards, rushing touchdowns? when not using your carefully selected stats, who was the better quarterback, Anderson or Aikmen? Why do I want my QB running?

I would stick with Smith. He was productive and that production helped produce three Super Bowl teams. I'm not saying the Cowboys may or may not have been better with another back, but it's not like Smith didn't produce. He did.

We don't know this though. He didn't make the most of the opportunity he had, he just had the most opportunity. I really wish I could find a location with more archived stats than 2000, but given sabermetric stats I do have access to, Smith certainly hasn't been close to the best running back in the years since 2000. Here's a decent article looking at raw, unadjusted stats (basically the equivalent to a year-by-year analysis of hits, runs, HRs and RBI for hitters...not great, but not bad): http://www.thehuddle.com/classics/04_best_rb_ever.php Smith lasted the longest, so he set the career records. At the peak of his career, he was overshadowed by Barry Sanders. There wasn't a single year where you could say without a doubt Smith was the best RB in the league. That isn't the case for the other 3 all-time greats. It doesn't surprise me that he wasn't the best running back in any years since 2000. Those weren't his prime years. Smith's best years were 91-99. And during those years, he was definitely a top three back. He may have trailed Sanders in some of those years, and other backs likely appeared and dissapeared, but he was definitely among the top three production wise.

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it. if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports. using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport. one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance. So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back. When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know. What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had. I've asked you several questions like the one I am about to ask, yet I haven't received an answer. Ken Anderson or Troy Aikmen. who's the better quarterback? what do the stats say? Considering Aikman had more passing yards, completions and a higher completion percentage, I'd take Aikman. And I do rank Marino as the best QB ever, despite the lack of championships.

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it. if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports. using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport. one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance. So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back. When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know. What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw. In baseball, we have a wealth of stats and therefore some are better than others at determining who is the best. That's why I gravitate toward those. If someone produced some in football and made a rational discourse as to why they are better than the common stats used by laypeople, I'd definitely consider them, and likely embrace them. As it is, I'll still take the raw data stats over your subjectiveness. Are you certain it isn't you who is being the homer in declaring Payton the best back? Other than your subjective opinion, can you offer any metric in which he is the best? You may not like them, but I can offer three metrics in which Smith tops all running backs.