2011-12 MLB Offseason Thread: Tigers are really stupid

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

My first post in this whole thing was in response to an entire post by you about why wins matter.

yes which was 10 posts ago which was well beyond the current topic

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I get this all of this probably better than you. I could probably give you ballpark factors for every stadium in the league without looking.

My point is some people want to debate actual stats. Do you really think Joe Blow cares that Josh Hamiltons stats are inflated by playing in Arlington? Is it really that important that saber people have to be right on everything? Who cares if Josh Hamilton would hit 270 with 20 homers in Petco. He doesnt play at Petco.

Cant saber people just be happy that they can predict the future much better than Joe Blow without taking away Joe Blows moment?

I dont see that need for SABR people to have to be right on everything. It was Bill James that created "outside the box" thinking so I think its wrong that traditionalist are shunned because they dont take sabermetrics as gospel.

Joe Blow should care if he wants to make a cogent, intelligent argument for or against a player. I really don't care about personal feelings - am I really supposed to take into account that Joe Bergey might feel bad because he's made a simplistic argument for why such and such player should win an award? Really? This isn't kindergarten.

I'm not saying I'm right about my ultimate opinion - I'm saying that I believe there are flaws with your methodology, and if you don't care enough to correct them, then why should I care how you feel when I point out what's wrong with your methodology?

To me, arguing in a vaccuum about the stats of two players without trying to ensure an apples to apples comparison is like arguing that Runner X's time of 10:35 blows away Runner Y's time of 14:40, when in fact Runner X was using a jetpack and Runner Y's shoes were made of lead. If you don't take that into account, why even make the comparison?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

yes which was 10 posts ago which was well beyond the current topic

So... I guess you shouldn't have written that post, is that what you're saying?!?!?

Again, ?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Joe Blow should care if he wants to make a cogent, intelligent argument for or against a player. I really don't care about personal feelings - am I really supposed to take into account that Joe Bergey might feel bad because he's made a simplistic argument for why such and such player should win an award? Really? This isn't kindergarten.

I'm not saying I'm right about my ultimate opinion - I'm saying that I believe there are flaws with your methodology, and if you don't care enough to correct them, then why should I care how you feel when I point out what's wrong with your methodology?

To me, arguing in a vaccuum about the stats of two players without trying to ensure an apples to apples comparison is like arguing that Runner X's time of 10:35 blows away Runner Y's time of 14:40, when in fact Runner X was using a jetpack and Runner Y's shoes were made of lead. If you don't take that into account, why even make the comparison?

Its impossible isnt it? Sabermetrics has everything figured out. Let sabermetrics decide who wins the MVP, Cy Young, ROY and who wins the World Series. No reason to even waste our time watching something that saber already knows the answers to.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So... I guess you shouldn't have written that post, is that what you're saying?!?!?

Again, ?

Just wish there was a different way for you to "get it." At some point you have forgotten it is players that play the games and not numbers. Verlander is a human and has emotions and doesnt always do what the computer says he should.

Yeah wins is an overrated stat but the better pitchers do seem to win more often than the bad ones.

They can do a great job of predicting how someone might have done under similar conditions but it makes it far from a fact that you want to make it. Because Verlander might have gotten 13 wins pitching for the Twins this year is kind of pointless as he didnt pitch for the Twins so who knows if that is true.

What you really mean is based on this year Halladay and Sabathia would have probably done better playing in a neutral environment over Verlander and Kershaw. Im not sure why the REAL stats that were produced have to be countered by that argument.

Many of the sabermetric stats are predictive and I think you have forgotten that along the way. You can predict what players will do in certain environments but you dont know for certain. I think much of the saber community has gotten the same way. I always understood that R/27(which was one James earlier stats) was a predictive stat. The new crowd of saber people think they are real stats.

[Pumpy Tudors]

WAR. Huh. Good God, y'all. What is it good for?

(spoiler alert: I have no idea what the WAR baseball stat is)

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

WAR. Huh. Good God, y'all. What is it good for?

(spoiler alert: I have no idea what the WAR baseball stat is)

Ha

You better learn it, it is becoming the only relevant stat in baseball

The days of caring how many homers a player has are coming to an end. We will soon only care how many homers a player would have hit playing his games in Florida.

Its comparable to the Sagarin/Ken Pomeroy basketball ratings. Yeah, they tell us what should happen but the human element still exists.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Its impossible isnt it? Sabermetrics has everything figured out. Let sabermetrics decide who wins the MVP, Cy Young, ROY and who wins the World Series. No reason to even waste our time watching something that saber already knows the answers to.

As a die hard baseball fan and one who leans on the advanced metrics, I think you're reaching here. People make jokes about why even vote if the computers have it all figured out which to me sounds perfectly acceptable. Who cares if the computers have surpassed our human statistics. I don't watch the game of baseball because I am trying to figure out who the Cy Young is or who the MVP will be. At times, yes, that may cross my mind, but that's far down the list as to why. If computers took over the job of deciding who wins the CY Young I would not watch less baseball.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

As a die hard baseball fan and one who leans on the advanced metrics, I think you're reaching here. People make jokes about why even vote if the computers have it all figured out which to me sounds perfectly acceptable. Who cares if the computers have surpassed our human statistics. I don't watch the game of baseball because I am trying to figure out who the Cy Young is or who the MVP will be. At times, yes, that may cross my mind, but that's far down the list as to why. If computers took over the job of deciding who wins the CY Young I would not watch less baseball.

I was just being sarcastic, sorry.

It gets sickening arguing this topic when I appreciate these stats as much as anyone. Simply because I argue that saber people should consider the other side I am considered a clueless noob at baseball stats. Really annoying.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

What you really mean is based on this year Halladay and Sabathia would have probably done better playing in a neutral environment over Verlander and Kershaw. Im not sure why the REAL stats that were produced have to be countered by that argument.

*sigh*

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the stats have to be interpreted properly so that a fair comparison can be made. That's all. All of this BS about human beings and emotions and "crotchety old man speak" means absolutely nothing. The stats are what they are, but they are naked and barely useful without context. You are evaluating a complex scenario with no context, just taking the conditions as you find them and comparing them to another set of data developed under different conditions. If you refuse to acknowledge that the same numbers generated in different places or times are not equal, but that for some reason a player's humanity should factor in to how we argue a point, I don't know what to tell you.

At its core, this has nothing to do with baseball. This is about supporting your position with a reasoned argument. If you choose to argue that 2 dissimilar things are the same for comparison sake, I will more than likely reject that argument for obvious reasons. Doesn't matter if we're talking Cy Young Awards or Nobel Peace Prizes or what. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion, but I am saying that I give it very little weight because it's not sound.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I was just being sarcastic, sorry.

It gets sickening arguing this topic when I appreciate these stats as much as anyone. Simply because I argue that saber people should consider the other side I am considered a clueless noob at baseball stats. Really annoying.

I consider all sides when evaluating something like this. Sometimes, the underlying numbers and the conditions they are generated under are so similar that there's no need to make the distinction, and you're really just splitting hairs, with either answer not right or wrong. Other times, the performance levels are so disparate that it's obvious, using even rudimentary evaluation tools, who the "winner" is. But just saying the stats are what the stats are and you should appreciate them for that and why can't you be happy for Justin Verlander that he won 24 games and going no further? No. That will never do. In any context, baseball or otherwise.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Please don't think I'm knocking the so-called advanced stats when I say this, because I'm not going to knock something I don't understand. It sounds like WAR is the most often quoted stat when trying to compare two players and determine which was better. If it's really as simple as that, I'd like to see them put WAR up on in a player's stat graphic during games. .296 BA, 20 HR, 86 RBI, .397 OBP, 2.8 WAR.

Of course, if folks can't even come to an agreement about how to calculate WAR, I suppose that makes it a little difficult. Still, if all these folks are savvy enough to acknowledge this stat's importance, you'd think they could all come up with a standard definition of it, in which case I want to see it in a stat graphic on TV. I'm not making fun. I really want to see it. Then, as each batter comes to the plate, I'll know whether he is better or worse than the guy who batted before him.

Then again, if I got everything I wanted, I wouldn't be posting this right now. I'd be in the midst of a four-way around-the-world with my wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Zach Parise right now.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I consider all sides when evaluating something like this. Sometimes, the underlying numbers and the conditions they are generated under are so similar that there's no need to make the distinction, and you're really just splitting hairs, with either answer not right or wrong. Other times, the performance levels are so disparate that it's obvious, using even rudimentary evaluation tools, who the "winner" is. But just saying the stats are what the stats are and you should appreciate them for that and why can't you be happy for Justin Verlander that he won 24 games and going no further? No. That will never do. In any context, baseball or otherwise.

This is perfectly fine.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Please don't think I'm knocking the so-called advanced stats when I say this, because I'm not going to knock something I don't understand. It sounds like WAR is the most often quoted stat when trying to compare two players and determine which was better. If it's really as simple as that, I'd like to see them put WAR up on in a player's stat graphic during games. .296 BA, 20 HR, 86 RBI, .397 OBP, 2.8 WAR.

WAR is a rather new concept so Id guess the majority of people wouldnt have the slighest idea on what it was. It can also change depending on what is happening elsewhere which might be confusing to people

Plus if they put it up there they might have to try and explain how it actually works and is figured out. It would be funny to listen to some of these older announcers do that.

[Ksyrup]

I shy away from WAR for that reason. It's really like the VHS/Betamax argument. Two different sides who want their propriety version of the same thing to carry the day. IMO, it's more useful in theory than in practice right now. I haven't even mentioned WAR. But I also haven't mentioned the salt content of Justin Verlander's tears, either, so I guess I should head back down to the basement and get back to work on the plans for my Advanced Human Replacement Baseball League.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I actually had no idea that WAR was relatively new. Hmm. Well, a lot of people seem to be hanging their hats on it, so I thought it would be good to see. I guess what I'm getting at is that if they started "forcing" these stats on people - even in the context of putting them on the TV screen - people would start accepting their value a bit more... assuming they have value... which I suppose they do since this conversation seems to come up every year at postseason awards time.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I actually had no idea that WAR was relatively new. Hmm. Well, a lot of people seem to be hanging their hats on it, so I thought it would be good to see. I guess what I'm getting at is that if they started "forcing" these stats on people - even in the context of putting them on the TV screen - people would start accepting their value a bit more... assuming they have value... which I suppose they do since this conversation seems to come up every year at postseason awards time.

They just recently started adding OPS which has been very poplular for 20+ years. Signs are there that people are coming around but it is a SLOW process.

Id be fine if they changed OPS to OPS+ and had ERA+ instead of WAR. WAR is great for the overall picture but doesnt really tell us how a player gets there.

And yeah its a common debate. Doesnt happen as much in this forum as others though.

[Ksyrup]

At this point, I'm happy that OPS has become a relatively useful stat to some people. It's not perfect, but it's better than batting average. I grew up on the staple of BA/HR/RBI, so I actually like seeing them - it's almost like the baseball version of comfort food - but I have the exact opposite reaction when I'm evaluating a player or comparing him to someone else... don't even want to see those stats. So there's a dual functionality to baseball stats for me - the ones I'm used to seeing, and the ones I hope make some inroads because for purposes of what people use them for, they are far better than what we've been stuck with for 100 years.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I think what we really need is the talking heads on the TV to tell us what "good" values are for most of these stats. I grew up on BA/HR/RBI, also, and they basically told me that .300 is a good batting average, 30 HR is really good, and 100 RBI is really good. I'm not saying that I can't think for myself, but I admit I'd like to see the same kind of agreement in today's game with other stats.

I'll never get into a debate with someone to compare players on different teams again, that's for sure. I don't know enough about the new stats, I don't know enough about the ballparks they play in, and it all comes down to me not being that interested. With that said, however, I'd love to see the OPS of a player and know right away whether that is considered pretty good or not. Right now, I have no idea. Virtually every time I see OPS mentioned, it's qualified with what position he plays. Now, I get that I'm an old fart with not much interest in stats anymore, but I've never been able to wrap my head around how a player's defensive position has any bearing on what he does with the bat.

I'm seriously digressing here, though, so unless called upon to add any more, I'll leave this to the folks who know more about it than I do. If you need any great insight from me, I'll likely be in a bowling or arena football thread.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I think what we really need is the talking heads on the TV to tell us what "good" values are for most of these stats. I grew up on BA/HR/RBI, also, and they basically told me that .300 is a good batting average, 30 HR is really good, and 100 RBI is really good. I'm not saying that I can't think for myself, but I admit I'd like to see the same kind of agreement in today's game with other stats.

I'll never get into a debate with someone to compare players on different teams again, that's for sure. I don't know enough about the new stats, I don't know enough about the ballparks they play in, and it all comes down to me not being that interested. With that said, however, I'd love to see the OPS of a player and know right away whether that is considered pretty good or not. Right now, I have no idea. Virtually every time I see OPS mentioned, it's qualified with what position he plays. Now, I get that I'm an old fart with not much interest in stats anymore, but I've never been able to wrap my head around how a player's defensive position has any bearing on what he does with the bat.

I'm seriously digressing here, though, so unless called upon to add any more, I'll leave this to the folks who know more about it than I do. If you need any great insight from me, I'll likely be in a bowling or arena football thread.

OPS
less than 650 is BAD
around 750 is average
850 and above is studly

Pujols comes in around 1.000 or above every year. A guy like Juan Pierre will usually be below 650. Someone in the middle range would be Derek Jeter.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

OPS
less than 650 is BAD
around 750 is average
850 and above is studly

Thanks. Now, does this apply only to middle infielders or is a 1B with an .850 pretty good?

[DanGarion]

OPS isn't some complex stat, it's just On Base plus Slugging...

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Thanks. Now, does this apply only to middle infielders or is a 1B with an .850 pretty good?

No adjustment for positions

So a 2nd baseman with a OPS of 850 would be more valuable than a 1B with an OPS of 850.

[Ksyrup]

I believe, for general/ballpark purposes, in today's game an .800+ OPS is "good." I believe the MLB average OPS is anywhere from .720-760ish maybe?

The reason you take position into account is not defensive ability, but relative to position, what is good. It's essentially the same argument as we used to make with BA, where you'd expect SS to be a weaker hitter than a LF, for instance. Since OPS is half slugging percentage, you'd expect your power positions to have higher OPS. So if you've got a 2B or CF or SS with 30+ HRs or a ton of DO/TR, their OPS is going to be higher than the typical middle infielder/CF.

Obviously, like with HR and BA, it's all in context. An .800 OPS even 5 yearrs ago isn't as great as it is now. I thinnk someone pointed out that Jeff Francoeur put up essentially the same numbers this year as he did 4 years ago. And 4 years ago, people thought he was substandard for a RF. And he was. But those same numbers in pitching-heavy 2011 actually made him an above-average player.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

OPS isn't some complex stat, it's just On Base plus Slugging...

I know, but I still need a baseline to tell me what people consider to be "good." I have that now.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Then again, if I got everything I wanted, I wouldn't be posting this right now. I'd be in the midst of a four-way around-the-world with my wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Zach Parise right now.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Hell yes.

[Ksyrup]

This made me laugh:

Marc_Normandin Marc Normandin
Oh my god, they ate Dale Sveum RT: @jonmorosi Tom Werner on Dale Sveum: "It was a good lunch." Nothing further. #RedSox

[Coffee Warlord]

Looks like Houston is moving to the AL West, finally evening things out.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't necessarily disagree with this, although I'd did a little deeper than ERA and BA (total runs allowed and OPS, for starters).

Fair enough, maybe wOBA is the stat for hitters, I was just going to the most obvious classic stat that I believe shows how a player performed (so, not RBI's or W's) without trying to completely normalize the inputs. (Park effects are something I believe do come into play, although I believe they're largely irrelevant for the majority of stadiums.)

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Virtually every time I see OPS mentioned, it's qualified with what position he plays. Now, I get that I'm an old fart with not much interest in stats anymore, but I've never been able to wrap my head around how a player's defensive position has any bearing on what he does with the bat.

I think you may be getting OPS and WAR confused there. Like other said, OPS is merely adding OBP and SLG to get a quick glance at how effective a player is as a hitter (most argue that it underweights OBP, and thus use other stats like wOBA, which is calibrated to a BA scale - >.300 is good, etc., but generally agree it's a pretty good and simplistic barometer). WAR is where they attempt to factor in a player's fielding as well, and have certain base values for players based solely on what position they play, which imo belies any true statistical analysis. Defensive metrics also aren't reliable for a one-year sample, so imo it puts a lot of noise out there and a players hitting and fielding (maybe even baserunning) should be kept separate instead of trying to combine them all into one universal number.

[Ksyrup]

@SI_JonHeyman: Cj wilson seeks 6 years for close to $120M.

Good luck with that.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think you may be getting OPS and WAR confused there. Like other said, OPS is merely adding OBP and SLG to get a quick glance at how effective a player is as a hitter (most argue that it underweights OBP, and thus use other stats like wOBA, which is calibrated to a BA scale - >.300 is good, etc., but generally agree it's a pretty good and simplistic barometer). WAR is where they attempt to factor in a player's fielding as well, and have certain base values for players based solely on what position they play, which imo belies any true statistical analysis. Defensive metrics also aren't reliable for a one-year sample, so imo it puts a lot of noise out there and a players hitting and fielding (maybe even baserunning) should be kept separate instead of trying to combine them all into one universal number.

No, I didn't have them confused at all. I must have made my position cloudy with the way I worded things.What I was saying about OPS is that I feel like I've been told "That's a good OPS for a shortstop" or something like that. Maybe I was thinking of something else, but I'm pretty damn sure it was a stat that is easily calculated by pretty much anybody with a calculator and a finger.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

@SI_JonHeyman: Cj wilson seeks 6 years for close to $120M.

Good luck with that.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

@SI_JonHeyman: Cj wilson seeks 6 years for close to $120M.

Good luck with that.

The most surprising thing I learned was that Wilson is only 18 months younger than Mark Buehrle. People would think it was insane if Buehrle got a 5 year deal.

[Ksyrup]

stljccorcoran jc
New info. We believe Albert will announce Friday morning followed immediately by a vacation to Hawaii.
19 minutes ago



stljccorcoran jc
Despite official denials I have no reason to amend the Pujols story. I believe it to be accurate.
1 hour ago



stljccorcoran jc
Albert to announce on Friday he's re-signing with the Cardinals.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

@SI_JonHeyman: Cj wilson seeks 6 years for close to $120M.

Good luck with that.

I am, too. I wonder why I haven't gotten an offer yet?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Looks like Houston is moving to the AL West, finally evening things out.

Yay! I do like even leagues. Maybe we can get an balanced schedule (hey, if we are having a Wild Card)?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

dawgfan,

I actually agree with you quite a bit and myself am SABR-inclined, I just find arguing against Verlander to be a bit pedantic because of how great his season was, SABR or traditionally.

One serious question though - how do you reconcile your belief that Verlander was helped over CC by team defense (through BABIP, WHIP, etc) when the Yankees outpaced the Tigers considerably in both UZR and UZR/150 this season?

It would appear that it was more luck than team defense. There's a ton of data out there to support the idea that a pitcher has very little control of the outcome of a ball put into play. Because of that, I feel comfortable in saying that Verlander's .238 BABIP was not a "skill", and was basically luck/team defense.

I would also point out that I've seen some work out there that has me question a bit the validity of UZR data. Matthew Carruth has been doing some good work in this arena, though I'm not sure if he's publicly posted his data for team "reaching base via batted balls" (RBBIP) metric, one where he delves more deeply into team BABIP against data, factoring in line drive rates and ballpark effects.

From strictly a team BABIP standpoint, it appears Detroit was a bit better than the Yankees (.292 vs. .296), though obviously that's not a big enough difference to satisfactorily explain why Verlander's BABPI against was so low.

To be fair, looking deeper at the numbers I see that Verlander's line drive percentage was lower than Sabathia's. I haven't been tracking all the latest SABR articles to get a good sense on the current feeling about pitcher control of line drive percentage, but I'd give Verlander the benefit of the doubt in having some control over that. And that gibes with my often-stated belief that Verlander deserved the award - I just don't think he had enough of an edge that Sabathia should have been shut out of 1st place votes.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I appreciate that you jump to conclusions in regards to my perceived "baseball knowledge". Apparently we have met and you know me. No? Ok then.

I actually have a very solid understanding of baseball stats. It isn't that I find them useless or that I don't understand them. I really prefer the eye test over pages of stats that have so many variables that my head wants to explode. Is a pitchers wins, ground ball percentage, and k/9 (amongst others) related to his teammates performance? Of course. But at what point can we just look at a pitchers basic numbers and how he performed as an individual and determine that he deserves a Cy Young? Clearly the choice wasn't always perfect in the past and it probably never will be. Adding more metrics to the process does very little as far as value, since you could argue that each of those metrics is also related to the team as a whole as well. I watched a lot of Verlander this year and a lot of Sabathia, and I have no doubt that Verlander was the better pitcher on a consistent basis. So whether we include every stat that is possibly related to his performance or include noting but wins and strikeouts, Verlander still deserved to win.

If you want to go by eye-test, I can't stop you. I prefer the more objective method of judging results. And the results - the ones that tons of data crunching show are the ones a pitcher has the most control over - show Sabathia and Verlander had essentially equally great years.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Please don't think I'm knocking the so-called advanced stats when I say this, because I'm not going to knock something I don't understand. It sounds like WAR is the most often quoted stat when trying to compare two players and determine which was better. If it's really as simple as that, I'd like to see them put WAR up on in a player's stat graphic during games. .296 BA, 20 HR, 86 RBI, .397 OBP, 2.8 WAR.

Of course, if folks can't even come to an agreement about how to calculate WAR, I suppose that makes it a little difficult. Still, if all these folks are savvy enough to acknowledge this stat's importance, you'd think they could all come up with a standard definition of it, in which case I want to see it in a stat graphic on TV. I'm not making fun. I really want to see it. Then, as each batter comes to the plate, I'll know whether he is better or worse than the guy who batted before him.

Then again, if I got everything I wanted, I wouldn't be posting this right now. I'd be in the midst of a four-way around-the-world with my wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Zach Parise right now.

I don't understand. This is not the Pumpy I know and love. He makes cogent arguments with some lovely understated satire thrown in. Oh wait, got to paragraph 3. Never mind

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It would appear that it was more luck than team defense. There's a ton of data out there to support the idea that a pitcher has very little control of the outcome of a ball put into play. Because of that, I feel comfortable in saying that Verlander's .238 BABIP was not a "skill", and was basically luck/team defense.

But how can someone be "lucky" over the course of a whole season? I can understand a game. I can understand a series of games. But, if luck is random, how many pitches/innings/starts do you need to eliminate it?

Can a pitcher have a "lucky" career? If their stats appear HoF-worthy, could you make a case against them saying they were just "lucky"?

Which is to say - what's more likely, that Verlander was *a lot* more lucky over 34 starts, or that the reasoning behind declaring this to just be luck and not performance based is flawed?

[Pumpy Tudors]

verlander was just better in the clutch duh

[RedKingGold]

ESPN is fucking stupid, there is no way that the Phillies will trade Cole Hamels. Philadelphia values pitching more than any other position, and know that left-handed under-30 pitchers are rare. Moreover, they learned from the Cliff Lee trade that you never get back what you're giving up when you trade a star pitcher.

They will either pay him or let him walk and collect draft picks, most likely the former.

[sterlingice]

You could have just stopped after the first four words (then again, if that's all you had posted- it wouldn't really be news)

SI

[Brownkeg8]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

from everything I am seeing from Cashman they have no interest in these type of numbers.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Then again, if I got everything I wanted, I wouldn't be posting this right now. I'd be in the midst of a four-way around-the-world with my wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Zach Parise right now.

Kathy Griffin is going to be pissed...

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Kathy Griffin is going to be pissed...

catherine zeta jones and zach parise have slightly better WAR than kathy griffin
gotta go with the numbers obv

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Brownkeg8

from everything I am seeing from Cashman they have no interest in these type of numbers.

Let's hope Hank steps in.

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

No, I didn't have them confused at all. I must have made my position cloudy with the way I worded things.What I was saying about OPS is that I feel like I've been told "That's a good OPS for a shortstop" or something like that.

Then it's no different than someone saying X number of HR's or X batting average is good for a shortstop/weak for a first baseman. a.k.a. providing context you probably already knew (Centerfielders hit worse than Right Fielders??? Great insight, Tim McCarver!)

One other thing worth noting is that the barometer of what a good OPS is has also dropped by about .030 - .050 with the reduced offense of the past 2 seasons.

League average OPS
2011 - .719
2010 - .728
2009 - .750
2008 - .749
2007 - .758
2006 - .768
2005 - .749
2004 - .763
2003 - .754
2002 - .748

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

catherine zeta jones and zach parise have slightly better WAR than kathy griffin
gotta go with the numbers obv

Kathy Griffin hasn't just seen the horrors of WAR, her face is the horror of WAR.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Kathy Griffin hasn't just seen the horrors of WAR, her face is the horror of WAR.

brutal

[DanGarion]

Kershaw wins NL Cy Young!