ROCKET LANDS IN THE BRONX

[a700hitter]

Using this as the crux of your argument is pretty weak. This is entirely speculative, and very improbable.

 

Also, you could easily say, what if Clemens allows one more run then Lester in Game 7? This argument is still pretty stupid, but you have to address both sides of the issue.

 

You're really grasping.

Try this one on for size. If the 20 run difference results in 5 or 6 more wins for the Yankees, that could very well be the difference between the playoffs and the couch. How's that Cost/Benefit analysis doing. Clemens is still not worth it for 2007?

 

 

The NBA is not MLB. This is another weak argument. Though' date=' Chamberlin's first seven years are much more valuable than Russell's. He joins the Lakers with Baylor and West, and his PPG goes down. Not a shock.[/quote']I realize that the NBA is not MLB, but how does that invalidate the cost/benefit analsis between Chamberlain and Russell? Please be specific.

[a700hitter]

No doubt Wake would deserve it at pace he's at. Do have to agree with 700' date=' when they select pitchers... of course good ERA is a given, but Ws and Ks are the 2 biggest factors[/quote']If they picked the team today, Beckett and Papelbon would be locks, and I think Schilling could get the nod over Wakefield if we could get a 3rd pitcher. I don't think Wakefield will be consistent to the AS break, but I could see Schilling going with Beckett and Papelbon. Getting 3 pitchers on the staff is very difficult, and I don't see Wakefield making a compelling case over the other 3.

[CrespoBlows]

Try this one on for size. If the 20 run difference results in 5 or 6 more wins for the Yankees' date=' that could very well be the difference between the playoffs and the couch. How's that Cost/Benefit analysis doing. Clemens is still not worth it for 2007?[/quote']

 

No.

 

And you really don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

I realize that the NBA is not MLB, but how does that invalidate the cost/benefit analsis between Chamberlain and Russell? Please be specific.

 

I don't recall Chamberlin being available for $30,000,000. I thought you were referring to the postseason, but you weren't.

 

Makes the argument even weaker.

[a700hitter]

No.

 

And you really don't know what you are talking about.

Apparently not. I would have thought that if Clemens wins 5 more games for the Yankees than Lester and Tavarez win for us and they beat us by 5 or less games to make the playoffs that it would be a wothwhile acquisition. Silly me.

 

I don't recall Chamberlin being available for $30,000,000. I thought you were referring to the postseason, but you weren't.

 

Makes the argument even weaker.

Thanks for the thorough explanation...not. I am lost as to what point you are making here, but you certainly did not come close to answering my question.:dunno:

[CrespoBlows]

Apparently not. I would have thought that if Clemens wins 5 more games for the Yankees than Lester and Tavarez win for us and they beat us by 5 or less games to make the playoffs that it would be a wothwhile acquisition. Silly me.

 

Again, you really don't know what you are talking about.

 

Thanks for the thorough explanation...not. I am lost as to what point you are making here, but you certainly did not come close to answering my question.:dunno:

 

I can't explain something I didn't get. I don't understand the comparison. It's a very bad one.

[a700hitter]

did i say i was gonna go bet on it? you keep going on' date=' on how roger this , roger that , HOF , i wouldn't bet on that either that roger is gonna stop us from winning against NY . roger could even crap out more than tavarez who knows[/quote']Personally, I hate Clemens, but I have to acknowledge his greatness. Him versus Tavarez? It's really a ridiculous question.

[a700hitter]

Again' date=' you really don't know what you are talking about. [/quote']I just acknowledged that I don't know what I am talking about, and you respond that I don't know what I am talking about. Is that similar to a double negative?

I can't explain something I didn't get. I don't understand the comparison. It's a very bad one.

I am not surprised that you didn't get the question, nor am In surprised that you could not articulate an answer explaining why it is different. I am not surprised at all.

[CrespoBlows]

I just acknowledged that I don't know what I am talking about' date=' and you respond that I don't know what I am talking about. Is that similar to a double negative?[/quote']

 

No, it's the increasingly obvious fact that you are an idiot.

 

I am not surprised that you didn't get the question, nor am In surprised that you could not articulate an answer explaining why it is different. I am not surprised at all.

 

You brought up Chamberlin and Russell and compared it to Lester and Clemens. Seriously, there is no valid comparison. This is probably the stupidest things I have ever heard.

 

Ain't no f***ing ballpark neither. Giving a bitch a foot massage, and sticking your tongue in the holiest of holies, ain't even in the same league, it ain't even the same f***ing sport.

[See Red]

I am not surprised that you didn't get the question' date=' nor am In surprised that you could not articulate an answer explaining why it is different. I am not surprised at all.[/quote']

 

Because Chamberlain was the better player. Russell played with about 10 seperate hall of famers over the course of his career.

 

There's just absolutely no parallel between Russell: Chamberlain and Clemens: Lester. And it's ridiculous to A. think that there is or B. use this idiotic argument to attempt to prove a point.

 

Look... it's easy to spend someone elses money. If you were writing paychecks we'd be paying Pedro $14 mill per year to appear on our injury report for this year and next.

[a700hitter]

No' date=' it's the increasingly obvious fact that you are an idiot.[/quote']Oh, okay. You must be right. Afterall, you do make $8/hour for doing nothing.

 

You brought up Chamberlin and Russell and compared it to Lester and Clemens. Seriously' date=' there is no valid comparison. This is probably the stupidest things I have ever heard.[/quote']I did not compare the Chamberlain/Russell comparison to the Clemens/Lester comparison. I merely asked you how your cost/.benefit analysis would work if the comparison was Chamberlain/Russell. Chamberlain blows away Russell on pure stats, does that equate to a big value advantage to Chamberlain?

 

BTW: Your Lester vs. Clemens Cost benefit comparison is completely invalid, because if we signed Clemens, we would still have Lester. We'd have them both, so what's the reason for the comparison. Wouldn't that cost benefit comparison be appropriate only if we traded Lester for Clemens? Can you answer that one, or are you completely out of answers?

[TheKilo]

How does that analysis change if one of the runs that Clemens saves is in game 7 of the ALCS and Lester gives up one more run than Clemens in that game? Does the analysis still hold true? Is it a completely static analysis based entirely on the individual statistics? Based on that type of analysis' date=' Wilt Chamberlain was much more valuable than Bill Russell.[/quote']

 

What? I mean, what?

 

You accuse me of conjecture and rationalization, and then completely fabricating a hypothetical situation in order to try to prove a point?

 

If the cost of a 45 year old pitcher is $30, then yes, the same analysis holds true. There needs to be risk assessed to every decision the FO makes. In my opinion, and apparently in theirs, throwing $30 million at a guy who could barely pitch past the 6th inning in arguably the weakest division in baseball and asking him to be successful in the ALE is unlikely.

 

Could it work out very well for the Yankees? Sure. Do I think he's going to be worth $30 million? Nope. Is there an incredible amount of risk involved? You betcha.

[See Red]

I did not compare the Chamberlain/Russell comparison to the Clemens/Lester comparison. I merely asked you how your cost/.benefit analysis would work if the comparison was Chamberlain/Russell. Chamberlain blows away Russell on pure stats' date=' does that equate to a big value advantage to Chamberlain?[/quote']

 

How do you not get this? Russell had much better talent around him. He played on better teams -- hence, more Championships. If Chamberlain played on those Celtics teams you'd better believe he'd have two fists full of rings.

 

BTW: Your Lester vs. Clemens Cost benefit comparison is completely invalid' date=' because if we signed Clemens, we would still have Lester. We'd have them both, so what's the reason for the comparison. Wouldn't that cost benefit comparison be appropriate only if we traded Lester for Clemens? Can you answer that one, or are you completely out of answers?[/quote']

 

As soon as you figure out how to fit six men into a five man rotation, this point will be relevant. The point is, why should we pay $20 million more for maybe two or so more wins than we'd get with what we already have?

[TheKilo]

Try this one on for size. If the 20 run difference results in 5 or 6 more wins for the Yankees' date=' that could very well be the difference between the playoffs and the couch. How's that Cost/Benefit analysis doing. Clemens is still not worth it for 2007?[/quote']

 

Conjecture.

[TheKilo]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6199

 

PECOTA projected Igawa to post a translated 4.28 ERA in 180 innings, worth 22.9 points of VORP and 4.1 WARP. However, we have additional information on Igawa, his first 30 or so major-league innings, which indicate that those figures are high. Igawa has allowed eight home runs in 30 2/3 innings, leading to a 7.63 ERA. His translated ERA is 7.45, with negative VORP (-11.5) and WARP (-0.7) totals. If you weight the projection and the performance to date, allowing the latter to make up 1/6th of the line, you should get a more accurate projection.

 

Let’s compare the two lines: Clemens’ projection, and Igawa’s adjusted projection for the two-thirds of the year for which he’ll be replaced:

 

            IP    H   BB   SO   HR    ERA   VORP   WARP
Clemens   127.2  109   39  118   12   3.34   28.3    3.6
Igawa     103.1  111   35   75   14   4.51   11.5    2.2

 

Is that upgrade—17 runs, a win-and-a-half—worth $26 million? That’s hard to believe.

 

Of course, this assumes that Igawa maintains his PECOTA projections the rest of the year, which is unlikely. So the gap could grow a bit, maybe to three or four wins.

 

Is $26 million worth three or four wins?

[CrespoBlows]

Oh' date=' okay. You must be right. Afterall, you do make $8/hour for doing nothing.[/quote']

 

Wow. That's pretty f***ing low. Mocking someone's employment?

 

 

You must be running out of ideas.

 

I did not compare the Chamberlain/Russell comparison to the Clemens/Lester comparison. I merely asked you how your cost/.benefit analysis would work if the comparison was Chamberlain/Russell. Chamberlain blows away Russell on pure stats, does that equate to a big value advantage to Chamberlain?

 

OK, because Chamberlin blows Russell away in pure stats, you insert him in the Celtics lineup, and they are an even better team.

 

BTW: Your Lester vs. Clemens Cost benefit comparison is completely invalid, because if we signed Clemens, we would still have Lester. We'd have them both, so what's the reason for the comparison. Wouldn't that cost benefit comparison be appropriate only if we traded Lester for Clemens? Can you answer that one, or are you completely out of answers?

 

OK, you have to understand what you are talking about first. You clearly don't. I'll try again:

 

THE DEBATE IS WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF UPGRADING FROM CLEMENS TO LESTER OUTWEIGHS THE COST.

 

For example, Player A is a free agent in CF. He is a .283/.393/.498. hitter. He is worth approximately worth 9 wins over the average player. He happens to command an average salary of $14 million. You already have Player B in CF. He is a .268/.374/.395, he is worth about 4 wins, but wants $7 million.

 

Is it worth the upgrade?

[a700hitter]

Because Chamberlain was the better player. Russell played with about 10 seperate hall of famers over the course of his career.

What were Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Hal Greer, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, and Gail Goodrich

 

There's just absolutely no parallel between Russell: Chamberlain and Clemens: Lester. And it's ridiculous to A. think that there is or B. use this idiotic argument to attempt to prove a point.

For the second time, I wasn't draawing a parallel. I was wondering how his cost/benefit analysis works in other situations. Is it purely stat based? I think it is a legitimate question.

 

Look... it's easy to spend someone elses money. If you were writing paychecks we'd be paying Pedro $14 mill per year to appear on our injury report for this year and next.

Very relevant comment to this discussion. Thanks for your input.

[CrespoBlows]

For the second time, I wasn't draawing a parallel. I was wondering how his cost/benefit analysis works in other situations. Is it purely stat based? I think it is a legitimate question.

 

How else do you want to base it? Stats are a measure of performance, we use these to make rational decisions.

 

Very relevant comment to this discussion. Thanks for your input.

 

Afterall, you do make $8/hour for doing nothing.

 

Like this was?

[a700hitter]

Wow. That's pretty f***ing low. Mocking someone's employment?

 

 

You must be running out of ideas.

You started the name-calling, and you clearly ran out of ideas first. Don't blame me because I am just better with insults than you.

 

OK' date=' because Chamberlin blows Russell away in pure stats, you insert him in the Celtics lineup, and they are an even better team.[/quote']I'd like to hear Red Auerbach's response to this one. God rest his soul.

 

OK, you have to understand what you are talking about first. You clearly don't. I'll try again:

 

THE DEBATE IS WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF UPGRADING FROM CLEMENS TO LESTER OUTWEIGHS THE COST.

 

For example, Player A is a free agent in CF. He is a .283/.393/.498. hitter. He is worth approximately worth 9 wins over the average player. He happens to command an average salary of $14 million. You already have Player B in CF. He is a .268/.374/.395, he is worth about 4 wins, but wants $7 million.

 

Is it worth the upgrade?

Wow, you really don't get it. Lester doesn't make $7 million per year. He makes the minimum, like you. He's not even a budget item. We don't have to let him go to get Clemens. The upgrade would be for one year, and we get to keep the cheap prospect. We have no idea what Lester would do in a penant race in 2007. Hell, we don't know if he is ready to hold down a spot in the rotation. Clemens has a pretty looong track record. If Clemens is the difference between the playoffs and another championship, yes he would be worth the cost, and we'd have the cheap hot prospect stronger and more ready to hold a spot next season. That's my math, but yours must be right and mine wrong, because yours is in huge font.

[CrespoBlows]

You started the name-calling' date=' and you clearly ran out of ideas first. Don't blame me because I am just better with insults than you. [/quote']

 

 

Seriously, you might be the least funniest person on the board. You used the "meds" joke three times, with no success.

 

I'd like to hear Red Auerbach's response to this one. God rest his soul.

 

I think you and I already know his answer. He's going to back his player.

 

Wow, you really don't get it. Lester doesn't make $7 million per year. He makes the minimum, like you. He's not even a budget item. We don't have to let him go to get Clemens. The upgrade would be for one year, and we get to keep the cheap prospect. We have no idea what Lester would do in a penant race in 2007. Hell, we don't know if he is ready to hold down a spot in the rotation. Clemens has a pretty looong track record. If Clemens is the difference between the playoffs and another championship, yes he would be worth the cost, and we'd have the cheap hot prospect stronger and more ready to hold a spot next season. That's my math, but yours must be right and mine wrong, because yours is in huge font.

 

Again, this is inane rambling that doesn't even come close to sniffing the point. You don't even get the analogy.

 

I don't know what else to try.

[a700hitter]

:Seriously' date=' you might be the least funniest person on the board. You used the "meds" joke three times, with no success.[/quote'] I wasn't joking about the meds comment. I really think you must be on meds.

I think you and I already know his answer. He's going to back his player.

Would he be the only one? Chamberlain's Lakers had as much if not more talent than Celtics and Knicks teams that beat his teams. Hell, the Knicks beat them without a center in game 7.

[TheKilo]

http://www.talksox.com/forum/showpost.php?p=249219&postcount=285

[CrespoBlows]

I wasn't joking about the meds comment. I really think you must be on meds.

 

I can't afford them. I only make $8 an hour. :dunno: (Again, weak...)

 

I tell what I have never done before. I never solicited a teenage girl for her picture, after she offered a blowjob on the internet.

[CrespoBlows]

http://www.talksox.com/forum/showpost.php?p=249219&postcount=285

 

I don't know how he doesn't see that. I mean, it's right there.

[a700hitter]

Conjecture.

It is conjecture, but it is not baseless conjecture, because Clemens is a proven winner and Tavarez is s*** and Lester is an unknown. It is completely reasonable to think Clemens is more likely to bring a team a Championship than Tavarez or Lester in 2007. Do you disagree with that or do you get some sort of cheap kick out of making lame attempts to use my words against me? If Clemens ends up being the difference between the post-season and the couch, would he be worth the investment? Is this such a tough question that no one can answer it? Maybe I'll get back one of those large font math problems that can't be proved or verified.

 

BTW: I am having a great time.:thumbsup:

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by TheKilo

http://www.talksox.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=285

 

I don't know how he doesn't see that. I mean' date=' it's right there.[/quote']Isn't this a projection? So, you are making your case based on fiction? Case closed, fool.

[TheKilo]

Isn't this a projection? So' date=' you are making your case based on fiction? Case closed, fool.[/quote']

 

No, it's based on statistics. You know, those fun things that measure performance.

 

They seem to think Clemens is worth about two additional wins. TWO.

[a700hitter]

No, it's based on statistics. You know, those fun things that measure performance.

 

They seem to think Clemens is worth about two additional wins. TWO.

It's a projection.

 

BTW: Some years two wins means the difference between the playoffs and the couch.

[CrespoBlows]

If Clemens ends up being the difference between the post-season and the couch' date=' would he be worth the investment?[/quote']

 

Holy s***. Do you actually think people are doubting that?

 

 

Maybe I'll get back one of those large font math problems that can't be proved or verified.

 

 

 

It's been verified.

 

Spending $10 to $15 million per win isn't a good business decision.

 

Maybe if you realized that this isn't 1957, you'd began to realize it, and that the game of baseball has evolved.

 

BTW: I am having a great time.:thumbsup:

 

Looking like an idiot?

 

Seriously, you're overmatched here. Even worse it's to a bunch of Generation X'ers.

[CrespoBlows]

Isn't this a projection? So' date=' you are making your case based on fiction? Case closed, fool.[/quote']

 

Isn't yours a projection? Worse, you have nothing backing your thoughts up. NOTHING Clemens could pop his hammy like you said. Clemens could be caught taking PED's. Clemens could be totally dominate only to watch the bullpen surrender every single run. Jon Lester could duplicate his numbers from last year before he went down to an injury.

 

Oh, don't consider those things, you're the focus of this week's Dateline. Don't forget to tune in!

[TheKilo]

It is conjecture' date=' but it is not baseless conjecture, because Clemens is a proven winner and Tavarez is s*** and Lester is an unknown. It is completely reasonable to think Clemens is more likely to bring a team a Championship than Tavarez or Lester in 2007. Do you disagree with that or do you get some sort of cheap kick out of making lame attempts to use my words against me? [b']If Clemens ends up being the difference between the post-season and the couch, would he be worth the investment?[/b] Is this such a tough question that no one can answer it? Maybe I'll get back one of those large font math problems that can't be proved or verified.

 

BTW: I am having a great time.:thumbsup:

 

Of course he would. But that's an extreme hypothetical.

 

If Lester goes undefeated in the postseason and beats Clemens on his way to doing so, is it a good move by the FO to not spend $30 mil on Clemens?

 

Besides you take the $12-15 you could have spent on Clemens, the $9 million that Lowell won't command, and the $9 million from Clement and throw all of that at ARod in the offseason.