Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[Dipre]

I didn't realize I had to post sources to NEWS THAT IS A WEEK OLD. Is the internet that slow on that island you live on?

 

It's faster than the free Wi-Fi signal you get on your taxi.

[Gom]

Only bad or pitching-desperate teams have their 20 or 21 year old kids starting consistently. You know that. His playing time is a factor of playing for a good franchise that can't tolerate guys struggling on the fly.

 

First of all, very good post. Let's go through this one by one.

What data do you use to support this claim?

 

Out of pitchers who threw 80 or more innings last year he ranked 20th in fastball velocity at 93.5. Zack Greinke throws 93.7 and ranked 17th.

 

Anyone who consistently throws in the mid-90s is throwing hard. If they have effective secondary pitches nobody will criticize their fastball. Nobody criticizes his fastball.

 

Players who ranked below Buchholz?

 

Among others, Oswalt, Carpenter, Garza, Price, Cueto, Halladay, Cain, Joba, Lincecum, Harden, Hanson, Gallardo, Billingsly, Floyd, Liriano, Peavy, Lackey, etc.,

 

These are the very best pitchers in the world and Buchholz currently ranks near the top at 24.

 

Last three years:

 

2007: 91.1

2008: 92.6

2009: 93.5

I stand corrected on the fastball numbers. Guess he has a better fastball than I thought.

 

Given that playing time (i.e., IP) is not reflective of actual talent in a young team, we should look at pitchers by age.

What makes you say that? I think this is completely wrong. Jeter, Pedroia, Pettitte, Lester...and that's just from our teams. I think you're way off on this one point.

Are there other pitchers who went on to be good but who had yet to fully display that through age 24?

 

Roy Halladay vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24:

 

[Table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB |

Halladay | 336.1 | 4.95 | 1.537 | 6.3 | 1.59 |

Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table]

 

Buchholz had a better ERA, a better WHIP, better K/9, and a better K/BB than Roy Halladay through the same age.

 

Chris Carpenter vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24:

 

[table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB |

Carpenter | 406.1 | 4.52 | 1.496 | 6.6 | 2.03 |

Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table]

 

Similar WHIP, better K's.

 

Sandy Koufax vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24:

 

[table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB |

Koufax | 691.2 | 4.10 | 1.428 | 8.9 | 1.69 |

Bucholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table]

 

Similar WHIP, better K/BB, much heavier hitters era (ERA+ = 100 for Koufax, 95 for Buchholz)

 

Curt Schilling vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24

[table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | ERA + |

Schilling | 145.0 | 4.16 | 1.517 | 7.0 | 1.59 | 88 |

Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.497 | 7.6 | 1.86 | 95 | [/table]

 

Buchholz is better in every category except ERA.

 

Bob Gibson vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24:

 

[table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | ERA + |

Gibson | 162.1 | 4.55 | 1.608 | 6.5 | 1.34 | 91 |

Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.497 | 7.6 | 1.86 | 95 | [/table]

 

Again, better down the line...

Problem is the logic is faulty. Buchholz hasn't PITCHED up here. First of all, I'm throwing Gibson and Koufax out of the comparison. Different time, different game.

 

Secondly, they haven't done it yet.

 

Take a look at Joba. So far, in his career so far, Joba DESTROYS Clay.

 

He's one year younger than Clay.

 

He has a better ERA.

 

He has a better WHIP.

 

He has a better K/9.

 

He has a better K/BB.

 

By your comparison, it's not even close. Joba is better in every way imaginable.

 

Now, for the idiots out there, I don't want this to regress into a Yankees/Red Sox prospect war. I'm just making a point. Clay, Joba, Hughes...they haven't shown much yet. The body of work is too small to trade, and you guys, a lot of you, believe the brief flashes you see and what everyone else tells you to think. In other words, the Red Sox PR machine. At the age of 25, Clay's been injured, hasn't pitched all that well, and more importantly, hasn't pitched all that much. With the exception of Schilling, all of those pitchers were already established major league pitchers. Clay, Joba, Hughes...not so much.

Only if one team completely overspends to get Halladay. That's the only way the Jays can gut these farm systems. The Jays had their chance last year and didn't take it. Now their options are more limited and their asking price has to be lower.

I disagree.

 

First of all, you had an idiot GM that publicly stated that he didn't want to trade within the division and that wouldn't grant an extension window. Now you have a new GM who will grant a window and is willing to trade within the division. You also have a Yankee team that won the World Series, so it puts more pressure on the Red Sox, which puts more pressure on the Yankees...a positive feedback cycle.

 

I think he gets MORE than he got offered last year.

I don't think you defend your points very well. He's got elite stuff at 24 in a frame that is still developing.

 

Think about this. It's a given that Buchholz's star has dimmed a bit from two years ago. He had just thrown a no-hitter, he was a babe-in-the woods.

 

This was the guy who at 23 was a deal breaker in Boston's attempt to trade for the best pitcher on the planet at the age of 28. Two years later, he's part of a package to get one of the best pitchers, not the best, who is 32. See my point? If he isn't traded, and goes out there with a 4.60 ERA in 120 IP this year, he'll be an average pitcher. Of course, if he goes out there, throws 200 IP, has a 3.17 ERA and nets 16 wins, it's a different ball game. However, which one do you think is more likely?

 

Once again, I don't know much about him. The only times I saw him pitch were against the Yankees. I just look at his numbers, and realize that at 25, he hasn't had a full season of work. If I was the Toronto GM, I wouldn't believe your press clippings, or the Yankees. I'd look at the numbers, and so far, they're nothing to write home about.

 

He may or may not have elite "stuff". His production has been mediocre. He may be a star, but I see him as a #3 starter in the AL East, and a #2 elsewhere. By the time this guy throws 200 IP in a season, he'll probably be 30. [Yes, I am being facetious].

[Dipre]

Take away Joba's numbers in the bullpen then get back to us.

 

Besides that, health is something teams look for in a pitcher, CLAY DESTROYS JOBA IN THAT ASPECT.

[a700hitter]

Are there other pitchers who went on to be good but who had yet to fully display that through age 24?

 

Roy Halladay vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24:

 

[Table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB |

Halladay | 336.1 | 4.95 | 1.537 | 6.3 | 1.59 |

Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table]

 

Buchholz had a better ERA, a better WHIP, better K/9, and a better K/BB than Roy Halladay through the same age.

 

Chris Carpenter vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24:

 

[table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB |

Carpenter | 406.1 | 4.52 | 1.496 | 6.6 | 2.03 |

Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table]

 

Similar WHIP, better K's.

 

Sandy Koufax vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24:

 

[table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB |

Koufax | 691.2 | 4.10 | 1.428 | 8.9 | 1.69 |

Bucholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table]

 

Similar WHIP, better K/BB, much heavier hitters era (ERA+ = 100 for Koufax, 95 for Buchholz)

 

Curt Schilling vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24

[table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | ERA + |

Schilling | 145.0 | 4.16 | 1.517 | 7.0 | 1.59 | 88 |

Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.497 | 7.6 | 1.86 | 95 | [/table]

 

Buchholz is better in every category except ERA.

 

Bob Gibson vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24:

 

[table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | ERA + |

Gibson | 162.1 | 4.55 | 1.608 | 6.5 | 1.34 | 91 |

Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.497 | 7.6 | 1.86 | 95 | [/table]

 

Again, better down the line...

 

How much time did you devote to researching this? And you missed the most glaring example of all... Warren Spahn who didn't even win a single game before he was age 25. All of this comparison means nothing. So what that others have gone onto great success. That's no guarantee that Buchholz will. I am hoping that he will, but your stats and research are really pointless and prove nothing.

[BoSox21]

Absof***inglutely. Are you clinically insane?

 

Remember, this is the guy that the Red Sox wanted to KEEP in the Santana deal. They were more willing to give up Lester. Would you give up Lester or Buchholz at this point?

 

Buchholz but it has nothing to do with Buchholz as much as it has to do with the fact that Lester has emerged as an absolute stud.

 

Two years ago, Buchholz was 23, and from what I read, was the next big thing. He had just thrown a no-hitter. You really believe the two subsequent injury plagued/mediocre years, with ERA of 6.75s and 4.32 IMPROVED his status?

 

I had a feeling you'd counter with the "well he threw a no-hitter" argument like it actually f***ing matters. And how do you call a year where 11 of his 16 ML starts were quality starts "mediocre"? And what injuries has he had over the last two years besides a torn fingernail exactly?

[BSN07]

How much time did you devote to researching this? And you missed the most glaring example of all... Warren Spahn who didn't even win a single game before he was age 25. All of this comparison means nothing. So what that others have gone onto great success. That's no guarantee that Buchholz will. I am hoping that he will' date=' [b']but your stats and research are really pointless and prove nothing.

 

One of the most ignorant thing's you have ever said.

[Dipre]

One of the most ignorant thing's you have ever said.

 

Go to the "All that is Halladay" thread.

 

You'll be surprised.

[a700hitter]

One of the most ignorant thing's you have ever said.

Yes, of course, Bob Gibson's and Sandy koufax's rate of development are precursors of Buchholz's stardom and success.:dunno:

[BSN07]

Yes' date=' of course, Bob Gibson's and Sandy koufax's rate of development are precursors of Buchholz's stardom and success.:dunno:[/quote']

 

You are as clueless as Gom. Not meant as an attack on you personality or anything like that Clint

 

Just your views and opinions of anything to so with stats or the development of players

[Gom]

Buchholz but it has nothing to do with Buchholz as much as it has to do with the fact that Lester has emerged as an absolute stud.

 

 

 

I had a feeling you'd counter with the "well he threw a no-hitter" argument like it actually f***ing matters. And how do you call a year where 11 of his 16 ML starts were quality starts "mediocre"? And what injuries has he had over the last two years besides a torn fingernail exactly?

Easy. It was mediocre. A quality start means a 4.50 ERA at worst. Technically speaking, any pitcher with an ERA under 4.50 can pitch a quality start 100% of the time. In my opinion, a real quality start is 2 runs in seven innings, not three in six. Of course, this is my opinion.

 

Still, no one has convinced me that Buchholz is a star in the making. The only things that I've learned is that his career track is similar so far to Schilling [although they are completely different pitchers] and that he has a better fastball than I originally thought.

 

See, this goes back to the debate I've had here with others for years. I am more about the veteran players. Hughes, Joba, and Buchholz had more value two years ago. Why? They were PERCEIVED to be better than they have been. I'll take production over projection any day of the week. That's why I'm not that high on Clay.

[a700hitter]

You are as clueless as Gom. Not meant as an attack on you personality or anything like that Clint

 

Just your views and opinions of anything to so with stats or the development of players

Oh, saying that my post is "one of the most ignorant things that have said" is not a personal attack? That's an interesting spin. If you are going to call a post ignorant, you should back it up. Please tell me how developmental stats of star pitchers who came to the majors more than 50 years ago are relevant to Buchholz's development. So you say that I don't like stats? A bit of a generalization, don't you think?

[Dipre]

Easy. It was mediocre. A quality start means a 4.50 ERA at worst. Technically speaking, any pitcher with an ERA under 4.50 can pitch a quality start 100% of the time. In my opinion, a real quality start is 2 runs in seven innings, not three in six. Of course, this is my opinion.

 

Still, no one has convinced me that Buchholz is a star in the making. The only things that I've learned is that his career track is similar so far to Schilling [although they are completely different pitchers] and that he has a better fastball than I originally thought.

 

See, this goes back to the debate I've had here with others for years. I am more about the veteran players. Hughes, Joba, and Buchholz had more value two years ago. Why? They were PERCEIVED to be better than they have been. I'll take production over projection any day of the week. That's why I'm not that high on Clay.

 

Production over projection, huh?

 

Jon Lester, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Robinson Cano, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jonathan Papelbon, among others.

 

All of them had a projection that became a reality.

 

No one here can convince you to be high on any MiLB player, because of two things:

 

A) You don't analyze, you simply take stats and use them as a background for your opinions.

 

B ) You, self-admittedly, know very little about prospects and their development.

[BSN07]

Oh' date=' saying that my post is "one of the most ignorant things that [i'] have said" is not a personal attack? That's an interesting spin. If you are going to call a post ignorant, you should back it up. Please tell me how developmental stats of star pitchers who came to the majors more than 50 years ago are relevant to Buchholz's development. So you say that I don't like stats? A bit of a generalization, don't you think?

 

No it's ignorant because you completely through out/ discredited his post because you didn't like 2 of the 5 examples he gave you.

 

The very two he probably put in there for your sake(given your age).

 

Maybe those two aren't the best examples, but the other ones hold water.

[example1]

How much time did you devote to researching this? And you missed the most glaring example of all... Warren Spahn who didn't even win a single game before he was age 25. All of this comparison means nothing. So what that others have gone onto great success. That's no guarantee that Buchholz will. I am hoping that he will' date=' but [b']your stats and research are really pointless and prove nothing[/b].

 

This whole board was challenged by Gom to find ONE example of a pitcher Buchholz's age who had worse numbers than him at this point in his career who went on to do something good. I picked a few names out of my head--knowing baseball as I do--and, yes, they fit that request. I typed them up and presented them as data...

 

...and from you I get this pile of s***.

 

 

Gom based his whole argument on us rosey-eyed Red Sox fans, too stupid to realize that NOBODY BUCHHOLZ'S AGE and with his career so far, has gone on to do anything great. His window has closed, his value is gone, his ship has sailed. That was the crux of his argument.

 

It was wrong.

 

 

Now you're jumping in and putting down the work I did to show that, factually, he is wrong, by saying "what do these numbers prove. He's not Bob Gibson, har har". Well, factually I would argue he's just wrong. There ARE pitchers who have had success after slow starts. Some of them were Buchholz's age and had thrown 500 IP and had worse numbers; some were Buchholz's age and had thrown 15 IP and had worse numbers. It goes both ways.

[example1]

Oh' date=' saying that my post is "one of the most ignorant things that [i'] have said" is not a personal attack? That's an interesting spin. If you are going to call a post ignorant, you should back it up. Please tell me how developmental stats of star pitchers who came to the majors more than 50 years ago are relevant to Buchholz's development. So you say that I don't like stats? A bit of a generalization, don't you think?

 

They prove that Gom's premise--pitchers don't get through age 24 with mediocre numbers and then go onto success--is wrong. I showed that great pitchers of many eras have done exactly that. THAT's the point.

[a700hitter]

This whole board was challenged by Gom to find ONE example of a pitcher Buchholz's age who had worse numbers than him at this point in his career who went on to do something good. I picked a few names out of my head--knowing baseball as I do--and, yes, they fit that request. I typed them up and presented them as data...

 

...and from you I get this pile of s***.

Gom's examples were equally as pointless. I am sorry that I didn't mention that before. The whole exchange of stats of players from years gone by was pointless and irrelevant. Neither set of examples prove anything in either direction. Gom, posts s*** like that to get under our skin. You usually stick to relevant stats that support an argument. I am surprised that you willingly went down Gom's path of irrelevancy.

[Gom]

Production over projection, huh?

 

Jon Lester, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Robinson Cano, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jonathan Papelbon, among others.

 

All of them had a projection that became a reality.

 

No one here can convince you to be high on any MiLB player, because of two things:

 

A) You don't analyze, you simply take stats and use them as a background for your opinions.

 

B ) You, self-admittedly, know very little about prospects and their development.

 

How long were they in the majors before they started producing at a very high level? Let's take a look at the players you listed:

 

Pedrioa: 2nd year

Youkilis: 2nd year, improved pretty much every since

Ellsbury: Right out of the box

Cano: 2nd year

Papelbon: Right out of the box

Lester: 3rd year...oh..didn't he have CANCER?

Buchholz: Going into 4th year...

 

That's why this year is pivotal for Clay and Joba, and important for Hughes as well. Time to put up or shut up.

 

Every player you listed was already playing at a high level in LESS time than Buchholz. He still hasn't gotten there yet.

 

I'm older than a lot of you here, and I've been listening to the Yankees PR machine for longer than some of you have been alive. I stopped listening years ago. Now, I'm hearing the same from Red Sox fans. Until they do it up here, it doesn't mean anything to me.

 

I'm not saying a team should gut it's farm system for a utility player. However, when you have a player like Halladay, who is such an obvious difference maker and makes you the prohibitive favorite to win it all, not just this year, but the next couple of years, you have to take that chance. Considering the fiscal advantages both of our teams have over all the other teams in baseball, you can always draft another high end prospect. By the time you need them, it won't be before a few years and probably a championship or two.

[a700hitter]

They prove that Gom's premise--pitchers don't get through age 24 with mediocre numbers and then go onto success--is wrong. I showed that great pitchers of many eras have done exactly that. THAT's the point.

You didn't even manage to do that as the pitchers that you picked, except for Carpenter, were 24 years old between 20 and 50 years ago. As you have so often told me, the game has changed since then. Those stats aren't even relevant in your pissing contest with Gom, which he baited you into and he's been playing with you like a cat with a mouse as you get more and more mad.

[Dipre]

How long were they in the majors before they started producing at a very high level? Let's take a look at the players you listed:

 

Pedrioa: 2nd year

Youkilis: 2nd year, improved pretty much every since

Ellsbury: Right out of the box

Cano: 2nd year

Papelbon: Right out of the box

Lester: 3rd year...oh..didn't he have CANCER?

Buchholz: Going into 4th year...

 

That's why this year is pivotal for Clay and Joba, and important for Hughes as well. Time to put up or shut up.

 

Every player you listed was already playing at a high level in LESS time than Buchholz. He still hasn't gotten there yet.

 

I'm older than a lot of you here, and I've been listening to the Yankees PR machine for longer than some of you have been alive. I stopped listening years ago. Now, I'm hearing the same from Red Sox fans. Until they do it up here, it doesn't mean anything to me.

 

I'm not saying a team should gut it's farm system for a utility player. However, when you have a player like Halladay, who is such an obvious difference maker and makes you the prohibitive favorite to win it all, not just this year, but the next couple of years, you have to take that chance. Considering the fiscal advantages both of our teams have over all the other teams in baseball, you can always draft another high end prospect. By the time you need them, it won't be before a few years and probably a championship or two.

 

So Lester's illness gets mentioned, but not the fact that f***ing with Buch's mechanics making him lose absolutely all command of his fastball doesn't get mentioned?

 

You probably didn't know that, because you don't know jack s*** about Buch.

 

2008 was a lost year indeed, but you can blame the FO for that.

 

Also, going into the 4th year?

 

Laughable.

 

Cup of coffee in 2007.

[example1]

Gom's examples were equally as pointless. I am sorry that I didn't mention that before. The whole exchange of stats of players from years gone by was pointless and irrelevant. Neither set of examples prove anything in either direction. Gom' date=' posts s*** like that to get under our skin. You usually stick to relevant stats that support an argument. I am surprised that you willingly went down Gom's path of irrelevancy.[/quote']

 

Are you equally shocked when I go down yours? I can choose for myself what is irrelevant and what isn't.

 

Stats from players and years gone by are not pointless. The question becomes at what time do they become pointless? 2 years later? 5 years later? 30 years later?

 

I can choose the arguments I want to respond to. He based his entire argument on the "nobody has had this career path before" argument, I proved him wrong.

 

I think that warrants him being quiet on the subject for awhile.

 

 

I'm pretty confident the Sox look at pitchers as athletes, and as such they look at trends that pitchers have gone through historically. They use historical trends to determine how much (or how little) to throw their pitchers at what age, when to bring them up, and how to valuate them.

 

I noticed that nobody is saying that Roy Halladay and Chris Carpenter are bad comps.

[a700hitter]

No it's ignorant because you completely through out/ discredited his post because you didn't like 2 of the 5 examples he gave you.

 

The very two he probably put in there for your sake(given your age).

 

Maybe those two aren't the best examples, but the other ones hold water.

None of the examples were relevant as none of those stats are indicative of anything about Buchholz. It's too bad that you can't see that.

[a700hitter]

Are you equally shocked when I go down yours? I can choose for myself what is irrelevant and what isn't.

 

Stats from players and years gone by are not pointless. The question becomes at what time do they become pointless? 2 years later? 5 years later? 30 years later?

 

I can choose the arguments I want to respond to. He based his entire argument on the "nobody has had this career path before" argument, I proved him wrong.

 

I think that warrants him being quiet on the subject for awhile.

 

 

I'm pretty confident the Sox look at pitchers as athletes, and as such they look at trends that pitchers have gone through historically. They use historical trends to determine how much (or how little) to throw their pitchers at what age, when to bring them up, and how to valuate them.

 

I noticed that nobody is saying that Roy Halladay and Chris Carpenter are bad comps.

Now you are just babbling. If you want to continue down Gom's road and play his game, go ahead... mouse.

[example1]

You didn't even manage to do that as the pitchers that you picked' date=' except for Carpenter, were 24 years old between 20 and 50 years ago. As you have so often told me, the game has changed since then. Those stats aren't even relevant in your pissing contest with Gom, which he baited you into and he's been playing with you like a cat with a mouse as you get more and more mad.[/quote']

 

I'm not going to argue this with you. You proved from the get-go that you didn't understand the premise of my response, you insulted me by saying that the work I went to was meaningless, and you're just trying to pick a fight.

 

I proved what I set out to do. The only people arguing against it are, completely unsuprisingly, you and Gom.

[BSN07]

They prove that Gom's premise--pitchers don't get through age 24 with mediocre numbers and then go onto success--is wrong. I showed that great pitchers of many eras have done exactly that. THAT's the point.

 

I really like a700, but he's stuck in 1970 and can't find his way out. He doesn't comprehend how todays game works it seems. He see's the on field product played like he has learned and grown accustomed to seeing, but he still think's FO draft, scout, project talent like they did back in his hay day as well. It's a whole new ball game with scouting, saber metrics, project-able stats, and he just can't wrap his head around. Which I'm no expert on either, but at least I acknowledge people who put the time into show me these things. Not just toss it aside because I don't understand it, and give a " well those stats don't make a hill of beans, har har" type comment...

[a700hitter]

I really like a700' date=' but he's stuck in 1970 and can't find his way out. He doesn't comprehend how todays game works it seems. He see's the on field product played like he has learned and grown accustomed to seeing, but he still think's FO draft, scout, project talent like they did back in his hay day as well. It's a whole new ball game with scouting, saber metrics, project-able stats, and he just can't wrap his head around. Which I'm no expert on either, but at least I acknowledge people who put the time into show me these things. Not just toss is a side because I don't understand it, and give a " well those stats don't make a hill of beans, har har" type comment...[/quote']Yes, so let's use stats from pitchers in the 1960's to the 1990's to prove a point that Buchholz has a bright future. It's beyond inane. I'm not stuck anywhere. Surprisingly, whenever I join a fantasy league with a bunch of you young Sabremetric guys, I almost always end up in the playoff (about 80% or more) or winning it all, and I've been doing it for close to 20 years. When I first started doing Fantasy we didn't even have PC's to keep track of everything. Somehow I manage to stay current. I have even had some good rookie pickups. Surprise surprise!! Oh, and the other idiot, Gom ate all of our lunches this year in the TalkSox league.

[BSN07]

a700 can I ask you a serious question?

 

Why are you a Red Sox fan? The Yankees seem to be much more "your" type of team to me. You often would rather have the more expensive "proven" Veteran over the talented but "unproven" youngsters. You put no stock in player stats, projections, comparisons, scouting, and drafting. You more or less latch onto the big "names" types and don't budge from them, until the most current prospect you are pushing out the door to make room for a veteran does something.

 

This is not meant as a joke or an attack, but just a general knowledge question. Do you see what I'm seeing? Maybe living in NY has finally taken it's toll

[BSN07]

Yes' date=' so let's use stats from pitchers in the 1960's to the 1990's to prove a point that Buchholz has a bright future[/b']. It's beyond inane. I'm not stuck anywhere. Surprisingly, whenever I join a fantasy league with a bunch of you young Sabremetric guys, I almost always end up in the playoff (about 80% or more) or winning it all, and I've been doing it for close to 20 years. When I first started doing Fantasy we didn't even have PC's to keep track of everything. Somehow I manage to stay current. I have even had some good rookie pickups. Surprise surprise!! Oh, and the other idiot, Gom ate all of our lunches this year in the TalkSox league.

 

I have already stated that they might not be the best comparisons to use. But the logic behind the practice of comparing players is sound.

 

:wtf: does fantasy baseball have to do with any of this?

 

Maybe this explains a lot. No wonder your all about the proven player, prospects do you no good in fantasy leagues.

[a700hitter]

a700 can I ask you a serious question?

 

Why are you a Red Sox fan? The Yankees seem to be much more "your" type of team to me. You often would rather have the more expensive "proven" Veteran over the talented but "unproven" youngsters. You put no stock in player stats, projections, comparisons, scouting, and drafting. You more or less latch onto the big "names" types and don't budge from them, until the most current prospect you are pushing out the door to make room for a veteran does something.

 

This is not meant as a joke or an attack, but just a general knowledge question. Do you see what I'm seeing? Maybe living in NY has finally taken it's toll

I am disappointed that you have resulted to this. I don't root for teams because of their FO. Do you? I have attended more Red Sox games at Fenway, Ft. Myers, Philadelphia, NY, and Miami than most Sox fans could ever dream about. I went to Cooperstown to see Yaz and Rice get inducted. Are you seriously questioning my fandom? Ridiculous. Perhaps you haven't noticed how I don't cut an inch of slack to the Yankees or their fans. So, let me get this straight. Because I want my team to win and beat the Yankees, that means that I should root for the Yankees? Really? You have just discredited yourself.

[a700hitter]

:wtf: does fantasy baseball have to do with any of this?

 

Maybe this explains a lot. No wonder your all about the proven player, prospects do you no good in fantasy leagues.

It's all about stats...right? Something that you think that I hold in low regard and know nothing about.

[Sox Fan on Cape]

a700 can I ask you a serious question?

 

Why are you a Red Sox fan? The Yankees seem to be much more "your" type of team to me. You often would rather have the more expensive "proven" Veteran over the talented but "unproven" youngsters. You put no stock in player stats, projections, comparisons, scouting, and drafting. You more or less latch onto the big "names" types and don't budge from them, until the most current prospect you are pushing out the door to make room for a veteran does something.

 

This is not meant as a joke or an attack, but just a general knowledge question. Do you see what I'm seeing? Maybe living in NY has finally taken it's toll

 

I can't speak for a700, but I can speak as someone in the same age group. I've followed the Sox since the early 60's. This doesn't make me an expert, but it does allow me to make a somewhat qualified judgement with regards to trends. In general, most "can't miss", "blue chip" prospects don't live up to expectations. Yet with experienced players there is a track record. Is the majority of cases a proven track record is more reliable than projections.