ORS

Post here. Anderson is, at least at the beginning of the year, making it look like he could reclaim his status. Hit is 3rd HR of the year tonight, which should bring his OPS up to around the 1.000 mark by tomorrow morning. Kelly has yet to give up a run in 2 AA starts. Reddick's last two games feature 3 hits, which is an improvement, all for XBH, which is a major improvement. Oh, and Salem looks loaded, with Lavarnway, Rizzo, and an improved Middlebrooks and Tejeda.

When you are being called foolish for being judge and jury in your own arguments, it doesn't help to dive deeper, it only draws more attention to the foolishness. However, since foolish appears to be your home address, this was expected.

Short answer: CERA is unreliable because pitchers' performances vary so much from start to start even with the same catcher that it's very difficult to remove that noise, particularly when you reduce the sample sizes to a few starts (for the backup catcher). Long answer: This topic has been discussed for years, with people who have far more passion and time for this than I conducting statistical studies to try and find out if it tells us something. You have to understand something, when they conduct these studies, they do so with little bias, because their intent is to find measures that tell us more about the game. If anything, they want stats like CERA to give us greater understanding, so their bias would be toward having findings that support it. Google and read. Oh, and you proudly align with the twitterings of a high school kid. Not sure that's the best possible thing to do when trying to gain credibility, but, it's not all that surprising either.

Gom would, just ask him.

Circle-jerk over yet, old-timers?

Gom declares himself the winner of an argument. What a surprise, he never does that.

I know because I watched the video, per your request. Five, six, four, who gives a s***? You are missing the forrest because of your focus on a small tree. I counted from memory, so it was five, big deal. The point remains, Timmons' zone, like most modern umps, is short but wide relative to the actual strikezone. He cuts some off the top and the bottom and adds it to the sides of the plate. Where Wilson lost strikes was in these cutoff zones. I made this clear the first time. You have not responded to it, and instead focussed on ******** like how many pitches I counted from memory. Here's another opportunity to join the meaningful discussion or carry on with the 3rd grade s***.

You are making s*** up and assigning to someone as bogus support for your argument again. It's really pathetic that you do this, and it's so old with that it's starting to get stale. Stand on your own. I didn't carry on the discussion about the accuracy of the actual strikezone as measured by the graphic on MLB Network vs. Gameday because I was making another point. Can you, for once, make an argument without claiming bogus support from others on the board?

So is it crap when Yankee offense struggles to score a run in a game, or is it, you know, just baseball, where funny things happen in small samples? Think on it a bit and let me know.

No s***, look at the part in bold. That's the most meaningful number there. Try as you might, and lord knows you're trying, you aren't pissing on my parade. EDIT: Oh, and "outside of KC", is funny. Yeah, KC sucks, so they must have faced some s***** pitchers there and not the defending AL CY Young or anything. Oh, wait....

It's interesting, this little fantasy world you live in where it's acceptable to ask someone a question while assuming the answer, as you have done here. No wonder you think you do so well in arguments, you've assigned your opponents responses in your mind that you credit yourself with defeating. Nevermind the reality of their responses. For instance, every pitch to Johnson was borderline, ie, the ump could have gone either way with them, but nothing Teagarden did impacted that. No, it doesn't change that, but that doesn't mean what you want it to. Six of those 9 were in the lower end of the zone, where Timmons wasn't calling strikes, two were higher than any other called strike outside the strikezone, and one was higher than any called strike all night. There is no other comparable pitch to point to and call these the fault of the catcher. Keep trying.

You either didn't watch it again, or you just like making s*** up to support your ********. I think it's probably the latter. Seriously, watch it again, particularly the overhead view. He does exactly what you say he should. He sets up off the plate, his left shoulder is closer to the pitcher, and he even receives the ball with his hand moving the ball toward the strikezone, which makes it look like he had to come closer to middle of the plate to receive the ball. That's the ump, not the catcher.

Nor is it raining in San Antonio, although it was earlier. I mean raining, raining. The pool has a 1-1/2" overflow drain line. It was raining so hard the level kept rising and the pool overflowed at the pool edge.

It is as defined by Gom, or at least to the degree that Gom claims it impacts the game.

While I agree that I can make any point more cogently that you are able, you're still grasping at straws here, it doesn't help you.

This is funny. Clearly, you have a hard time reading the chart. Timmon's strikezone is defined by the chart. The concept of "framing", as defined by you, is that catchers are getting more strikes called. This doesn't happen in that chart. There are two glaring areas where the strikezone as called varies from the strikezone as defined. This is where you should be able to find your mythical "framing", but you can't. The area at the bottom of the strikezone and the left of the strikezone invalidate the "framing" nonsense. At the left of the strikezone, Wilson gets several strikes called well outside of the strikezone. Clearly, either Teagarden is a master of tricking the ump into calling balls as strikes for his pitcher, or something else is at work. Let's look at the other inconsistency. Well, well, what have we here, the lower end of the strikezone has the opposite occurring. Maybe Teagarden isn't so hot afterall, or....just maybe, the ump calls a stikezone that differs from the rulebook. If it was "framing", you'd see the strikezone getting stretched for one pitcher over the other in all directions, which, of course, doesn't happen.

********. Here's all the called strikes/balls for the game. http://brooksbaseball.net/pfx/zoneplot.php?pitchSel=all&sp_type=1&game=gid_2010_04_16_texmlb_nyamlb_1/&s_type=7 Is Teagarden really good at "framing" outside pitches but not low pitches? Or is that representative of Timmon's strikezone? Considering CC got stuff wide of the plate too, logic suggests it's the latter. The former is sham-wow. Furthermore, follow your own advice and review that video. Teagarden locks that pitch in that was called a ball to Granderson. His glove doesn't move an inch when he receives it, which was really evident in the overhead view ..... which also showed the pitch was wide of the plate. Complete fabrication.

The whole "framing pitches" argument is such a joke. Gom is fabricating pitches that would change if the catcher had a higher Molina-factor. There is absolutely no way you can say a pitch would change either way depending on the catcher. It's all a self-serving fabrication. A sham. A sham-wow. ON TOPIC: No, he's not the solution. He has a glaring deficiency in his game. They should always strive for players like Youk and Pedroia who are very good at both the offensive and defensive sides of the game. That said, he is an acceptable option while they try and find a more complete player, be it internally or externally.

Brett Myers, Prodigy, guess the song.

I'm sorry, don't take this personally, but the "capitalist ideal" applied to baseball economics is intellectually lazy. In actual capitalism, the entreprenuer has much more freedom to place his business where the consumers are. If Main St is where everyone shops, he/she can choose to pay the higher rent for a Main St shop and be where the market is. Or, he/she can go off Main St and try to prosper there. Most importantly, of course, is that it's up to the business owner. Not so in baseball. MLB is a collective union of baseball team owners who have banded together and make decisions that they feel are in the best interests of the whole league. KC can't decide, "Our market sucks, we're moving to NY", they have to get league approval for that. NY, and Boston, and LA, etc, those teams all make so much money because of where they are. Sure they do some creative things to maximize their revenues out of their market, but the notion of them "earning" more than their competitors in smaller markets is laughable. It's like giving Saudi Arabia credit for leading the world in oil production. I readily acknowledge that baseball is a business. It's entertainment business. The entertainment it is selling is sports competition. It's selling a bogus product right now, because sporting competition, in everyone's mind that I know, is about a level playing field. When money is the means by which teams staff their rosters with talent, the money needs to be equal for the field to be level. The current system is tantamount to giving some Little League teams extra picks in each round of the draft. Would anyone think that was fair?

Sorry, that question was tinged with sarcasm. I'm not proned to writing long, ardous to read posts. Short version. Biggest obstacle after the MLBPA is revenue sharing. A cap is untenable without a floor, and a floor doesn't happen without expanded revenue sharing. If these two issues, the MLBPA waking up and seeing the big picture and expanded revenue sharing (as in "general pool" expanded), can get worked out, then any other lesser issues will fall by the wayside.