ORS

The runner analogy is a very poor one in that the end conclusion is that more running is more likely to result in more injuries. This is wrong. It's more likely the distance runner suffers from a specific type of injury associated with wear and tear, but sprinters are far more proned to other types, specifically muscle injuries as the activity is much more intense. Papelbon's issue was the shoulder muscles weren't holding the shoulder joint together. The "logic" Gom is unable to see is the connection between the more intense activity and muscle failure. Speaking of logic, it's comical how often Gom uses that word and incorrectly assigns it to his position. There is no logical system into which his trains of thought will fit. Let's look at a simple Aristotilian example: I like flowers. Roses are flowers. I like roses. This is true. All of me likes all flowers. All roses are part of all flowers. Therefore, all of me likes all roses. But what about.... I like flowers. I am tall. Tall people like flowers. This is false. All of me likes all flowers, however, I am only one person out of many who is tall, and the conclusion is an "all" statement. Here's a mathematical example, probably the most simple that everyone has seen. A=B B=C therefore, A=C Gom's would be something akin to this. Gom likes flowers. No connecting statement ORS is afraid of clowns. Seriously, he doesn't connect the first statement to the last. And, true to Gom-form, the last is an arbitrary insult. Logic? Certainly not.

8:00 works better for me too, but I can make either time.

I thought spring was only 3 months long, when clearly you are talking about over a year.

They'd be bad, but this is a bit much. Replacement level is about 75% of league average. With the AL average somewhere around 780 runs over the last few years, a replacement level team, all replacement level players mind you, scores 535 and gives up 1035 for a Pythag of 40 wins. While there aren't a lot, some of those players are certainly above replacement level. I think 60-ish would be doable, but that's good enough for worst in the league in just about any year.

The numbers really don't matter, but Dojji's point about the application of probabilities is a good one. You can lump x number of indepedent probabilities together and come up with a 1/y chance of them happening. However, if 1 happens, it doesn't preclude the other x-1 from happening.

Henry called for a cap when he was the owner of the Marlins, but that doesn't count now, right? Full of dung.

Independent probabilities can be multiplied. 0.5 x 0.4 x 0.75 x 0.6 = 0.09 or 9% What Dojji is correctly saying is that if Saito's 0.6 is realized (in accordance with your post), then the other probabilities don't drop to zero, which is essentially what you said.

The issue isn't to bring the topic up again, dummy. It's the hypocrisy of ridiculing a person for believing the words a doctor and then some time later, putting faith in the words of a doctor.

What's funny is that you read that and think it validates your points against a salary cap simply because he says he's not in favor of a cap. The whole idea behind a cap is leveling the competitive balance, something that Sternberg admits needs to be done. He says he's not in favor of a cap and floor without expanded revenue sharing, and he says he's of the opinion that expanded revenue sharing isn't going to happen, therefore, he's thinking of ways to fix the competitive balance without a cap. Try reading for the actual content and not just words that validate what you want to hear next time.

Funny, when I quoted the head of the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopedic Institute, one of the preeminent orthopedic rehab institutions, on the Papelbon starting vs. relieving issue, all you had to say was that I was guilty of "believing everything your read! LOL!". It's interesting how often you will commit yourself to talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Hamels is a super-2, Lester is pre-arb-2. The difference in their playing time is in the 0.05 years range. Really, stop. You did not say you were wrong, merely that your post was not necessary. Big difference. When? When? It's never been done by you. There aren't any. That was for others who may feel wary of taking sides in an argument.

It is a perfect correlation. Taking away the specifics, you are on record saying that it is hypocritical if a person cheers their team for doing something within the rules to be more competitive when that thing goes against what they think the rules should allow. You can fill in the blanks and make it about the DH or make it about the salary cap, but both fit in the generic form in the preceding sentence. I don't buy for a second that you don't see this. It's clear as day. What I do buy, is that you will never admit that you are wrong, no matter how obvious it is. Here's an idea, and I'll admit it was a poor example if no affirmatives come in response. To the board, did my DH example work in your opinion? No matter your response, there are no hard feelings. Be honest if you wish to participate.

What a bunch of semantical nonsense. You mean to tell me you can't make adjustments to compare apples to apples for a 2 year vs. super 2 player? Really? Why then do you lump 2nd year and 3rd year players together in your example about why this move is worse for baseball than the Sabathia signing? I mean, according to you, their situations are so gloriously different (btw, for the able minded, an adjustment of only $500K is typical for the 3rd pre-arb year) that nobody would dare consider them comparable, right? Oh, I know why put them together, here's comes Mr Double Standard again.

Yes, and if you wish to keep that mindset you have allow for the comparable example of the DH I brought up. Do you call people who grew up rooting for an AL team hypocrites if they are against the DH? It's the same exact mindset. Or do you regularly apply a double standard? a) I've already stated I think they beat the market, but this of course requires some assumption. One, I think he stays healthy because his only issue has been cancer, and he's had no arm issues. Two, he continues to pitch at a high level. I admit, there's probably some wishful thinking there, but if those hold true, it's a good deal. Also, assumptions realized, that final year, the FA year, is probably worth $18+M on the open market in 5 years. What does this mean? The rules of the system / game are what is good or bad for baseball. Back to the DH. I prefer the game played with pitchers hitting. Therefore, I think the DH rule is bad. I don't think it's bad when an AL team uses the DH, as it's within the rules. Go to the cause of good / bad, the rule, not to the application of the rule.

Where do you get 60% over the Hamels deal? Hamels signed away his 3 arb years for $20.5M. Lester signed away 1 pre-arb year, 3 arb years, and 1 FA year for $30M. Now, assume $500K for the pre-arb year, and what is the difference from the Hamels deal? It's one FA year for $9M. The market for a young top of the rotation LHP was set by Hamels, and Lester's deal is clearly in line with it. There is no precedent set by the Lester deal. What the Sox did different was to assume more risk in a longer duration, but this is not the first time this has been done, so there's no precedent there either. In terms of risk, the smaller market teams were already much more risk averse than the big market teams, so this is very unlikely to change that. Really not much to see here, just a bunch of thoughtless bluster.

I understand where you are coming from completely. Where you are wrong is that you keep trying to bind one's position on the salary cap to one's position on any given deal as if they are inseparable. There is no connection there. None. I have, in addition to being consistent in my support of a salary cap, something you rightly credit me for, also been consistent in my position that a person's take on a salary cap is independent from his/her take on any given deal within the current rules. You can like the Yankee signings and still be in support of a cap. The reason being is that your feelings about the deal should be judged in the context of the current rules / system. Finding the system to be broken or inequitable is a completely unrelated matter. This is like the 6th time I've articulated this point to you, each time in a different fashion. Everyone else seems to get it, what's taking you so long?

I agree, for a starting pitcher performing at that level, you can easily see that salary fit within the framework of a salary cap set at $100M. However, whether or not it does is irrelevant to the discussion. The Sox were acting within the current system. Change the rules, ie have a salary cap, and the negotiations go differently, and we are talking about a different deal. Analyzing this deal within the framework of a nonexistant set of rules is the pinnacle of stupidity. Guess who suggests that's what we should do?

Yeah, I do, and here we go 'round the mulberry bush again trying to get you to understand that being for a salary cap does not limit my thoughts on deals within the current system to only their impact on a nonexistant salary cap system. I'll break down in as simply as possible. I am for a salary cap. A salary cap does not exist. Therefore, my consideration of the merits of a deal do not need to consider the impact a deal would have on a salary cap, which, again, does not exist at this time. Get it? Probably not.

Seriously. Also, why is the acknowledged steroid user more likely to recover from, or be able to play through, a labrum injury? I thought that stuff was harsh on connective tissue.

If you'll notice everyone, he doesn't try and defend his error in calling the salary cap a strawman point, because he can't. I'm right there. He knows it. Instead, he goes off on some irrelevant, childish attempt to somehow lump any point I may have made about a salary cap with John Henry's. I don't know where he's going there, any ideas folks? Whenever the subject comes up, regardless of what the latest hot stove news was, I have been in favor of a cap, despite what benefits my team reaps from not having one. Sure, I can logically be for a salary cap while calling this a good deal. It's a good deal if they beat the market, and I think they did. What that means relative to a salary cap is irrelevant, at least to an intelligent person it is. Whether or not there is a salary cap is the rules of the game. I expect every team to act within the framework of the rules to try and win, and I expect every fan to desire that they do so whether or not they are in agreement with those rules. Here's a comparable situation that brings the field of play into the thought process, suppose I was against the DH and wanted pitchers to hit. In your simpleton world, I wouldn't be allowed to root for the Sox because they used a DH, which is in accordance with the rules of their league. Only a great fool would support that. Guess where you fit in?

Jesus, are you a simpleton. Do you mean to tell me that you are incapable of connecting the dots and recognizing how the pro salary cap crowd here is in the same group that you call "hypocrites"? Are you really this dense? No, Gom, it's not a strawman. That's the second time you've attempted to throw that back in my face when I've called you out for doing it, and it's the second time you've failed in your attempt. Stop, you simply can't grasp the concept. Oh, and the women thing is an obvious joke at your expense. Again, not a strawman. Try again, at some point, you'll hit the nail on the head. It's the whole chimps, typerwriters, and the works of Shakespeare theory.

Not only that, but it's an outright lie creating his favorite thing, a stawman argument to go to battle against. Just about every person here who is either in favor of a salary cap or who says the current system is inequitable acknowledges the benefit our team gets from it. Gom's fighting the good fight....against himself. Well, given his desperate approach to the women that bother to come to this site, I get the sense he's used to handling himself.

Massage the nuance of your positions and parse all you want, but you did say he would be adequate now. It appears as though you consider .750 to be an adequate level of performance, ie "it doesn't blow". I, and others, disagree. For any position, bottom 3rd, by definition, blows. That's Ryan Garko level performance, with worse defense. So, stop whining and portraying yourself as some sort of victim. You made a strong statement in that he could be "adequate" now, only it fell apart when you got into what "adequate" means. Heaven forbid, people wanted you to clarify your subjective standard.