ORS

And we had 3 first rounders, 3 sandwich picks before the second round last year. This year we'll take 7 of the first 100 picks. We have good prospects at all levels, not just Adv-A down, and we'll pick 7 times before your 3rd pick this year. I'd hardly call Cashman's handling of the draft/minors exemplary or worthy of the ball-washing he got from NoMaas. Did he address needs for the big club? Absolutely, but saying he helped out their draft this year is comical.

You have 2 picks throug the first two rounds. Philly's 1st rounder for Gordon (which moved you up from 28 to 21) and a sandwich pick. You have no 2nd round pick. Saying he gained them picks without acknowledging the picks he gave up is nothing more than creative editting. How can this guy keep getting credit for being such a "great" GM? He goes into negotiations with the biggest offer on the table every time.

And we are guilty of drinking the kool-aid? HA! I've never seen someone get so much credit for doing nothing other than offering the most money to fill the position they needed filled most. That article was some serious ball-washing. He gets credit for "gaining" a draft pick in letting Gordon go? What about the 1st and 2nd rounders he gave up for Damon and Farnsworth? Personally, I think now would be the time to sell high on Wang given the fact that he's had 3 seasons shortened by shoulder injuries in the last 5 years, but what the heck, it doesn't dissappoint me if they hold on to him and he gets hurt again, and again.

Sorry, I felt it was fairly obvious since you were the only other Yankee fan participating and you weren't insulting anyone's intelligence. I'll quote next time.

Oh no, not another one. Not another Yankee fan who thinks being a Yankee fan makes him more virtuous, intelligent, and better looking. Everyone would buy positive spin on a 62-100 season? Look down your nose at people much? Get over yourself. Being a Yankee fan doesn't make you any more intelligent, or a better person, or anything else. It just makes you a Yankee fan. Just like being Sox fans doesn't make anyone here an idiot who believes everything in the media, or a bad fan that turns on departing stars, or anything else. It just makes them a Sox fan. And don't give me any crap about how vitriolic the Boston media is compared to the NY media. ARod got hosed on the back pages of NY papers after DP'ing to end the season, and some idiot NY fans bought every word of it. Torre's intelligence gets questioned after every loss in the NY papers, and those same idiots are calling for his head by mid-season if the Yanks aren't in first. The Boston media has been pretty critical of the FOs moves this offseason, as have a lot of fans. Agreeing with the direction the FO is taking doesn't mean one is "buying the spin". Not if the direction makes sense. Financial flexibility is an issue for 29 teams out there, some more so than others. There is only one team that is capable of putting the biggest offer on the table every time, and that is the same team that can afford to have $18M players riding the pine if they aren't playing well enough. Nobody else can afford that, so if the fans want their team's FO to be smart with money when the FA market is weak, it is only out of a desire for their team to be able to make a run at premiere talent when it hits the market. That isn't "buying" anything, it is understanding the reality of the situation, a reality that the fans of one team don't have to accept.

You are right, they haven't had many chances to choke since the late 80's, but Hasselbeck did pull a gag job two years ago in the playoffs. It was the game at Green Bay that went into O.T., Seattle wins the 'toss, Hasselbeck says "We'll take the ball......and the game", then he threw a pick that pretty much ended the game (I don't remember if it was a pick-6, or if it just set up the G.W. FG).

Points were the tie breaker too, so you win, congrats. I thought there'd be a little more scoring, and there would have been without the redzone t/o's. Oh well, nice picking Calvn.

Lee will be 30 next year, meaning whoever signs him gets hm for 31+, so I don't see him getting 7 years. The Cards extended Pujols for years 25+, so the 7 years they gave him made sense.

If Lee has another year like he did last year, then yeah, he'll command that type of money. Saying the Sox FO wouldn't pony up that kind of dough is a bit judgemental since no bat of that caliber has hit the market since they took over. One thing is certain, they freed up some money this offseason to go into next season's FA market, which is considerably better than the last 3 have been.

Gonzalez is a career .291 OBP guy in the bigs. That sucks. Three games in the Caribbean Series means jack s*** right now. First, it is a obscenely small sample size. Second, it's just Winter Ball. If AGon can get his OBP up around .350 or so, hit for some power, and field well in Fenway, then they should consider keeping him more than one year. But, until he does that, he shouldn't be more than a one year stopgap.

No matter who wins, if there are 50 or more points, then I win. I like my chances there. Go offense!

It's pretty easy to see how I can say if a higher OBP lead to more runs it would correlate higher. If it lead to more runs, then more teams with above average OBP would also have above average R/PA, which would make the correlation factor higher. 400/300 vs. 300/400? Both players suck because their OPS+ would be around 95, and that blows. The discussion got started by talking about Youk's stats, so lets look at his .805 OPS (.400/.405) from last year. Lyle Overbay's OPS is similar at .816 (.367/.449). Which bat would you rather have for 1B next year? Overbay would be my choice.

This is why I've said all along, they are equally important. Actually, their sum is more important than either.

Singles correlate more than GS because a GS is a pretty rare event. If higher OBP lead to more runs, then it would correlate higher. The writer of that article was Clay Davenport, probably the best statistical mind at BP. He took team statistics from 1871 - 2003, found the baseline (league average BA/OBP/SLG/OPS and Runs per PA) and compared each teams rate stats to the league average. Teams with a higher SLG produced more R/PA at a higher rate than OBP did. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Please explain how OBP is more important if SLG correlates more. I've shown you numbers and explained where they came from and what they mean; you have said, "Everyone who studies stats says OBP leads to more runs", and posted a link to an report that just scaled SLG to OBP for run production.

Do I even need to? Isn't the fact that it correlates to runs better telling enough? Personally, since OPS has the highest correlation (other than advanced metrics like EqA, BaseRuns) I use it primarily over either.

FICTION is, he had good velocity for the most part From July-mid Sept. he was consistent at around 88-92 mph, with a couple of peaks at 93-94. I went to his 3rd to last start in Tampa, and it was the first time I saw him consistently at 91-94 with a couple of pitches hitting 95-96. At no time did he hit 98 like you say.

I suggest you read this sentence again... Thus, a higher correlation means the statistic in question leads to runs more often than the lower correlated statistic. I'm talking about frequency, not magnitude. Higher correlation means it is closer to linear, which means the higher correlated number results in runs at a higher frequency.

I think you are missing my main point, and that is that prior to mid-September, Schilling's injury was still affecting his pitching mechanics. Those same mechanics that would affect his control, as you suggested when we discussed the difference between being an NFL RB and an MLB SP. You think he was healthy prior to then, I think he was still hurt. My thought is supported by the doctors expected recovery period and what I saw in his mechanics. You have done very little to support your claim he was at full heatlh. No, 3 starts isn't a good sample size, but a small sample is better than a tainted one. I don't think you can prove that a larger sample isn't tainted by his injury. I'll guess those three pitchers were Johnson, Chacon, and Wang, but it really could be anyone over a three start period. I'm not thinking he could return to form without some doubts. There is certainly the possibility that he'll never be the same pitcher he was before. I'm just not writing off the possibility that he does because evidence from the tail end of last season and the projected 14-18 month recovery period suggest that there is a strong likelihood that he will be a very good pitcher again.

They didn't get banned for taking threads off-topic; they were banned because several members here overreacted and were fueding with them in just about every thread they posted in. Just about every thread on this forum gets taken off-topic at some point, and that is the nature of discussion. It wil typically go off on tangents, but invariably gets back on point.

Jesus, lighten up. They are showing empathy over the loss of a life. Is your desire to play thread police so strong that you won't allow them to support a friend? Pathetic. Crunch, sorry to hear about your friend.

Honestly, who can you take anything you say as objective when comes to anything associated with the Yankees? You probably go to every Jason Alexander movie just because he worked for the Yankees as Costanza on Seinfeld. That is how much you are totally ga-ga about everything to do with the organization. As a regular watcher of the Sports Reporters and someone who has only seen a handful of games on YES, I can say my opinion of Kay has very little to do with the rivalry. He is one of the worst panel members to regularly frequent that show. I agree with RSR, the guy strikes me as a complete idiot, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he works for the Yankees.

I know what correlation means. A correlation of 1 means that the output variable increases 100% of the time the input variable increases. A correlation of -1 means the output decreases 100% of the time the input decreases. A correlation of 0 means it increases, decreases, or goes unchanged with equal frequency - meaning no relationship between input/output. Thus, a higher correlation means the statistic in question leads to runs more often than the lower correlated statistic. Until OBP correlates to runs more than SLG, I will not consider SLG 1/3 as important as OBP. The difference between the two is quite negligible, meaning they have equal importance IMO. EDIT: Just finished reading the link you provided. In no place does it support a claim that OBP is more important than SLG. It is about scaling changes in OBP to changes in SLG. This needs to be done due to the fact that the typical range for SLG will be from .300 (crappy) to about .600 (studly), while OBP will vary from around .300 to .450-ish. Obviously, 1 point of SLG doesn't equal one point of OBP.

I did give stats, and I'll give them again. In his last 3 starts: 8.4 K/9, 1.39 K/9, 0.93 HR/9, 11.12 H/9, 2.79 ERA 2004 Reg. Season 8.06 K/9, 1.39 BB/9, 0.91 HR/9, 8.18 H/9, 3.26 ERA I'm looking at these three games because I watched all of his games last year, and his mechanics looked off until about mid-September. This is reflected in his walk totals for each of his games pitched. If you look at his game log, you'll see an improving trend. This agrees with reports that he wasn't fully healed. You have claimed that he was at full health from July on, and that all of his stats from last year should be taken at face value. I would love to see some credible analysis that supports your claim he was at full health.

Mine aren't? I gave you cold hard stats. Stats that showed by the end of the season he was approaching his pre-injury level of performance as he came closer and closer to a full recovery. The timing of those stats agree with the recovery period given by his doctors. I don't know what other facts you need. On the other hand, you "feel" his July/August performances were at full health. What do you have to back this "feeling" up? I saw with my own eyes that he didn't have full drive on his ankle, and every broadcaster doing a Sox game that Schilling pitched in said the same thing. I saw with my own eyes that his velocity had dropped by 4-5 mph on his 4-seamer upon returning. My notion that he can return has nothing to do with a "feeling". It is based on observations and statistical analysis. Your "feeling" that he won't return is certainly a feeling, and that feeling is called hope. EDIT: typos

I agree 100% with you there. The Yankees have enough depth at SP (RJ, Moose, Pavano, Wang, Wright, Small, Chacon) to take a hit and still be competitive. Whoever steps into the rotation from the 'pen isn't going to have to pitch 7 shutout innings to keep them in the game because that lineup will provide some run support. I mean, look a the Sox last year. They lost their ace and closer to injury and still won 95 games with those big bats. I think the same will hold true for the Yankees, although an injury to their closer may affect their psyche more due to how much Mo has meant to their success.