iortiz

It’s early but he looks 100% healthy. If he keeps this way through these years we could grab another ring soon.

Immaculate inning. Wow! Whata performance thus far. This how an ace looks like mostly since Twins offense is a respectable one.

Sliders are JDM killers. Wonder why they keep him at the top of the order or playing at all. They are entering into the end of the season. They have to give a f*** about codes.

This is why I rescaled their player chart for relievers while using the same criteria.

The difference between your view and my view is that you take all the relievers and order them in 3 categories or whatever levels in symmetrical thresholds —business as usual. I don't. I use a normalized FG's chart for relievers and most of them go to the Role/Scrub level which makes sense to me because most of them are that —role/scrub player. Matt Barnes' career numbers locate him in that bunch. Most of relievers are pitchers who couldn't success as starters for whatever so most of them become role players but still, out there are pedigrees (not the way you see it though). Most of them have bad pedigrees as I have presented. Only a few (as expected) are solid through their careers and much more less Good or above. Mo and few others are in the later category. Matt does not in my book. Call me selective if you want. FG is as well, reason why I rescaled its player chart for relievers.

Oh oks. Didn’t realize that I use a lot this phrase here lol Sure it is in my sign because I love this Godfather’s quote that mi compadre used long way ago. I guess I do.

How would you rate all-time relievers? Same method? What still doesn’t make sense to me is seeing Barnes in a top tier level. A career 0.8 WAR reliever can’t be in a top tier level in my book. why? Let me put it in context. People who are in the same tier have very similar pedigrees. it’s like you are a GM trying to land a top tier RP and you have to choose between Mo, Papelbon Gagne, along etc, and Matt Barnes because he is in that top tier due your chart says so. Barnes to start off, wouldn’t be even an option if I were the GM. That’s kind of the point moon, and this is why FG charts make more sense mostly if you rescale it for relievers. I think you have to reorder your thresholds or change your methodology in order to rate RPs.

As will win tonight. Wonder what is the line for this game.

I would like to see you 5/7- level chart for relievers and its thresholds. Last time we debated this you showed a primitive 3-level charts. Good to see you are working n a new one lol. What the rescaled chart shows is what I have been presented in almost every split you make. He is at the role player level. It’s not my call it’s FG’s when you rescale the chart.

catch phrase? lol I don't know what it means. Enlighten me.

Should we rotate Taylor, Barnes, Whitlock and Ottavino?

I did the same exercise earlier for 2019 —the best WAR year for Barnes. Go figure. You want to cherry pick 2017-2019, his best WAR years? fine. His average WAR is around 1.1 through these years. i.e. He is at the boundaries where FG calls you Role and Solid player in the re-scaled charts for relievers, and that label certainly does not make you good by any means. I know what average is, see? lol As I said, only few RPs are in-between Solid and MVP levels. Barnes is not in that category if you take his WAR career numbers before 2021. He is nothing but a role player. Below average if you want to feel better lol Again, I know what average is, but it is not explicitly shown at FG's chart, so you have to look where you can locate those RPs who are labeled "average" RPs in the rescaled chart. As I said, the Solid level could be a fair translation. Thing and the root of the problem is, that you don't like how I rescaled the chart which is not rocket science if you take 3.5+ WAR as the new MVP level for relievers which is a fair number in my book. I still not sure why. You still can do it, regardless FG does not have one. Again, if you want to keep rating RPs in the traditional way; i.e. in a 3-level chart (good, average and bad), it will be very primitive and flawed because Mo and few others can't be at the same tier and among of a lot of mediocre and below average (role/scrub) relievers like Matt Barnes.

Yeah. He was too aggressive. His aggressiveness changed his standard approach at the plate which is very nice. He didn't need necessarily a hard contact. He should have been more patience and only put the ball in play. You never know what is going to be when the ball is in play.

Definitely. OTOH wonder whether they will keep it that way in POs. Will be interesting to see. Would you send your best reliever in a regular basis once there, or would you keep shuffling your staff in those instances game after game?

Maybe the days of named closers as we know them are coming to an end.

closer by hot streak? That’s a new one. I think TB created the concept of the BPning day thing as well, didn’t they? These guys are revolutionizing the game, that’s for sure.

I think it is not by committee, it is by situation lol Geez if a closer close a game well, he does not necessary close in the next opportunity. I think the KCR are applying the same philosophy at closing.

Yeah but I think I’m going to stop. I have the the feeling he’s getting bit angry. We don’t want that LOL!

I’m actually practicing my English while having fun lol

In order to be fair, I re-scaled the chart for relievers and see where Matt Barnes is. He’s still at the bottom. Said that if you still think Matt Barnes is at your top tier of your chart based on WAR where btw Mo and few others are, good luck with that.

I know what average means moon, thing is, it is not translated that way in the FG chart. That’s all. For instance you said that average RPs are role/scrub players. Role/Scrub players are at the bottom of the 7-level FG’s WAR chart. If you are in the bottom of the chart, you are not average. You are way below average, specially if you are a scrub player. Average should be something in the middle, shouldn’t it? The Good Player Level is not average by definition either — Good players are not average lol! So the Solid Level in their chart is more likely what an average RP is. Said that Matt Barnes is nothing but a career Role RP before 2021, based on the FG’s WAR chart. It is a fact and it is not a good pedigree since this level is at the bottom of the chart.

In the other thread you minimized their charts. Act like a man moon lol Average in terms of good and bad is in between. Thing is most of RPs are below average. FG has made it more sophisticated. They have made more pedigrees in order to rate players in their charts. Matt Barnes is at the Solid Level in their WAR chart in his best WAR year. Solid is not good niether very good. Solid is kind of average/mediocre if you use common sense. it has been the point all along. OTOH Matt Barnes is a career Role Level RP which is not even average in my book.

Tough L. Robles has to go. He is garbage.

Some called Barnes an awful RP. Some called Barnes an average RP. Some called Barnes good RP. and so on..... This is why I tried t translate those adjectives in their chart since they are not explicitly called that way, but still you can fairly try to make a translation. No big deal.

So you like to use their stats but you don't believe in their charts where they rate players and which actually are created by experts in the matter?. Again, it doesn't make sense. Their charts are the fairest way to rate/call a player based on the metrics/stats they create. On average; If average players are scrub/role players, where would you put bad players in their chart? How would you call Solid players in their chart then? How would you call Good Players in there chart? and so on... Once again, it doesn't make sense moon. See?