moonslav59

I thought the idea was so lop-sided, he meant Beni for Mancini.

I think it makes more sense to just trade Dalbec, like you suggested before. He's got to be worth more to a team needing a 3Bman than to us at 1B. To those about to jump on me for trading prospects, I'm only for trading him for a young player who has about as much control as Dalbec. Maybe Johnson + Dalbec for a better SP'er. Assuming JD is gone, we might see this: 1B: Ockimey, Chavis, Travis (cheap FA?) 2B: Chavis, Marco, Chatham, Lin DH: Ockimey, Chavis, Fat Beni

If JD opt out or is traded after opting in, I think we should give up on 2020 and trade others, including JBJ & Betts.

Now that they reset, we'll see if this is true or not.

Thanks. The 6 year period from 2010 to 2015 showed signs of parity taking over, but that waas it. 2015 1KCR 5NYM 2014 5SFG 4KCR 2013 1BOS 1STL 2012 3SFG 7DET 2011 4STL 2TEX 2010 2SFG 4TEX 7 out of 12 teams were ranked 3 or lower, and half the WS winners were not 1-2 in their leagues that year. Even then, their were 6 of them and 4 of the 1-2's, so even breaking even is not equal odds.

I wish they were better, so when we beat their asses, it counts for something. With Georgia's loss, our strength of schedule took a hit.

It's the steroids in the Yankee clubhouse drinking fountain. Nobody believe me.

Sorry to break the bad news: Gorkys Hernandez, Josh Smith and Chris Owings elected for free agency rather than accept their demotion to AAA. What are we to do?

He played for Houston until '69.

Good. Piss on Kershaw and praise the clown.

Wow, just 4 pitchers! We can't even get that in one game anymore!

Here's a scenario: Poster A: John has been in such a bad slump! Poster B: But he has an .875 OPS the last week and .85o the last month. Poster A: But he never get hits with men on base. Poster B: He has a .350 BA with men on base and .380 with RISP. Poster A: But never when it matters. Poster B: He has a .950 OPS when Late & Close and .925 in high leverage situations. Is Poster B right, or is he a dick for using stats as the final argument ender?

I have countless examples like that, too. Times where I gave my opinion only to find out I was wrong and the data either proved me wrong or all but proved me wrong.

Here's a look back at the World Series winners and the runner- ups and their W-L league ranking that year (not that W-Ls sets who are the best teams): 2019 1HOU or 3WAS 2018 1BOS 2LAD 2017 2HOU 1LAD 2016 1Cubs 2CLE 2015 1KCR 5NYM 2014 5SFG 4KCR 2013 1BOS 1STL 2012 3SFG 7DET 2011 4STL 2TEX 2010 2SFG 4TEX 2009 1NYY 2PHI 2008 2PHI 2TBR 2007 1BOS 2COL 2006 5STL 3DET 2005 1CWS 3HOU 2004 2BOS 1STL 32 Teams made the WS in the last 16 seasons: 21 were a top 2 team in their league 11 were ranked 3 or worse in their league. Of the 15 teams that won the WS: 11 were a top 2 team that year. (12 were top 3.) 4 were ranked 3rd or worse. I'm just taking the top 4 teams vs the other 6 and look at the massive tilt to the better teams. 21 to 11 on just making it and 11 to 4 on winning it all. If we gave the top 4 all equal odds, then those 4 should have gone to the WS 40% of 32... 12.8 times NOT 21. If The Astros win, that means a top 2 team has won 12 out of 16 years, when the odds show 40% of 16 at 6.4 times. It's really not even close. Sure, a lowly ranked team can win every now and again, but it is far from a crap shoot.

I said "more" pure not pure. Certainly the opening line takes into account bettor trends. As it turns out the odds are pretty darn accurate. They are a lot more accurate than calling the playoffs a total crap shoot- not that anyone is saying every team has 10:1 odds going in.

The opening line is more pure, then the line moves as people bet more on one team. To me, 2-3 teams combined have a way better chance than the other 7-8 teams every year. That is far from a crap shoot.

Here's a personal example: Jacoby Ellsbury. When he first came up, I saw him make a few very nice plays. I knew he has speed, so I naturally thought he was a great defensive player. When he finally became the FT CF'er, a poster on that other site claimed he was not plus and had slow reaction times and took the wrong routes to balls hit to him. I started defending JE. Then, I noticed his UZR/150 was negative, so I started watching every ball hit to him more closely. I did notice bad routes and slower breaks on the plays I was able to see on TV (not all that many). It's hard to know what my bias was before and after I started focusing on him more often. To make the example even more complex, the next few years, I didn't notice the mistakes as much and went to check the numbers- sure enough, he had big plus numbers in 2010 and 2011 and was barely plus afterwards. The numbers seemed to support my observations that yes he was worse than I thought in 2009 but then did get better afterwards. Was this just an example that supports my beliefs, so I use it, or not?

Better known as trickled on.

Strasburg?

It's probably just as easy to find data to support opposing claims as it is for two observers to have opposite evaluations after watching the exact same thing.

Or, scum has reached the upper middle class.

No doubt- absolutely true. Nobody claims otherwise. Both sides are biased and both use their own types of evidence or supporting information to back their claims.

They also reset the tax this year. So did the Dodgers. Short memory.

What stat geek ever uses the words "always represent the true value...?"

Exactly! None of this sign a 5th starter crap.