??? We sweep the Shanks and there's no thread?

[Rusty the Scoob]

:dunno: C'mon, people. Where's the thread?

http://www.4freeimagehost.com/uploads/0a87329f4420.jpg

[Grant Sharkey]

I think you'll need to head over to ebaseballist.com for that.:)

[Les Izzmor]

The Yankees lost to the Devil Rays last night.

I don't think they're quite up to form yet.

:D

[bassment zombie]

What a series it was for April! :banana1:

[spezzy]

:dunno: C'mon, people. Where's the thread?

http://www.4freeimagehost.com/uploads/0a87329f4420.jpg

I was confused to where the "4 HOMERUNS IN A ROW, BABY" thread was, myself :)

[King Kashue]

The Yankees lost to the Devil Rays last night.

I don't think they're quite up to form yet.

:D

Or maybe they are :D

[Les Izzmor]

Or maybe they are :D

Wouldn't that be great.

[basshunter]

I was confused to where the "4 HOMERUNS IN A ROW, BABY" thread was, myself :)

That was so fucking cool!!!!! :cool:


I'd have out up a thread myself but I've been totally tied up with work the past few days...:(

[Jugghaid]

Too busy with all the shit I have going on, but I did watch game 1 (what a great fricking game) and caught the highlights for the rest.


Fuck the Yanks! :)

[Les Izzmor]

I was confused to where the "4 HOMERUNS IN A ROW, BABY" thread was, myself :)

That happened during The Sopranos. So. I missed it.

[oldivor]

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/2746/invisiblemasturbationsv3.jpg

[spezzy]

That happened during The Sopranos. So. I missed it.

I was watching the game at a club in Connecticut, surrounded by Yankees fans.

:D

[basshunter]

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/2746/invisiblemasturbationsv3.jpg

The correct wording should be "How big is your Papelboner?"


sheesh...amateurs :rolleyes:





;)

[thrash_jazz]

http://www.viarail.ca/evenements/572_en_even_photo.jpg

:P :P :P

[basshunter]

http://www.viarail.ca/evenements/572_en_even_photo.jpg

:P :P :P

Talk to me in October Canada-boy :mad:




















;)

[Les Izzmor]

The correct wording should be "How big is your Papelboner?"




The correct wording should be, "Look at me flex and tighten my arm now, because come August it's gonna be hanging by my side, more limp than Bob Dole without his Viagra"

:D

[basshunter]

The correct wording should be, "Look at me flex and tighten my arm now, because come August it's gonna be hanging by my side, more limp than Bob Dole without his Viagra"

:D

No way. Won't happen 2 years in a row. Papelbon is going to be Mr. Shut-down for the rest of the season and a major factor in the Sox returning to the World Series.

Feel free to retain the above statement for verification this fall. Trust me, it will be correct. :)

[thrash_jazz]

Talk to me in October Canada-boy :mad:

Which is exactly why I have to get in all my digs now!

Besides, in October hockey season starts again, so who cares. ;)

[Jugghaid]

No way. Won't happen 2 years in a row. Papelbon is going to be Mr. Shut-down for the rest of the season and a major factor in the Sox returning to the World Series.

Feel free to retain the above statement for verification this fall. Trust me, it will be correct. :)

Yup.

[Les Izzmor]

No way. Won't happen 2 years in a row. Papelbon is going to be Mr. Shut-down for the rest of the season and a major factor in the Sox returning to the World Series.

Feel free to retain the above statement for verification this fall. Trust me, it will be correct. :)

Yup.


So. You guys are saying that JP won't get hurt this year? Won't over-throw and won't develop any arm problems?

I'll disagree. Any power pitcher that has arm problems early in his career usually keeps them throughout their career. And. It's usually a short career and/or injury plagued career. Whether it's bad mechanics, over-throwing, or just too much strain, an early arm injury is a bad sign.

[oldivor]

The correct wording should be "How big is your Papelboner?"
sheesh...amateurs :rolleyes:
;)

Pardon moi. :o

[Jugghaid]

So. You guys are saying that JP won't get hurt this year? Won't over-throw and won't develop any arm problems?

I'll disagree. Any power pitcher that has arm problems early in his career usually keeps them throughout their career. And. It's usually a short career and/or injury plagued career. Whether it's bad mechanics, over-throwing, or just too much strain, an early arm injury is a bad sign.

Nah. I think his conditioning will be much better this year as they brought him in last year as a starter and trained him accordingly. Closers have a very different regimen for training their arms that starters who throw 100 pitches a game.

[Rusty the Scoob]

Nah. I think his conditioning will be much better this year as they brought him in last year as a starter and trained him accordingly. Closers have a very different regimen for training their arms that starters who throw 100 pitches a game.

Yep. And now we have a better bullpen and won't feel compelled to overuse him. Does the name Okajima ring a bell to anyone? :wave: :cool:

[Jugghaid]

Yep. And now we have a better bullpen and won't feel compelled to overuse him. Does the name Okajima ring a bell to anyone? :wave: :cool:

Very true. They overpitched him last year. Badly.


Oh, and in case no one noticed, the Bosox are not only in first place while the Yankees are in last place.......Boston has the best record in the majors. :)

I know, I know...it's only April. We'll revisit this thread in september and I'll say the same thing. :D

[Les Izzmor]

Very true. They overpitched him last year. Badly.


Oh, and in case no one noticed, the Bosox are not only in first place while the Yankees are in last place.......Boston has the best record in the majors. :)

I know, I know...it's only April. We'll revisit this thread in september and I'll say the same thing. :D

Well. I just hope the Phillies turn their act around.

[Perfessor]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend......SO...GO TRIBE!!!

[basshunter]

Does the name Okajima ring a bell to anyone? :wave: :cool:

Or as the Rem-dawg would say, "Okajimer" :D

[King Kashue]

As a note, the Yankees are in last place in the AL East, a game behind TAMPA BAY...


I could not be happier about that :D

[DevilRaysFan]

As a note, the Yankees are in last place in the AL East, a game behind TAMPA BAY...


I could not be happier about that :D

You say that like there's something wrong with Tampa Bay :whack:

[King Kashue]

You say that like there's something wrong with Tampa Bay :whack:

You say that like there's something right about them...

[spezzy]

As a note, the Yankees are in last place in the AL East, a game behind TAMPA BAY...


I could not be happier about that :D

Yep. 6.5 games behind the Sox.

Unfortunately its really too early for these numbers to mean much :\

[King Kashue]

Yep. 6.5 games behind the Sox.

Unfortunately its really too early for these numbers to mean much :\

Well, yes and no...

One can't call the pennant race yet, to be certain. However, when the final numbers are counted, April wins are worth just as much as September wins, and if you don't win enough "meaningless" games in April, you don't even get the chance to play the "important" ones in September and October. :D

[DevilRaysFan]

You say that like there's something right about them...

I can name several things right about them:

Scott Kasmir
Jamie Shields
Carl Crawford
B.J. Upton
Elijah Dukes
Ty Wigginton
Delmon Young
Rocco Baldelli
and Yakanima Imamura, although hes on the DL

For the first time in 9 years, I feel like I have a team!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[spezzy]

Well, yes and no...

One can't call the pennant race yet, to be certain. However, when the final numbers are counted, April wins are worth just as much as September wins, and if you don't win enough "meaningless" games in April, you don't even get the chance to play the "important" ones in September and October. :D

Oh, no. I completely agree. I'm just saying that the standings numbers in April don't tell you how the end of the season will be.

Like the Yankees are 6.5 games behind the Sox... but they have 5 Months to catch up. That's what I meant. :)

[King Kashue]

Oh, no. I completely agree. I'm just saying that the standings numbers in April don't tell you how the end of the season will be.

Like the Yankees are 6.5 games behind the Sox... but they have 5 Months to catch up. That's what I meant. :)

Yeah, I got what you were saying...

But I'm just taking the moment to revel in the fact that every game the Yankees lose is one more win they need just to break even :D And this Yankees team doesn't intimidate anyone this year, with the lone exception of A-Rod, who evidently found the Kryptonite that Jeter hid in his locker... :D

[King Kashue]

I can name several things right about them:

Scott Kasmir
Jamie Shields
Carl Crawford
B.J. Upton
Elijah Dukes
Ty Wigginton
Delmon Young
Rocco Baldelli
and Yakanima Imamura, although hes on the DL

For the first time in 9 years, I feel like I have a team!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



Oh yeah, the D-Rays have one of the finest collection of athletes in history...

Now, if all those athletes can just figure out how to be ballplayers, then they'll really have something going...;)

[DevilRaysFan]

Now, if all those athletes can just figure out how to be ballplayers, then they'll really have something going...;)

This is true but I think they are coming around, so you can understand my elation and glee :D, and we're hanging tough with the middle pack of the AL East: we are only between a game or two between everybody else. In seasons past, we were already six or seven games out behind the fourth-place team by this time

..........And your "Kryptonite" comment was priceless :thumbsup:

[Jugghaid]

Guess who has the best record in baseball and the largest lead in their division (8.5 games)?


I'll give ya a hint.....................


http://f.screensavers.com/migration/wp/bostonredsox_215.gif



:rofl:

[Les Izzmor]

Guess who has the best record in baseball and the largest lead in their division (8.5 games)?




Oh yeah.

Just give the Phillies another couple of weeks..................




























A man can dream can't he?

:(

[basshunter]

Dice-K was killer last night :thumbsup:

http://news.bostonherald.com/galleries/images/88981_sox5.jpg

[Jugghaid]

Dice-K was killer last night :thumbsup:

http://news.bostonherald.com/galleries/images/88981_sox5.jpg

Yes he was. Complete game 5 hitter, just gave up the one dinger.

Great outing. Good to see him finally getting in a groove.

[bassesofalessergod]

i'm not sure i understand whats going on here....

Do you play for these guys or something? Are these your kids teams?

[basshunter]

i'm not sure i understand whats going on here....

Do you play for these guys or something? Are these your kids teams?

You have to understand Red Sox Nation. Here's something I wrote last year that might help you:

fanatic
-noun

1. A person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics


Yeah, thank you dictionary.com. You forgot sports.

Sports, we watch, listen, read about sports. People do it for different reasons. Some like the logic or strategy of a particular sport. Many people love baseball for the logic, and the statistical analysis. Some football enthusiasts immerse themselves in the battleground aspects of the game. Some like the sheer athleticism, the uncanny feats of grace, speed, height or power that the finest athletes exhibit.

I envy those sorts of people, I really do. You see, I suffer from sportus fanaticus Bostonian.

It's a dreadful disease, it really is. For most it is something that begins in adolescence, although cases of adult on-set are not uncommon. It afflicts persons with some ties to New England, although they need not live in the region currently, or even ever in some cases. I know people in Colorado and California who are as afflicted as many of my fellow Massholes. There are also varying degrees of the disease. Some only suffer from it from April through October, others October through June, still others only September till January. The truly hopeless cases, such as myself, are saddled by it year-round.

The symptoms are unique. Viscious mood swings, ranging from pure ecstasy to inconsolable despondence, are common. An unnatural need to scour the morning paper/internet site/television within moments of waking, returning from a meeting, getting lunch, etc. A strong desire to posess numerous articles of clothing displaying names and numbers or colorful logos. A strong sense of ownership over things that you have none. And finally, an illogical connection of self to team, despite not actually being a member.

This is the life of a sportus fanaticus Bostonian sufferer. And I admit, I am one. I follow the Boston Red Sox, the Boston Celtics and the New England Patriots. Passionately. Daily. In season, off season, draft day, training camp, I am there, mentally if not physically. These are MY teams. Yes, mine dammit. I OWN them and I am a team member. I am coach, cheerleader, General Manager, sportscaster. I feel pain when my teammates go down. I am in the huddle when the final push is about to be made. I am in the home plate celebration after the walk-off home run, on the free throw stripe with the game on the line. I am all those places. It is the disease. And there is no cure, and even if there was, I doubt I'd take it.

[WillPlay4Food]

Guess who has the best record in baseball and the largest lead in their division (8.5 games)?


I'll give ya a hint.....................


http://f.screensavers.com/migration/wp/bostonredsox_215.gif



:rofl:

We'll see what happens after the All-Star break. That's usually when the Sox go down the pooper.

I used to root for them when I was a kid, but after '77-'78 I didn't feel like rooting for them anymore.

[basshunter]

I used to root for them when I was a kid, but after '77-'78 I didn't feel like rooting for them anymore.

Not only are you a Yankees fan, but a traitor too????? I'm SO ashamed of you...;)

[WillPlay4Food]

Not only are you a Yankees fan, but a traitor too????? I'm SO ashamed of you...;)

I never said I was a Yanks fan. I just don't follow baseball anymore.

[Jugghaid]

We'll see what happens after the All-Star break. That's usually when the Sox go down the pooper.

I used to root for them when I was a kid, but after '77-'78 I didn't feel like rooting for them anymore.

Used to be that way. Not so much any more, if you take last years crash out of the equation. In fact 4 out of the last 5 years they have finished with 93, 95, 98, and 95 wins. Only a handful of teams can say they have finished with 90+ wins 4 out of the last 5 years.

that would be The Yankees, Red Sox, Twins, A's, and Braves. Only the Yanks did it all 5 years. And they didn't win a world series in that time. The Red Sox did. ;)

[DevilRaysFan]

Boy, have my D-Rays taking a horrible nose dive....... :(


I used to root for them when I was a kid, but after '77-'78 I didn't feel like rooting for them anymore.

Bucky Dent fan :mad: :mad:

[Jugghaid]

Boy, have my D-Rays taking a horrible nose dive....... :(

Delmon Young sucks so far.

[DevilRaysFan]

Delmon Young sucks so far.

On the other hand, B.J. Upton farking rawks!-- Surprised da shit outta me :thumbsup:

[basshunter]

On the other hand, B.J. Upton farking rawks!-- Surprised da shit outta me :thumbsup:

Upton didn't surprise me...neither did the D-Rays nose dive :D

[DevilRaysFan]

Upton didn't surprise me...neither did the D-Rays nose dive :D

:angry:

[Jugghaid]

:angry:

They'll come around. Give 'em a year or 2. They are a really young team with a lot of raw talent.

[basshunter]

They'll come around. Give 'em a year or 2. They are a really young team with a lot of raw talent.

Agreed. I actually give them a lot of credit for building this team up rather than throwing huge money at aging second-rate stars in an effort to be moderately competitive in the AL East. And as we all know, moderately competitive in the AL East mean you ain' making the playoffs. Too many games every year against the Sox, Yanks and even the Jays. Instead, they are building a strong team of young up-and-comers. In a few years, when those guys are all peaking and the Yankees primary sponsor has become Geritol, they might make some noise.

[Jugghaid]

Agreed. I actually give them a lot of credit for building this team up rather than throwing huge money at aging second-rate stars in an effort to be moderately competitive in the AL East. And as we all know, moderately competitive in the AL East mean you ain' making the playoffs. Too many games every year against the Sox, Yanks and even the Jays. Instead, they are building a strong team of young up-and-comers. In a few years, when those guys are all peaking and the Yankees primary sponsor has become Geritol, they might make some noise.

Exactly. Unless you put up 90-95+ wins at a BARE MINIMUM in that division, you are not going to the playoffs. Period.

In the national league, you might be able to get by with 81. ;)

[Les Izzmor]

an effort to be moderately competitive in the AL East.

There's the problem.

The Yanks and Sox seem to spend every year to stay good. Teams like the Rays, Jays, and O's, will have a hard time finding a down year in which to win.

One of the things that free agency has done is enable the rich teams to stay richer.

[King Kashue]

Agreed. I actually give them a lot of credit for building this team up rather than throwing huge money at aging second-rate stars in an effort to be moderately competitive in the AL East.

They've spent half of their existence doing that...

Wade Boggs, Jose Canseco, Fred McGriff, Greg Vaughn, Vinnie Castilla...

[Jugghaid]

They've spent half of their existence doing that...

Wade Boggs, Jose Canseco, Fred McGriff, Greg Vaughn, Vinnie Castilla...

I think they have learned a bit from that though. So have the Rockies to a point. They really haven't gone after big free agent crap for a bit not. Lot's of young home-grown talent on offense. Finley is really the only one they went after who had any kind of a rep.

[basshunter]

I think they have learned a bit from that though. So have the Rockies to a point. They really haven't gone after big free agent crap for a bit not. Lot's of young home-grown talent on offense. Finley is really the only one they went after who had any kind of a rep.

Right, this is what I was getting at. They tried it the other way, sucked giant hairy moose balls and rather than continuing down the same path, have turned to the development of young talent.



Now, whether or not they can hold on to that talent once they are more developed and hit free agency remains to be seen.

[Les Izzmor]

They've spent half of their existence doing that...

Wade Boggs, Jose Canseco, Fred McGriff, Greg Vaughn, Vinnie Castilla...

There's legitimate reasons for all those signings.

1. Boggs - Hometown Boy
2. Canseco - Needed someobody for fans to Boo besides young talent
3. McGriff (2 reasons) - Keep crime low. And. Free Tom Emanski tapes for the team
4. Vaughn - His wife is smokin' hot
5. Castilla - Only 3rd baseman willing to play for D-Rays

[Jugghaid]

Right, this is what I was getting at. They tried it the other way, sucked giant hairy moose balls and rather than continuing down the same path, have turned to the development of young talent.



Now, whether or not they can hold on to that talent once they are more developed and hit free agency remains to be seen.

Same with the Rockies. Those 2 teams are really mirror images of each other.

[basshunter]

Same with the Rockies. Those 2 teams are really mirror images of each other.

And who would of thought a few years ago we'd be praising either of those organizations for making sound decisions on the development of their teams! :D

[Jugghaid]

And who would of thought a few years ago we'd be praising either of those organizations for making sound decisions on the development of their teams! :D

A few years ago they weren't. :D

Seriously though, the Rockies learned a LOT later than Tampa. Ownership here still stinks to high heaven. Charlie actually admitted they are going to have to loosen the purse strings and make sure they resign their young talent. It's like a light bulb finally went on. I'll believe it when it actualy happens though.

[basshunter]

A few years ago they weren't. :D

Seriously though, the Rockies learned a LOT later than Tampa. Ownership here still stinks to high heaven. Charlie actually admitted they are going to have to loosen the purse strings and make sure they resign their young talent. It's like a light bulb finally went on. I'll believe it when it actualy happens though.

Tell 'em we'll give them Wily Mo Pena for Todd Helton, straight up :D

[King Kashue]

Tell 'em we'll give them Wily Mo Pena for Todd Helton, straight up :D

You know what's sad? Pena's OPS was higher than Helton's last year, and Pena didn't have the advantage of playing half his games in Coors :D

[basshunter]

You know what's sad? Pena's OPS was higher than Helton's last year, and Pena didn't have the advantage of playing half his games in Coors :D

Yeah, but how many routine fly balls does Helton outright DROP. :smack:







Edited to say that I think Wily Mo has a future in this league if he gets the hell out of Boston. He's a defensive liability, and he's not going to get enough cuts to develop when you've got David Ortiz. He doesn't have the range or the skills to be an every day outfielder, but make him a DH, say, Tampa Bay and he might be something...and yes I realize I just made a solid argument against the trade I just proposed, but as long as no one points this out to the Rockies, I'm OK with that :D

[Les Izzmor]

Rockies, D-Rays, who cares. They've been around a total of about 20 years.

The Phillies have been around over 100 years. The Marlins have more World Series championships than the Phils. The Phils don't know how to win.

They are in the largest single-team market in the country. And. They have a brand new stadium that brings in lots of people and lots of money. Let's see who they've signed recently to help them win....

Freddy Garcia, Wes Helms, Tom Gordon, Jon Lieber, Rod Barajas. Wow.

They did get Billy Wagner. But. Didn't resign him and the reason given was lame. Wagner and Scott Rolen left becuase they don't think management is committed to winning. I think they may be correct.

We have good home-grown talent. Rollins, Utley, Howard, Victorino, Hamels, Burrell (maybe he's not so good any more). But. They don't fill the holes with quality free agents. They just fill holes.

The year after Rolen left they signed David Bell as opposed to Troy Glaus. Bell was way cheaper. Let's ask the Blue Jays how Glaus has done the past few years. Is David Bell still in baseball?

Now they have a reputation. Who would want to come to Philly to deal with these fans if management won't shell out the $$$. Ask any member of the 1993 Phillies, including Mitch Williams, they loved playing in Philly. The town gives what it gets from the team. And. Until management puts a winner out there the fans will be what they are.

[basshunter]

Your Phils need an injection of new blood, like the Red Sox when Henry et al bought the team. :2c:

[King Kashue]

Yeah, but how many routine fly balls does Helton outright DROP. :smack:

Put Helton in the outfield and see :D

People are allowed to be defensive liabilities at 1B ;)

[King Kashue]

The town gives what it gets from the team.

The town booed Santa Claus...

[Les Izzmor]

The town booed Santa Claus...

He obviously didn't give very good presents that year.

[Jugghaid]

You know what's sad? Pena's OPS was higher than Helton's last year, and Pena didn't have the advantage of playing half his games in Coors :D

No it wasn't. Pena had a .838 OPS and Helton had a .880 OPS. That was an unusual year for Helton though. And career wise - Helton is about 230 points ahead and has a career ops of 1.024. That's damn near as good as Bonds.

[King Kashue]

No it wasn't. Pena had a .838 OPS and Helton had a .880 OPS.

Whoops, read that as .883. My bad.

And career wise - Helton is about 230 points ahead and has a career ops of 1.024. That's damn near as good as Bonds.

Until you take him out of Coors field.

As was mentioned the last time Helton came up, his career stats away from Coors:

.296 BA (86 points lower than at Coors)
.395 OBP (72 points lower)
.508 Slugging (166 points lower)
.903 OPS (238 lower)

If he played all his games away from Coors (e.g., if he signed with the Pads when first drafted), his yearly numbers would likely look something like this: .296, 24 HR, 80 RBI. If you only take the last few years, it's even lower (17 HR, 70 RBI range).

He's definitely a very good ballplayer, but it's Coors field that turned him into an perennial allstar.

[Les Izzmor]

Since we're talking baseball.

This kills me.

Situation. 1st inning, 1 out, one run already in, man on 3rd with good speed, clean-up hitter at the plate.

Which is Chase Utley. The Brewers have been playing Utley with the over-shift. So. He's got the whole left side of the infield to play with. What does he do, attempt to drive the ball and pops out to shallow left field.

I think he should have dropped a bunt down. He's got good wheels. If he was willing to trade an out for a run, why not bunt? I realize he's the clean-up hitter, but even a half-decent bunt scores the run and puts him on 1st. He's a good bunter I've seen him do it many times.

This also accomplishes something else. It'll keep teams honest against him in similiar situations.

I know it's not considered good baseball to have a power guy take the easy single, when he could hit one over the fence. But. In this case he would be bringing in a run, which is the clean-up hitter's job.

[King Kashue]

Good bunting skills are not something everyone has.

Ted Williams refused to do anything but hit into the shift as well.

[Les Izzmor]

Good bunting skills are not something everyone has.

Ted Williams refused to do anything but hit into the shift as well.

But. Ted Williams couldn't run like Utley. And. Utley is a good bunter. And. Ted Williams was a better hitter than Utley.

I say bunt and take the run.

[Jugghaid]

Whoops, read that as .883. My bad.



Until you take him out of Coors field.

As was mentioned the last time Helton came up, his career stats away from Coors:

.296 BA (86 points lower than at Coors)
.395 OBP (72 points lower)
.508 Slugging (166 points lower)
.903 OPS (238 lower)

If he played all his games away from Coors (e.g., if he signed with the Pads when first drafted), his yearly numbers would likely look something like this: .296, 24 HR, 80 RBI. If you only take the last few years, it's even lower (17 HR, 70 RBI range).

He's definitely a very good ballplayer, but it's Coors field that turned him into an perennial allstar.

True, but a lot of guys have way way better numbers at home, regardless of their home ball park. Not uncommon at all.

Do I think Coors has helped him? Sure. But that's what makes me so mad about ownership. Think of the hitters they could lure here if they would loosen the purse strings. Could you Imagine Pujols or Ryan Howard or Soriano in Coors? How about Berkman or Morneau in the Purple and White.

Jesus, all they gotta do is pay 'em. You don't need great pitching with guys like that.

Just one or 2 big time hitters to add to Helton, Holliday, Atkins....shit. They would actually be competitive. They may win a lot of their games 10-8, but who cares. :D

[King Kashue]

True, but a lot of guys have way way better numbers at home, regardless of their home ball park. Not uncommon at all.

Yeah, and it's usually 5 to 10 points, 15 max. And plenty of folks hit better on the road (particularly if they play in pitcher's parks)...

Coors is the only place that routinely adds 75+ points to people's averages :D

Seriously, Helton (and most other Rockies) is 30% more likely to get a hit at Coors than he is elsewhere. For most folks who hit better at home, it's 3-5%. There's no comparison.

Do I think Coors has helped him? Sure. But that's what makes me so mad about ownership. Think of the hitters they could lure here if they would loosen the purse strings. Could you Imagine Pujols or Ryan Howard or Soriano in Coors? How about Berkman or Morneau in the Purple and White.

Jesus, all they gotta do is pay 'em. You don't need great pitching with guys like that.

You've got a wee bit of an issue there Juggs. :D

Your idea only works if everyone else in the league doesn't get equally more effective when they come to Colorado. But they do ;)

And not only that, the effect of playing in Coors hurts pitchers. Pitches break differently, and when they go back to the normal world, they have issues.

[Jugghaid]

Yeah, and it's usually 5 to 10 points, 15 max. And plenty of folks hit better on the road (particularly if they play in pitcher's parks)...

Coors is the only place that routinely adds 75+ points to people's averages :D


Okay. Back this one up. Show me where playing at Coors field adds an average of 75 points to a players batting average since the park opened. Rockies players and visiting teams.


You've got a wee bit of an issue there Juggs. :D

Your idea only works if everyone else in the league doesn't get equally more effective when they come to Colorado. But they do ;)


Hmmmmm.....funny, when we actually had big bats here, and lots of them, we went to the playoffs. We gave the Braves probably their toughest series that year on their way to the World Series as well. In fact for that strech of 3 years from 1995-1997 we actually finished with winning records. But I'm sure that had more to do with Ritz, Reynoso, and Bailey (our best pitchers those years with respective 4.21, 4.96, and 4.29 ERA's) than the Blake Street Bombers. Of course the Rockies led the NL in Home Runs, hits, runs scored and batting average that year. 4 guys with 30+ hime runs and 90+ RBI each. Our collective team ERA though was 4.97. The highest in the league. Try agin. ;)q

[King Kashue]

Okay. Back this one up. Show me where playing at Coors field adds an average of 75 points to a players batting average since the park opened. Rockies players and visiting teams.

Looking at it in more detail, my estimate was about 10 points high. Which only means it's 5-6 times the difference of elsewhere instead of 6-7 :D

Home/Away splits for the Rockies as a team (69.7 point difference on average):
2006: .294/.247 = 47 points
2005: .300/.232 = 68 points
2004: .303/.246 = 57 points
2003: .294/.239 = 55 points
2002: .313/.234 = 79 points
2001: .331/.253 = 78 points
2000: .334/.252 = 82 points
1999: .325/.248 = 77 points
1998: .325/.257 = 68 points
1997: .321/.253 = 68 points
1996: .343/.228 = 115 points!
1995: .316/.247 = 69 points
1994: .298/.251 = 47 points
1993: .306/.240 = 66 points

Total/Col splits for National League Averages (Factors in Coors in the total, so it's not quite as dramatic): 44.6 points on average.
2006: .265/.290 = 25 points
2005: .262/.298 = 36 points
2004: .263/.305 = 42 points
2003: .262/.291 = 29 points
2002: .259/.296 = 35 points
2001: .261/.310 = 49 points
2000: .266/.319 = 53 points
1999: .268/.327 = 59 points
1998: .262/.313 = 51 points
1997: .263/.318 = 55 points
1996: .262/.323 = 61 points
1995: .263/.315 = 52 points
1994: .267/.302 = 35 points
1993: .264/.307 = 43 points

Now, don't blame me if I'm not going to list all 350 players the Rockies have had over their 15 years...:D

For the Rockies players, the career avgs include their Mile High at bats, so the difference between that and their away avg is even greater (if you really want me to figure that out I will, but I have to do this math by hand).

Larry Walker:
Five seasons before Col: .283 Avg.
Nine seasons in Col: .351 (68 points higher)
In 2004 he was traded to the Cards. Split year, avg in Col .324, avg in StL .280.
Career Avg: .313
Career Avg in Col: .381 (68 points higher)

Andres Galaraga:
Eight seasons before Col: .267
Five seasons in Col: .316 (49 points higher)
Four seasons since Col: .287
Career Avg: .288
Career Avg. in Col: .348 (60 points higher)

Vinnie Castilla:
Seven seasons in Col: .295
Six seaons outside of Col: .249 (46 points).
Career Avg.: .276
Career Avg. in Col: .333 (57 points)

Dante Bichette
Seven seasons in Col.: .315
Five seasons outside of Col.: .269 (46 points)
Career Avg.: .299
Career Avg. in Col.: .359 (60 points)

Visitors (only looked at people with 100+ at bats):
Barry Bonds:
Career Avg.: .299
Avg in Col.: .358 (59 points)

Mike Piazza:
Career Avg. .309
Avg. in Col.: .374 (65 points)

Sammy Sosa:
Career Avg.: .274
Avg. in Col.: .355 (81 Points)

Mark Loretta: (throw an average guy in here :D)
Career Avg.: .299
Avg. in Col: .350 (51 points)

Edgar Renteria:
Career Avg. .289
Avg. in Col: .347 (58 points)

Vlad Guerrero:
Career Avg. .325
Avg in Col. .382 (57 points).



Now, it's not true for everyone, obviously. For instance, Jeff Bagwell actually has sucked ass in Colorado, hitting like 60 points less! :eek: But the mile high air is unlike anything else.

[King Kashue]

Hmmmmm.....funny, when we actually had big bats here, and lots of them, we went to the playoffs. We gave the Braves probably their toughest series that year on their way to the World Series as well. In fact for that strech of 3 years from 1995-1997 we actually finished with winning records. But I'm sure that had more to do with Ritz, Reynoso, and Bailey (our best pitchers those years with respective 4.21, 4.96, and 4.29 ERA's) than the Blake Street Bombers. Of course the Rockies led the NL in Home Runs, hits, runs scored and batting average that year. 4 guys with 30+ hime runs and 90+ RBI each. Our collective team ERA though was 4.97. The highest in the league. Try agin. ;)q

Stuck this in a second one, rather than with all the numbers.

As for "Try again", it's bollocks. :D

The Rockies only had a .535 winning percentage in 1995, and have made the playoffs just once, and that only as the Wild Card (in a strike shortened season.

As for offense being the key, 1996 and 2000 were their best offensive years and neither year did they make the playoffs.

In fact, 1995, their one playoff season isn't even in their top five offensive seasons. When you look at their park adjusted ERA, they were actually better than average for the year (tied for 2nd in ERA+, so they certainly had good pitching that year).


You need some pitching to make the playoffs, no matter what, and Pitching = championships, always has, always will. Look just at the last five years: Only once did the #1 pitching staff not make the playoffs, and that was the Dodgers in 2003, who were shockingly bad on offense, scoring only 3.5 runs per game, worst in the NL and nearly a half a run behind the second worst.

2006 ERA Ranks:
Detroit - 1st
Minnesota - 2nd
Oakland - 4th
Shanks - 7th

Pads - 1st
Mets - 3rd
LA - 4th
Cards - 9th

2005 ERA Ranks:
ChiSox - 1st
Angels - 3rd
Yanks - 9th
BoSox - 11th

Cards - 1st
Astros - 2nd
Braves - 6th
Pads - 7th

2004 ERA Ranks:
Twins - 1st
BoSox - 3rd
Angels - 4th
Wanks - 6th

Braves - 1st
Cards - 2nd
LA - 4th
Astros - 6th

2003 ERA Ranks:
Oakland - 1st
Clanks - 3rd
Twins - 7th
BoSox - 8th

Giants - 2nd
Cubs - 3rd
Marlins - 7th
Braves - 9th

2002 ERA Ranks:
Oakland - 1st
Angels - 2nd
Stanks - 4th
Twins - 6th

Braves - 1st
Giants - 2nd
Cards - 4th
DBacks - 6th

[basshunter]

KK, you've got WAY too much time on your hands :D

[Jugghaid]

Why do you think 1996 and 2000 were better offensive years. Are you basing this on runs scored?


Maybe you forget that there was a strike in 1994-1995? Kinda put a cramp on everything stats-wise.

And ERA+ is for the most part a BS stat IMO. Did you look at the teams road ERA?

I think you're way off here. Remember, you're talking to a guy that's been here since day 1 and had season tickets for 6 years. the ONLY time they had any success with this team is when they had big bats. Period. It's the only time they were even remotely competitive. And if you brought in 2 really big bats to this team now, with the relatively decent pitching they have, they would be very very competitive.

[King Kashue]

Why do you think 1996 and 2000 were better offensive years. Are you basing this on runs scored?

Maybe you forget that there was a strike in 1994-1995? Kinda put a cramp on everything stats-wise.

Runs scored per game. Per game stats weren't affected in the slightest. And actually, runs scored vs. league averages, which accounts for yearly variations across the whole league.

And ERA+ is for the most part a BS stat IMO. Did you look at the teams road ERA?

Oh yeah:

Home: 6.17
Away: 3.71

Their road ERA was 47 points below the league average, would have been 4th in the league on it's own.

You were saying? :D

I think you're way off here. Remember, you're talking to a guy that's been here since day 1 and had season tickets for 6 years. the ONLY time they had any success with this team is when they had big bats. Period. It's the only time they were even remotely competitive.

That's not what the stats say, regardless of how long you've been there. Geographical proximity doesn't automatically impart insight :D

You can say "It was the bats" all you want, but the fact of the matter is the playoff season wasn't in their offensive top five, but it was their second best year pitching.

And you can call 1995-1997 "success", but in 96 and 97 they only finished four games over .500. Barely over .500 is not a successful team by nearly any standard (especially since they finished better than their Pythagorean estimates in both years).

And if you brought in 2 really big bats to this team now, with the relatively decent pitching they have, they would be very very competitive.

You'd be right, if their pitching were decent. It's really not. The bullpen is strong, but Hirsch is the only starter pitching well this year, everyone else is below average and Fogg is an embarrassment.

Pitching Wins, period. Every stat, every champion, everything says that's the case. You can say it doesn't until you're blue in the face (or purple, if you want to support your team ;)) but you can't change 100 years of history.



And as a side note:

And ERA+ is for the most part a BS stat IMO

Mind running me through why? I don't run into too many people who have issues with it, so I'd like to hear what your issues with the math are...

[King Kashue]

KK, you've got WAY too much time on your hands :D

Dude, someone actually asked me to give them a bunch of baseball stats...





I almost orgasmed...:D

[Jugghaid]

That's not what the stats say, regardless of how long you've been there. Geographical proximity doesn't automatically impart insight :D



Here's what the stats say. They led the league in Batting average, Runs Scored, Home Runs, and Hits. They had the worst team ERA in the League. Not too hard to figure out that it was their hitting and not their pitching that got them to the playoffs.


You can say "It was the bats" all you want, but the fact of the matter is the playoff season wasn't in their offensive top five, but it was their second best year pitching.

It doesn't matter if it was in THEIR top five, they led the NL in those 4 categories that year. They led the entire LEAGUE in offense. They puts them in the top 1. ;)


And you can call 1995-1997 "success", but in 96 and 97 they only finished four games over .500. Barely over .500 is not a successful team by nearly any standard (especially since they finished better than their Pythagorean estimates in both years).

I said any success. Not successful years. Big difference. And success is determined by getting into the postseason, period. They did that once. They did it with their bats. They led the league in offense.


You'd be right, if their pitching were decent. It's really not. The bullpen is strong, but Hirsch is the only starter pitching well this year, everyone else is below average and Fogg is an embarrassment.

Half their pitchers are hurt this year. Hirsch is doing pretty well but getting no run support (lost 3-0 to the Dodgers when the Rockies only got 2 hits, Lost 6-2 to Atlanta, lost 9-2 to the Cards and lost 3-0 to Arizona last night when the rockies only got 3 hits) and Cook has the best W-L record on the team at 2-1. They are the only 2 under a 4.5 ERA for starters. Fuentes is a pretty good closer, but doesn't get enough opportunities due to lack of run support. Lack of run support. Lack of run support. They have OKpiching relatively speaking (remember this is Colorado) and if they had decent hitting, they would be competitive. They are averaging only 4 runs per game. They averaged 5.5-6 runs per game when they were a winning team.

Conversely, Boston is scoring about 5.5 runs per game. And have pitching.


Pitching Wins, period. Every stat, every champion, everything says that's the case. You can say it doesn't until you're blue in the face (or purple, if you want to support your team ;)) but you can't change 100 years of history.


You can in Colorado. Any other place I would agree with you, but no one... NO ONE is going to come in here and be a 20-25 game winner with a sub .300 ERA. Hell in 1995 when we went to the playoffs, our best pitcher had 11 wins. Yup 11. And 11 losses and a 4.21 ERA. Ritz won 17 games in 1996 and had an ERA of 5.28!!!! :eek: And 11 losses. Astacio has 17 in 1999 with a 5.04 ERA with, again, 11 losses. Our 2 winningest pitchers also had 11 losses and ERA's over 5. It wasn't the pitching that won for us.



And as a side note:



Mind running me through why? I don't run into too many people who have issues with it, so I'd like to hear what your issues with the math are...

Short answer.....way too subjective in a LOT of ways. I could give you a long answer but t would be a ton of stats and would take up several pages.

[King Kashue]

Here's what the stats say. They led the league in Batting average, Runs Scored, Home Runs, and Hits. They had the worst team ERA in the League. Not too hard to figure out that it was their hitting and not their pitching that got them to the playoffs.

Except you're ignoring the answer to the question you asked.

Their road ERA was 4th in the league. They did have good pitching.

Every team that came to Colorado had a similar spike in ERA while there, it evens out. But you're comparing Colorado's total stats (half of which are changed by Colorado air) to other teams stats (largely unchanged by short visits to Col). This is why park adjusted stats are important. Playing in Colorado inflates offensive stats and worsens pitching, and it does it to a significant degree.

Yeah, Colorado lead the league in Avg., Runs, HR, and Hits. Except they sucked on the road!

.316, 485 runs, 134 HR, .939 OPS at home
.247, 300 runs, 66 HR, .699 OPS away

League average: .263, 666 R, 137 HR, .739.

On the road, Colorado was well below average offensively, and the gulf between their home and away performance is huge. 69 points difference in BA. Florida is #2 with 28 points, and only two teams other than Col have more than a 10 point advantage at home. Four actually have higher BA on the road.

You're looking at total stats and saying "Big offense, bad pitching", except that's not the case on the road, which is a much more accurate reflection of team ability since no one park influences the stats more than any other.

It doesn't matter if it was in THEIR top five, they led the NL in those 4 categories that year. They led the entire LEAGUE in offense. They puts them in the top 1. ;)

And on the road they were second worst offensively. Again, you asked me for home/away splits, I've given you tons, then you ignore them.

I said any success. Not successful years. Big difference. And success is determined by getting into the postseason, period. They did that once. They did it with their bats. They led the league in offense.

And that only holds up if you ignore everything except the total stats. The Home/Away splits and every park adjusted stat says you're wrong.

Short answer.....way too subjective in a LOT of ways. I could give you a long answer but t would be a ton of stats and would take up several pages.

Humor me. We're the only one's talking in the thread anyway.

Though I'm not sure how you'd need several pages to address the issues of a simple ratio. It's the ratio between two numbers, that's all. That's why I'm surprised you have an issue with it, there's not much to take issue with...

[DevilRaysFan]

They've spent half of their existence doing that...

Wade Boggs, Jose Canseco, Fred McGriff, Greg Vaughn, Vinnie Castilla...


or, as he is known to Devil Rays fans, Vinnie CashStealer.....Dont forget the Juan Guzman debacle of many moons ago...

[Les Izzmor]

I'm going to go with the Kashue here. And. Saying pitching is more important than hitting. No matter where you play.

And. Only for one reason. A pitcher is like a goalie in hockey. He's the one member of your team that can neutralize the entire opponent and win a game by himself.

Look at Hershiseir (sp?) in 88. Look at the Braves from 91-05.

Because a good hitter is only successful 1/3 of the time and hitting a home run every 12 at-bats (once every three games) is considered great you're not going to have 3 hitters win you three games in a series.

But. Three good pitchers can win you three games. And. One good pitcher can win you three games in a 7 game series. One good hitter isn't going to win three games.

Also. You can pitch around a dominant hitter. You can't avoid a hot pitcher.

Sure. You can stock your line-up with great hitters. But. That's difficult.

[Jugghaid]

Except you're ignoring the answer to the question you asked.


No. I don't. let's address this one item at a time:


Their road ERA was 4th in the league. They did have good pitching.


This is way too simplistic. They may have pitched okay on the road, but that doesn't mean they had good pitching. In fact 1/2 the teams in the NL had better road ERA's than home ERA's. Let's look at where they rank in other categories as well.

runs/game - 14th (last
Runs against - 14th
ERA - 14th
Hits against - 14th
Hits/game - 14th
Walks - 11th
Strikeouts - 12th
Complete games - 14th
Shutouts - 14th

Home record - 44-28 (16 games above .500)
Road record - 33-39 (6 games below .500)

Looking at just their home record, you can easily see that it wasn't pitching that won those games for them. Their ERA at home was 6.81 that year. Yet they were 11 games better at home than on the road. Their success that year came from their play at home. They were LOSERS on the road. The important stats therefore are their home stats.


Granted there's a lot of Coors #s in there, but the fact is they have to play 81 games there a year. They need to build a team that will win there. You build your team to win at their home ballpark, not to win on the road.

You keep saying that 100 years of stats don't lie. As I said that's true. for any team that doesn't play 82 games at altitude. Colorado is different. Period. Applying the normal formulas and theories really doesn't apply here. In addition, they would never have attracted the best piching of that era here anyway, just like they won't now. Do you really think Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux, Pedro, Nomo, etc would come to Coors? We tried that with Saberhagen, Swift, Hampton and Neagle and it didn't work. You can't build this team on pitching. That has been proven. You have to win at home and to do that you have to have great hitting. the pitching only needs to be mediocre. when you have the worst home ERA in the league and end up 16 games above .500 at home that's pretty obvious. You need to build a team that will win in the park where they play 1/2 of their games. It's completely different than any other ballclub out there. The norms just plain do not apply.




[/QUOTE]

[Les Izzmor]

I am also going to agree with Juggs and say the Rockies need to get big bats over good pitching. For everybody else I say get pitching. For Colorado I say get hitting.

And. Only because no pitcher wants to pitch half his games at Coors field. So. Here's my philosophy.

Colorado should draft mainly pitching. Pick up good hitters via free agency. Don't even worry about free agent pitchers. Then. Hope your young pitchers develop before they're free agents and throw them out there with a stacked line-up. You may get lucky every few years that way.

[King Kashue]

This is way too simplistic. They may have pitched okay on the road, but that doesn't mean they had good pitching.

Yes, it really does. They didn't pitch "okay" on the road, they pitched great on the road.

In fact 1/2 the teams in the NL had better road ERA's than home ERA's.

That statement is false. Five teams, including the Rockies, had road ERAs lower than their home ERAs (Atl, Col, Cubs, Phi, Pit). That's a tiny bit over 1/3.

In terms of road ERA, the Rockies 3.71 was actually SECOND BEST behind the Braves, who had the best pitching in the MLB that year.

Let's look at where they rank in other categories as well.

runs/game - 14th (last
Runs against - 14th
ERA - 14th
Hits against - 14th
Hits/game - 14th
Walks - 11th
Strikeouts - 12th
Complete games - 14th
Shutouts - 14th

And again, all total numbers (And there's no need to list both Hits and Hits/game, runs and runs/game, etc., every team plays the same number of games in almost every season).

On the road, the rockies ranks look like this:

runs - 2nd
ERA - 2nd
Hits against - 2nd
Walks - 13th
Strikeouts - 9th

Home record - 44-28 (16 games above .500)
Road record - 33-39 (6 games below .500)

Looking at just their home record, you can easily see that it wasn't pitching that won those games for them. Their ERA at home was 6.81 that year. Yet they were 11 games better at home than on the road. Their success that year came from their play at home. They were LOSERS on the road. The important stats therefore are their home stats.

That doesn't follow Juggs. Colorado air affects both teams, you're looking at one part of the elephant and trying to describe the whole...

As for their road record, their offense was the Second Worst on the road. The offense nosedived on the road, but the pitching (which was second best) is to blame for the losses? That makes no sense what so ever.


And to make a final illustration, take a look at what all other teams pitchers did when in Col:

6.66 ERA, 11.6 H/9, 7.1 R/9, 134 HR

And again, just for reference, here are Colorado's home stats.

6.17 ERA, 11.5 H/9, 6.7 R/9, 107 HR

Colorado pitched better than their opponents when in Coors. Only three teams had better ERAs than the Rockies in Coors.

This is what I was talking about, it affects all teams, and when you look only at the total numbers, you inherently ignore that fact (since the effect on the total numbers for most teams is negligible, and for the Rockies it's huge).


They pitched better than everyone in MLB (except for Atlanta) on the Road, and they pitched better than their opponents at home by half an Earned Run.

Pitching on Road = 2nd best in MLB
Pitching at Home = Better than opponents in Coors and 4th best overall.
Offense at Home = Best in MLB
Offense on the Road = 2nd WORST

You can keep looking at total stats if you want, and you can keep saying "it's about the bats", but this is a brilliant example of why park adjusted stats are important...


You can't build this team on pitching. That has been proven. You have to win at home and to do that you have to have great hitting. the pitching only needs to be mediocre. when you have the worst home ERA in the league and end up 16 games above .500 at home that's pretty obvious.

The only thing that's "obvious" is that you don't want to look at the stats that say you're wrong :D

You keep saying "They had the worst Home ERA", except that's the wrong way of looking at it. They had the 4th best COORS ERA, and they had the 2nd best Road era...That equals good pitching, no matter how often you want to say it doesn't.

You need to build a team that will win in the park where they play 1/2 of their games. It's completely different than any other ballclub out there. The norms just plain do not apply.

Except, once again, the stats say the norms do apply...

The year the Rockies made the playoffs they outpitched their opponents at home, and they outpitched them on the road. They out hit them at home, but the hitters sucked horribly on the road

They had the 2nd best road ERA in the Majors, and they had the 4th best ERA in Coors. The had the best offense in the Majors at home, and the 2nd worst on the road...


Everything but a simple analysis of total stats leads to the same conclusion...


In addition, they would never have attracted the best piching of that era here anyway, just like they won't now. Do you really think Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux, Pedro, Nomo, etc would come to Coors? We tried that with Saberhagen, Swift, Hampton and Neagle and it didn't work.

I am also going to agree with Juggs and say the Rockies need to get big bats over good pitching. For everybody else I say get pitching. For Colorado I say get hitting.

And. Only because no pitcher wants to pitch half his games at Coors field. So. Here's my philosophy.

Now that's a valid argument. Free agent pitchers aren't going to want to come to Col.

However, that doesn't mean that you don't need pitching.

Colorado should draft mainly pitching. Pick up good hitters via free agency. Don't even worry about free agent pitchers. Then. Hope your young pitchers develop before they're free agents and throw them out there with a stacked line-up. You may get lucky every few years that way.

The only way it's going to work.

[basshunter]

gah, enough about the Rockies already!!!! :D




And with save #11 now under his belt, can anyone honestly say that as of right now, there is any other pitcher in MLB that you'd rather have as a closer than Jonathan Papelbon? :thumbsup:



(note I said right now, not historically...)

[DevilRaysFan]

gah, enough about the Rockies already!!!! :D




And with save #11 now under his belt, can anyone honestly say that as of right now, there is any other pitcher in MLB that you'd rather have as a closer than Jonathan Papelbon? :thumbsup:



(note I said right now, not historically...)

I think the dude from the Brewers has got 15 or 16 :D

[basshunter]

I think the dude from the Brewers has got 15 or 16 :D

Maybe so...the Brewers have lost 4 in a row though. :P

[King Kashue]

gah, enough about the Rockies already!!!! :D

Oh, I'm not discussing the Rockies...

They just happen to be the case study for a discussion on stats and pitching. Though I do think Juggs is discussing the Rockies, so maybe that's why he doesn't like the stats :D

And with save #11 now under his belt, can anyone honestly say that as of right now, there is any other pitcher in MLB that you'd rather have as a closer than Jonathan Papelbon? :thumbsup:

(note I said right now, not historically...)

I think the dude from the Brewers has got 15 or 16 :D

Maybe so...the Brewers have lost 4 in a row though. :P

None are his fault though, he hasn't blown a save. Heck, he's only given up one run this year.

Papelbon has blown a save :D


Though, Cordero isn't young. History suggests he won't keep up this pace, and will revert back to who he really is. A highly effective, and occasionally great, reliever.

[basshunter]

So you're agreeing with me then. Papelbon it is. :D

[King Kashue]

So you're agreeing with me then. Papelbon it is. :D

Not in the slightest :D


Right now (your emphasis ;)) Cordero > Everyone (folks are hitting .077 against him). In a month or two, who knows?


And I'd take Billy Wags over Papelbon all season long. Better stats this year and a long history of being nasty :D

[basshunter]

Not in the slightest :D


Right now (your emphasis ;)) Cordero > Everyone (folks are hitting .077 against him). In a month or two, who knows?


And I'd take Billy Wags over Papelbon all season long. Better stats this year and a long history of being nasty :D

ppfffff...you've clearly got blinders on keeping you from seeing what all of Red Sox Nation knows without a doubt! :D

[King Kashue]

ppfffff...you've clearly got blinders on keeping you from seeing what all of Red Sox Nation knows without a doubt! :D

I'm not too worried that my opinions don't match up with the opinions of a group of people who define "success" as "one championship every 90 years or so" :D

[basshunter]

I'm not too worried that my opinions don't match up with the opinions of a group of people who define "success" as "one championship every 90 years or so" :D

Yeah, I can't stand those people.


Now if you can pull one off every 86 years or so, then its all good ;)

[Jugghaid]

Oh, I'm not discussing the Rockies...

They just happen to be the case study for a discussion on stats and pitching. Though I do think Juggs is discussing the Rockies, so maybe that's why he doesn't like the stats :D





Nope. You're just plain wrong. Like I said, the normal statistical analysis doesn't apply at a mile high.

Bats will win here. Great bats with mediocre pitching. And it's a good thing, as they will NEVER have great pitching here long term. Even if they grow their own pitchers (which they are doing now) they will leave and go to a more pitcher-friendly park. It's a sound business decision. They will never get huge free agent offers with 4.5+ ERA's. So they will have to have a rotating crop of young up and coming pitchers and a solid array of big bats to ever be competitive.

You don't have to agree with me. you don't have to agree with the 90% of baseball experts I have listened to and read that completely agree with me. You are allowed to be wrong. :)

[Jugghaid]

I'm not too worried that my opinions don't match up with the opinions of a group of people who define "success" as "one championship every 90 years or so" :D

Okay. Now THEM's fighting words. :D

I wonder, if the Bosox were not in the same division as the Yankees, how many championships they WOULD have won. They certainly would have had many many more chances.

[King Kashue]

Nope. You're just plain wrong. Like I said, the normal statistical analysis doesn't apply at a mile high.

And I've shown they do, but you keep ignoring it. Every stat except for the total numbers shows it. Every split, every park adjusted stat, everything except for the most simple numbers...

At this point, you're not even arguing stats, you just keep repeating your mantra...Bats, bats, bats, bats...


The following things are entirely true:

In 1995 the Colorado Rockies made the playoffs and...

Had the best offense at Home
Had the 2nd Worst offense on the Road.

Had the 2nd best ERA in MLB at home.
Had the 5th best ERA at Coors. (I was wrong when I said 4th, it should have been four better than them)
Pitched better than their opponents at Coors. (by half a run in ERA).


Hitting = Better than everyone at Coors, worse than most everyone on the road.
Pitching = Better than most everyone at Coors, better than most everyone on the road.

And you still say "bats, bats, bats"...

You don't have to agree with me. you don't have to agree with the 90% of baseball experts I have listened to and read that completely agree with me. You are allowed to be wrong. :)

Juggs, I'm not saying the Rockies can have great pitching numbers at Coors. You're changing the subject.

I'm saying that in 1995, their one playoff year, they did not have crappy pitching as you say, they had good pitching.

And I'm saying that despite your claims that they won with offense, their offensive performance was not as good as several other years (it wasn't in their top five), but their pitching was the 2nd best they've ever had.


This whole time, the only stats you've brought up are the total stats.

I gave you park adjusted, you ignored them.
You then asked for the home/away splits, and you ignored them.
Then I calculated the Coors stats for the rest of the NL, and you've ignored them.

And still, the only stats you've brought up are the total stats, which both of us recognize as being tainted by playing at Coors.

You've defined "Good Pitching" as "Good total stats", ignoring that every team's stats go wonky at Coors. And that in 1995 the Rockies pitchers were better at Coors than 2/3 of the league. Combine that with the fact they were better on the road than every other team but the Braves, and you have good pitching, regardless of the total ERA.


The fact remains, the following things are entirely true:

In 1995 the Colorado Rockies made the playoffs and...

Had the best offense at Home
Had the 2nd Worst offense on the Road

Had the 2nd best ERA in MLB at home.
Had the 5th best ERA at Coors.
Pitched better than their opponents at Coors (by half a run in ERA).

[King Kashue]

Okay. Now THEM's fighting words. :D

I wonder, if the Bosox were not in the same division as the Yankees, how many championships they WOULD have won. They certainly would have had many many more chances.

They couldn't beat the Yanks during the regular season, but they would have beat them in the World Series? :dunno:


I hate the Yankees as much as pretty much anyone, but there is a reason they've won 26 World Series...


















They've made a pact with Satan...clearly...:D

[Les Izzmor]

And I'd take Billy Wags over Papelbon all season long. Better stats this year and a long history of being nasty :D

I'd take Wagner as well.

In a couple of years, if Papelbon still has an arm left maybe I'll take him.

[Jugghaid]

They couldn't beat the Yanks during the regular season, but they would have beat them in the World Series? :dunno:

I hate the Yankees as much as pretty much anyone, but there is a reason they've won 26 World Series...


They've made a pact with Satan...clearly...:D

Sure they could have. The Yanks may have had a better record, but head to head in a series, the Bosox could have and did beat them many many times in the same year the Yankees won a world series.. They just didn't get that opportunity in the postseason until the wildcard era came about.

Examples, They were only 7-6 against the Sox in 2000 - won the series. They were 4-8 against the Sox in 1999 - Won the series. Beat the sox 4-1 in the playoffs tough.

Other Years the Yankees won it all but either lost the season series to Boston or it was really close:


1977 - went 7-8 against the Sox
1953 - 11-10
1951 -11-11
1939 - 8-11
1938 - 11-11


And those are just the years they WON the World Series.

There were several that they went to the WS and lost

2003 - 10-9
1981 - 3-3
1964 - 9-9
1942 - 10-12
1922 - 9-13


So it's not that they could beat the Bosox those years, they got to the series by beating other teams. The Red Sox could potentially have 12 more WS appearances or wins since 1919 if they played in a different division. Also with Arch Rivals, anything could happen in a series. We've seen it before with these 2 teams.


But you're right. They made a deal with the devil. And now he owns the team. :D

[Les Izzmor]

So it's not that they could beat the Bosox those years, they got to the series by beating other teams. The Red Sox could potentially have 12 more WS appearances or wins since 1919 if they played in a different division.




Before 1969 there was no "division". You won the American League and you went to the Series.

I saw on Real Sports a thing about sports memoribilia. One guy claimed to have a letter from Lou Gehrig. It said, "I think we've got a really strong team, we should win the AL East this year". :D

[Jugghaid]

Before 1969 there was no "division". You won the American League and you went to the Series.

I saw on Real Sports a thing about sports memoribilia. One guy claimed to have a letter from Lou Gehrig. It said, "I think we've got a really strong team, we should win the AL East this year". :D

Currently division. Formerly league.

Same idea though.

And that's funny shit. :D

[King Kashue]

Sure they could have. The Yanks may have had a better record, but head to head in a series, the Bosox could have and did beat them many many times in the same year the Yankees won a world series..

That's a good point, in a seven game series, anything could have happened.


Of course, if they had won something between 1918 and 2004, they wouldn't have become the team they are...Win one in the 30s and one in the 70s, and they're just another team :D

[basshunter]

They've made a pact with Satan...clearly...:D


But you're right. They made a deal with the devil. And now he owns the team. :D


They should change the name to the New York Spawn of Satan...or they could just take the Devils that Tampa Bay is dropping and got with the New York Yankee Devils :D