28 Jul 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitAdam Dunn was a another shining example of the stereotypical Reds hitter. He would wind up with around 30 or so solo homeruns and set all time strike out records for the year.
Well you know those solo bombs aren't worth as much as a 3 run bomb!!!
Regretfully, your latter statement is confirmed sir!!😞😞😞
Pfft.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyUhhh Mr. Baseball expert..... so was Babe Ruth a piece of crap player too?
Adam Dunn was a another shining example of the stereotypical Reds hitter. He would wind up with around 30 or so solo homeruns and set all time strike out records for the year.
Pfft.
I mean he did hit a lot of home runs, but he also struck out a lot more times
than he hit home runs.
Or are you saying every player needs to be Ted Williams?
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitWhen you start getting into the 100K range, I say its too high.
Uhhh Mr. Baseball expert..... so was Babe Ruth a piece of crap player too?
I mean he did hit a lot of home runs, but he also struck out a lot more times
than he hit home runs.
Or are you saying every player needs to be Ted Williams?
So how many times does a player bat every year? So lets say they get to the plate around 450 at bats. If their lucky, most home run hitters hit around 30 to 40 home runs per year. That is not very good production, especially if no one is on base.
Babe Ruth also hit for decent averages, so its not like all he did was hit home runs. The bottom line is what kind of a batter are you in the clutch? Raw stats are often deceiving in this regard. As far as young players like Stubbs and Bruce, if they get up to bat in a clutch situation odds are they will get pitched a certain way and choke. Although Bruce has some pretty good numbers, May is perhaps the best resaon for this. The rest of the year Bruce has been subpar. Again, consistency is what the game is all about.
So does this mean that Bruce and Stubbs are "bad" players? No, that simply means that they are not that reliable when the game is on the line.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyBabe Ruth was a prolific strikeout. Yes he did hit for average too,
When you start getting into the 100K range, I say its too high.
So how many times does a player bat every year? So lets say they get to the plate around 450 at bats. If their lucky, most home run hitters hit around 30 to 40 home runs per year. That is not very good production, especially if no one is on base.
Babe Ruth also hit for decent averages, ...[text shortened]... players? No, that simply means that they are not that reliable when the game is on the line.
but he still struck out a bunch, as did Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew,
Mike Schmidt and I could go on. They are all HOF members.
None of them could bunt or steal bases either.
29 Jul 11
Whodey, I think you're missing a very important point here. If a guy hits a solo home run, its clutch. No matter what, he just scored 1 run all by himself. Lots of games are settled with a 1 run difference on the scoreboard.
Also, blaming a guy for the people before him in the line up for not getting on base is just retarded. Get in touch with reality.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by zakkwylderTo be honest, I was just blowing off some steam about my struggling team. I don't mind having either Bruce or Stubbs on the team, however, for the team to be successful both need to learn to be consistant, Stubbs more so than Bruce.
Whodey, I think you're missing a very important point here. If a guy hits a solo home run, its clutch. No matter what, he just scored 1 run all by himself. Lots of games are settled with a 1 run difference on the scoreboard.
Also, blaming a guy for the people before him in the line up for not getting on base is just retarded. Get in touch with reality.
By in large, pitching has been the greatest downfall of the Reds. It has been a major disappointment.
As for their ability to address this issue, it's not like they are going to run out and acquire high priced players to compete like a Philidelphia team or Cardinal taem will do. The best hope is to do what they have done which is bring up players from the farm system and hope for the best.
31 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyWell Philly just got better with the acquisition of Hunter Pence.
To be honest, I was just blowing off some steam about my struggling team. I don't mind having either Bruce or Stubbs on the team, however, for the team to be successful both need to learn to be consistant, Stubbs more so than Bruce.
By in large, pitching has been the greatest downfall of the Reds. It has been a major disappointment.
As for their abi ...[text shortened]... o do what they have done which is bring up players from the farm system and hope for the best.
I suspect now that Atlanta will try and land Micheal Bourne in an attempt to keep up.
StLouis is about to get Rafeal Furcal and they are in the running for Heath Bell.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodey9 out of 10 people who interpret data to fit their preconceived belief systems, get the results they want. The other 10% are even more stupid.
What this tells me is that to win a World Series you need to be in the top half of big spenders on average. In addition, if you are the two top teams, more than likely you will win a World Series at least two times in a decade.
Interpret the data how you want. The way I see it, we instinctivly interpret data to fit our preconceived belief systems, but that is for another thread I suppose.
01 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitAll big money teams. I suppose you still see no parellel to my claims that teams simply buy their way to the top.
Well Philly just got better with the acquisition of Hunter Pence.
I suspect now that Atlanta will try and land Micheal Bourne in an attempt to keep up.
StLouis is about to get Rafeal Furcal and they are in the running for Heath Bell.
01 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Like global warming and whether or not there is not God?
9 out of 10 people who interpret data to fit their preconceived belief systems, get the results they want. The other 10% are even more stupid.
I think the notion that money rules the world is a bit less controversial, but hey, I guess its just another opinion as well. 😛
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyActually if you wanted to be accurate all "buyers" are teams that are willing to invest in their teams. Philly until recently was considered a market that could not compete and had won one world series in 100 years. St. Louis is not a big market -- you just are used to them having a competitive team.
All big money teams. I suppose you still see no parellel to my claims that teams simply buy their way to the top.
I am pretty confident that we will look back at many of these trades and feel the team that got the prospects did much better than the team that got the star. Even if you are right, I see nothing unfair about teams that are willing to invest in their teams making moves to get better.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyLet's see....the following teams made trades for improvement:
All big money teams. I suppose you still see no parellel to my claims that teams simply buy their way to the top.
Philadelphia, San Francisco, Atlanta, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Arizona
Texas, Detroit, Cleveland, Boston
Now, of the 11 teams that made trades in an attempt to improve themselves, I see
three big market teams... Philly, Atlanta and Boston. That means a little over 25% of
the teams were big market.
This indicates that your theory STILL sucks wind and you are wrong.
01 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackThe Cards are a bigger market than the Reds. Remember, my assertion is that the top 15 clubs fair better than the lower 15 clubs. In fact, they are inversely related. The Reds are on the lower half and the Cards on the upper half.
Actually if you wanted to be accurate all "buyers" are teams that are willing to invest in their teams. Philly until recently was considered a market that could not compete and had won one world series in 100 years. St. Louis is not a big market -- you just are used to them having a competitive team.
I am pretty confident that we will look back at many ...[text shortened]... thing unfair about teams that are willing to invest in their teams making moves to get better.
The Phillies of late have been consistantly in the playoffs and have been in the top 10 in payroll.