2009 MLB Discussion Thread

[comahan]

I have no idea, I just find the conversation annoying and think its utterly pointless and idiotic. So I disagreed with you just to do so.

[Stash]

Originally Posted by twista6002

Like what? An OBP 9 points higher? LOL. No one's been able to refute the fact Ibanez's BA with guys on is 100 points higher than Burrell's. Still waiting...

It's not just the OBP, Burrell is also superior in SLG. Last year SLG:
Burrell .507
Ibanez .479

Then when you combine that with how much PHI payed for Ibanez compared to how much Burrell got it was a bad deal. The fact that you continue to deny it and continue to slurp your team only shows how big of a homer you are.

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by Stash

It's not just the OBP, Burrell is also superior in SLG. Last year SLG:
Burrell .507
Ibanez .479

Then when you combine that with how much PHI payed for Ibanez compared to how much Burrell got it was a bad deal. The fact that you continue to deny it and continue to slurp your team only shows how big of a homer you are.

Slugging is nice, but it is moot considering there's a .100 descrpency is AVG with guys on. To win games you need to score runs, not hit doubles with no one on and strike out with guys on.

And as for me being a homer. I guess saying the team that is the defending champ, who won in dominant fashion and only upgraded might be the best team in baseball makes me a homer okay

[comahan]

They won in dominant fashion against the Rays.

Ew.

[iowatreat54]

So, just to clarify, the team that plays better baseball for 3 weeks is better than the team that plays better baseball for 6 months because those 3 weeks rate higher on the highly praised importance meter?

Look, I know the World Series title is all that matters, I get it. But if you honestly think that the best team wins the World Series every single year, that is the worst argument I've heard in a long time.

[comahan]

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

So, just to clarify, the team that plays better baseball for 3 weeks is better than the team that plays better baseball for 6 months because those 3 weeks rate higher on the highly praised importance meter?

Look, I know the World Series title is all that matters, I get it. But if you honestly think that the best team wins the World Series every single year, that is the worst argument I've heard in a long time.

ding ding ding

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

So, just to clarify, the team that plays better baseball for 3 weeks is better than the team that plays better baseball for 6 months because those 3 weeks rate higher on the highly praised importance meter?

Look, I know the World Series title is all that matters, I get it. But if you honestly think that the best team wins the World Series every single year, that is the worst argument I've heard in a long time.

Then what would your measurement be as to who's the best team?

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by twista6002

Jerry Manuel is that you?

Maybe in the standings yes, but a win is a lot more important in September. At that point, May is water under the bridge.

EDIT: Actually looking at it, Blanton usually gives his team a better chance of winning in general. When Blanton started the Phils were 9-4, Maine the Mets were 13-12. Maine got 5.12 runs per game and Blanton 5.61 but that's just under half a run. The likelyhood of winning (69.2%) with Blanton vs Maine (52%) outweights the amount of runs each received. And with the Phils Blanton put up nearly an identical ERA despite pitching in a hitter friendly park.

Like I said he had a huge bone spur in his arm all of last year. Now that it's fully healed I think we'll see him put up numbers like he did in the first half of 2007. As a side note if Jerry Manuel was the managre for the whole year in 2008 we would have ran away with the division.

[Stash]

Originally Posted by twista6002

Slugging is nice, but it is moot considering there's a .100 descrpency is AVG with guys on. To win games you need to score runs, not hit doubles with no one on and strike out with guys on.

And as for me being a homer. I guess saying the team that is the defending champ, who won in dominant fashion and only upgraded might be the best team in baseball makes me a homer okay

RISP is not a good way to judge players. There is too much luck involved. If you're gonna sit there and tell me that Ibanez has a magical switch that he turns on when there is a runner in scoring position that makes him hit better then you are nuts. The Phillies didn't upgrade, they overpaid for a downgrade.

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by comahan

ding ding ding

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Like I said he had a huge bone spur in his arm all of last year. Now that it's fully healed I think we'll see him put up numbers like he did in the first half of 2007. As a side note if Jerry Manuel was the managre for the whole year in 2008 we would have ran away with the division.

Interesting, because he was the manager when they had the had the lead with a few weeks left and when all they had to do was win their last game to get in.

[iowatreat54]

Originally Posted by twista6002

Then what would your measurement be as to who's the best team?

There is not set equation that says "the ___ are the best team in 2008." Were the Phillies one of the best teams in 2008? Yes. Were they cut and dry, black and white, hands down, the best team in 2008? No. You look at postseason performance, regular season performance, strength of division, injuries, overall statistics, etc. Even more so, there is even less of a finite way to say who is the best team preseason. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, there are such things as hot streaks and cold streaks. The 2007 Colorado Rockies had one of, if not the hottest streak in baseball history and rode it all the way to the WS. That doesn't mean overall they were better than every other team in the NL, but for 30ish/190ish games, or 15% of games in their season, they were. Similarly, the Mets went incredibly cold, or choked, late in 2008. Does that mean they were not one of the better teams in the NL? No.

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by Stash

RISP is not a good way to judge players. There is too much luck involved. If you're gonna sit there and tell me that Ibanez has a magical switch that he turns on when there is a runner in scoring position that makes him hit better then you are nuts. The Phillies didn't upgrade, they overpaid for a downgrade.

RISP isn't a good way to judge players but SLG and OBP are? Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

It's obviously not as simple as you put it, but Ibanez is a much more relaxed and willing to shorten his swing, whereas Burrell presses and tries to kill the ball. And luck? Did you seriously say luck? How much luck could possibly be involved with a .100 descrpency? That's almost as ridiculous as Dallas fans saying a 44-6 win is "luck.

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

There is not set equation that says "the ___ are the best team in 2008." Were the Phillies one of the best teams in 2008? Yes. Were they cut and dry, black and white, hands down, the best team in 2008? No. You look at postseason performance, regular season performance, strength of division, injuries, overall statistics, etc. Even more so, there is even less of a finite way to say who is the best team preseason. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, there are such things as hot streaks and cold streaks. The 2007 Colorado Rockies had one of, if not the hottest streak in baseball history and rode it all the way to the WS. That doesn't mean overall they were better than every other team in the NL, but for 30ish/190ish games, or 15% of games in their season, they were. Similarly, the Mets went incredibly cold, or choked, late in 2008. Does that mean they were not one of the better teams in the NL? No.

I agree that the Phils weren't black and white the best. But you can agree that there was a tier of the best teams in baseball. And you can also agree the Phils were in it. So if they come out on top of a fight between those teams, is it really a stretch to say they were the best?

[mqtirishfan]

Originally Posted by twista6002

Jerry Manuel is that you?

Maybe in the standings yes, but a win is a lot more important in September. At that point, May is water under the bridge.

1 less win is needed in September if you win a game in May, idiot.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by twista6002

Interesting, because he was the manager when they had the had the lead with a few weeks left and when all they had to do was win their last game to get in.

That's great but when he took over the team was in the dumps and he got them back to playing good ball. It's not Manuel's fault his closer got hurt and then the bullpen started to implode totally after that. Everyone was terrible in the bullpen in September and he did all he could to fix it. Last year wasn't really a collapse considering everything the team went through. The Phillies are the favorites this year but the Mets have a pretty good chance to beat them. It's going to hurt you possibly not having Utley for the first 2 months.

[mqtirishfan]

Originally Posted by twista6002

RISP isn't a good way to judge players but SLG and OBP are? Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

Yes, you are. Probably because you're the only one who doesn't understand statistics.

Originally Posted by twista6002

It's obviously not as simple as you put it, but Ibanez is a much more relaxed and willing to shorten his swing, whereas Burrell presses and tries to kill the ball. And luck? Did you seriously say luck? How much luck could possibly be involved with a .100 descrpency? That's almost as ridiculous as Dallas fans saying a 44-6 win is "luck.

Fun with stupid statistics time...

Career OBP with RISP:
Burrell- .386
Ibanez- .380

Career HRs with RISP:
Burrell- 58
Ibanez- 49

Career Doubles with RISP:
Burrell- 93
Ibanez- 76

Career OPS with RISP/2 Outs (ZOMG, SUPERCLUTCH):
Burrell- .856
Ibanez- .854

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by mqtirishfan

1 less win is needed in September if you win a game in May, idiot.

No need for name calling. Come on man, how old are you?

Keep in mind Blanton ain't no loser. As I pointed out earlier, when Blanton pitches his team is more likely to win. So yea there'll be a win in September and in May. Sweet.

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

That's great but when he took over the team was in the dumps and he got them back to playing good ball. It's not Manuel's fault his closer got hurt and then the bullpen started to implode totally after that. Everyone was terrible in the bullpen in September and he did all he could to fix it. Last year wasn't really a collapse considering everything the team went through. The Phillies are the favorites this year but the Mets have a pretty good chance to beat them. It's going to hurt you possibly not having Utley for the first 2 months.

That isn't to say the team would have played that well the portion of the season Randolph managed. Keep in mind he was just barely above .500 as a manager before this year. It's completely hypothetical.

[mqtirishfan]

Originally Posted by twista6002

No need for name calling. Come on man, how old are you?

Keep in mind Blanton ain't no loser. As I pointed out earlier, when Blanton pitches his team is more likely to win. So yea there'll be a win in September and in May. Sweet.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the point you were going for in the post I quoted. You specifically said that a win in September is more important than a win in May. However, both wins count the same toward making the playoffs.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by twista6002

That isn't to say the team would have played that well the portion of the season Randolph managed. Keep in mind he was just barely above .500 as a manager before this year. It's completely hypothetical.

Reyes and Delgado didn't like Willie too much and it showed. Unforunately for Willie his firing coinincided with Reyes and Delgado playing like they are capable which was above average. This argument is going to go in circles so hopefully April gets here quick.

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by mqtirishfan

Yes, you are. Probably because you're the only one who doesn't understand statistics.



Fun with stupid statistics time...

Career OBP with RISP:
Burrell- .386
Ibanez- .380

Career HRs with RISP:
Burrell- 58
Ibanez- 49

Career Doubles with RISP:
Burrell- 93
Ibanez- 76

Career OPS with RISP/2 Outs (ZOMG, SUPERCLUTCH):
Burrell- .856
Ibanez- .854

Most of Burrell's damage was done pre-2006. Look at the same stats for the last 3 years.

But these stats shouldn't matter, there's too much luck involved ;)

[iowatreat54]

Originally Posted by twista6002

I agree that the Phils weren't black and white the best. But you can agree that there was a tier of the best teams in baseball. And you can also agree the Phils were in it. So if they come out on top of a fight between those teams, is it really a stretch to say they were the best?

They were one of the best. But, and I'm not trying to be a homer, when the Cubs are better than the Phillies in nearly every single team statistic, came out of arguably a tougher division, but since the Phillies played better for 3 ******* weeks, they are a better team? Again, I know the playoffs and World Series is how you determine a champion, and the Phillies were the better team when it was most important, but just because they won a selection of games that another team didn't doesn't mean they are better. Being better for 156 games (the Phils took 4 of 7 vs. the Cubs) is usually considered better than being better for 20 games; at least, I've always been taught 156>20, give or take some.

Postseason success is a determining factor, but it isn't the determining factor, or act as a "tie breaker." By saying a team is in a top tier of the best teams, that doesn't mean all those teams are equal. Say all the factors, such as regular season record, overall team statistics, etc. are weighted heavier combined than the weight that the post season carries; if that is true, then the extra benefit brought by the Phillies post season success is not enough to overcome how much better the Cubs were during the regular season in nearly every category.

Yes, the Phillies have the hardware that matters, and I'm not trying to hang my hat on being the regular season champion, but you really need to realize that just because a team or individual, in any sport, plays better for less than 20% of total games in an overall season, regardless of what those games determine, it does not mean they are the better team. It just means they were better at that given time.

[Giantsfan1080]

It's a shame you are a Phillies fan. You go to Rutgers, like I did, which usually puts people in my good graces but I guess we'll be battling it out all baseball season.

[mqtirishfan]

Originally Posted by twista6002

Most of Burrell's damage was done pre-2006. Look at the same stats for the last 3 years.

But these stats shouldn't matter, there's too much luck involved ;)

They don't matter. They're cherry-picked stats I used to make Burrell look more clutch. Sound familiar?