PDA

View Full Version : Could KW Be Going After Peavy?


the1tab
12-04-2008, 01:08 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/88456-chicago-white-sox-a-sleeper-for-jake-peavy

I wrote this; I'll claim it. It was picked up and run on Sportsline's Hot Stove Report page last night off Bleacher Report. I put the link up here so I didn't have to repeat it all.

The trade of Khalil Greene means the Padres now are A) trying to cut cost and B) need a SS. We happen to have 5-6 middle infielders that are highly regarded in our own system, not including Alexei.

We have also acquired a couple nice young arms from Atlanta and New York that might add some meat to an offer KW could make.

The White Sox are in a better position now, especially since Greene's been dealt, to make a deal for Peavy than perhaps anyone in baseball.

soxpride724
12-04-2008, 01:10 PM
I think for that to happen Peavy would have to consent to comming here, he said he will but on the north side of town.

Go figure.

Mr.1Dog
12-04-2008, 01:11 PM
It certainly is an intriguing idea. It would be slick to be able to pull that off. Do it Kenny.

PalehosePlanet
12-04-2008, 01:13 PM
I think for that to happen Peavy would have to consent to comming here, he said he will but on the north side of town.

Go figure.

Probably because it's the NL where the competition is inferior and his ERA can stay nice and low.

palehozenychicty
12-04-2008, 01:13 PM
He can try, but would Peavy want to play here? With KW, you never know much.

pythons007
12-04-2008, 01:19 PM
Thats a big fat NO!

Jimmy Piersall
12-04-2008, 01:19 PM
I think for that to happen Peavy would have to consent to comming here, he said he will but on the north side of town.

Go figure.

Well then if he only wants the North Side he isn't Chicago Tough.

Marqhead
12-04-2008, 01:20 PM
If SD couldn't work out a trade with the Braves, and we just acquired 4 Braves prospects, what makes anyone think that we could now ship those prospects off to SD for Peavy?

Paulwny
12-04-2008, 01:23 PM
If SD couldn't work out a trade with the Braves, and we just acquired 4 Braves prospects, what makes anyone think that we could now ship those prospects off to SD for Peavy?

Toss in Konerko or Dye with some of these prospects.

the1tab
12-04-2008, 01:24 PM
Even if we're stockpiling talent, we've got a LOT of redundant pieces.

3B: Fields, Viciedo, Gilmore

SS: Ramirez, Beckham, Escobar, Lillibridge

2B: Nix, Betemit, Getz

Padres:

3B: Kevin Kouzmanoff

SS: ??

2B: Matt Antonelli

Then throw into the mix that the Tigers traded for Jack Wilson and Edgar Renteria just signed w/ the Giants (both per ESPN.com), and the free agent and trade options for the Padres at short are starting to shrink

We can upgrade 2/3rds of their infield by sending them Getz & Fields right now.

Marqhead
12-04-2008, 01:24 PM
Toss in Konerko or Dye with some of these prospects.

I can see that, but from what I understand SD is trying to shed payroll. Taking on the 10-15 mil from a Dye/Konerko type player isn't really in that plan and I doubt KW would be willing to eat part of the money seeing as how he would have to turn around and pay for Peavy.

thedudeabides
12-04-2008, 01:25 PM
If SD couldn't work out a trade with the Braves, and we just acquired 4 Braves prospects, what makes anyone think that we could now ship those prospects off to SD for Peavy?

One of the Braves sticking points was not wanting to give a full no trade clause.

In any case, until Peavy says he would be willing to come here, it really doesn't matter.

Paulwny
12-04-2008, 01:25 PM
He can try, but would Peavy want to play here? With KW, you never know much.

He'd probably waive his no trade clause to any team who'll guarantee his contract through 2013.

the1tab
12-04-2008, 01:31 PM
If SD couldn't work out a trade with the Braves, and we just acquired 4 Braves prospects, what makes anyone think that we could now ship those prospects off to SD for Peavy?

A) We aren't just turning around the Braves prospects, we can add more to the mix

B) Other pieces the Sox have could be parted w/ easier than the Braves are willing to part ways w/ Morton or Escobar

C) The Padres don't have that many options left. The Cubs and Braves have, at least publicly, moved on, Houston doesn't have the depth in theis system, and the Yankees are bent on getting Sabathia. If the Padres don't want him staying in SoCal, the Sox might be their best bet to get value in quantity

NLaloosh
12-04-2008, 01:37 PM
Pitching in the A.L. in Sox park Peavy would be about as good as Buehrle except way more expensive and less durable.

In order to commit to that enormous contract with his brittleness I wouldn't want to give up more than Richard,Marquez, Fields and Getz.

And, even then I wouldn't be excited.

SoxyStu
12-04-2008, 01:40 PM
Toss in Konerko or Dye with some of these prospects.

That makes no sense on their part. Why would they want players who will help them win now when they are in no shape or form a playoff feasible team? This is the point of moving Peavy - to establish a new young core to become contenders in time.

rdwj
12-04-2008, 01:48 PM
I think the chances of the Sox landing Peavy are less than 1%. I'd say 0%, but you just never know.

areilly
12-04-2008, 01:54 PM
Then throw into the mix that the Tigers traded for Jack Wilson


Link?

btrain929
12-04-2008, 02:01 PM
Link?

It's in "Talking Baseball."

Sargeant79
12-04-2008, 02:01 PM
I'd be good with it as long as we are keeping: Quentin, Ramirez, and Danks. I also realize those three are probably our most valuable players, which is why I don't see it happening.

btrain929
12-04-2008, 02:07 PM
If the Cubs are in discussion, there's no reason why we can't be in the discussion. We have more room open on our payroll to take him and their proposal obviously isn't blowing the Pads away. Vitters (maybe) and abunch of ehhhhh's.

wulfy
12-04-2008, 02:10 PM
Don't have any reason/proof/logic behind it, but for some reason, I suspect Kenny wants Roy Halladay.

CashMan
12-04-2008, 02:16 PM
What is the fascination with Peavy? He pitches in a pitchers park, he would get demolished in the AL.

Sargeant79
12-04-2008, 02:17 PM
Don't have any reason/proof/logic behind it, but for some reason, I suspect Kenny wants Roy Halladay.

That would be awesome.

SoxFan88
12-04-2008, 02:19 PM
Don't have any reason/proof/logic behind it, but for some reason, I suspect Kenny wants Roy Halladay.


Who would you be willing to part with that would be a reasonable trade offer?

btrain929
12-04-2008, 02:20 PM
What is the fascination with Peavy? He pitches in a pitchers park, he would get demolished in the AL.

Because he's only 27 and outside of last year, he's usually done about the same on the road as he has at home.

PalehosePlanet
12-04-2008, 02:21 PM
Don't have any reason/proof/logic behind it, but for some reason, I suspect Kenny wants Roy Halladay.

He has always drooled over him, so your suggestion is not a stretch. I have no idea who would be more expensive in this case. Peavy is younger but Halladay is more proven (esp in the AL.)

Overall it does stand to reason that KW knows that a team needs a true No.1 to win the world series. Hopefully, this line of thinking will net us a bonafide staff ace.

Of course, I won't hold my breath.

doublem23
12-04-2008, 02:22 PM
Toss in Konerko or Dye with some of these prospects.

Before I even mention that the Padres have a better 1B than Konerko already, I will mention that neither Pauly Walnuts or JD fit into the current Padres mindset of dumping as much payroll as possible.

Unless, of course, the Sox eat a lot of their contracts, which is getting to be a hefty price for a guy who is only elite when he pitches in his cavern of a ballpark, in a division that is an absolute joke.

:dunno:

Not sold on Peavy.

Don't have any reason/proof/logic behind it, but for some reason, I suspect Kenny wants Roy Halladay.

Halladay would be an incredible pickup. Unfortunately, getting him would take either Floyd or Danks and if you deal one of them away, you're more or less just spinning your wheels since that still leaves 2 gaping holes at the back of the rotation.

champagne030
12-04-2008, 02:30 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/88456-chicago-white-sox-a-sleeper-for-jake-peavy

I wrote this; I'll claim it. It was picked up and run on Sportsline's Hot Stove Report page last night off Bleacher Report. I put the link up here so I didn't have to repeat it all.

The trade of Khalil Greene means the Padres now are A) trying to cut cost and B) need a SS. We happen to have 5-6 middle infielders that are highly regarded in our own system, not including Alexei.

We have also acquired a couple nice young arms from Atlanta and New York that might add some meat to an offer KW could make.

The White Sox are in a better position now, especially since Greene's been dealt, to make a deal for Peavy than perhaps anyone in baseball.

We only have one starter quality level SS on our roster and we'll need to keep Alexei. We didn't receive any SP from the Braves and what we did get from the Yankees isn't very good. We still don't have the minor league pitching the Padres are looking for in return.

palehozenychicty
12-04-2008, 02:33 PM
Before I even mention that the Padres have a better 1B than Konerko already, I will mention that neither Pauly Walnuts or JD fit into the current Padres mindset of dumping as much payroll as possible.

Unless, of course, the Sox eat a lot of their contracts, which is getting to be a hefty price for a guy who is only elite when he pitches in his cavern of a ballpark, in a division that is an absolute joke.

:dunno:

Not sold on Peavy.



Halladay would be an incredible pickup. Unfortunately, getting him would take either Floyd or Danks and if you deal one of them away, you're more or less just spinning your wheels since that still leaves 2 gaping holes at the back of the rotation.

I think Peavy would be less effective in the AL also. That said, I wouldn't be mad if we got him.

As for Halladay, I'd give up Floyd for him in a package. It's Roy Freaking Halladay.

skottyj242
12-04-2008, 02:36 PM
Probably because it's the NL where the competition is inferior and his ERA can stay nice and low.


What does that even mean?

kittle42
12-04-2008, 02:39 PM
What does that even mean?

Yeah, I am kinda tired of the outright dismissal of anything done in the NL as somehow substandard on this site. It's a joke. It isn't the ****ing minors, people.

doublem23
12-04-2008, 02:41 PM
As for Halladay, I'd give up Floyd for him in a package. It's Roy Freaking Halladay.

Roy Freaking Halladay will turn 32 years old this season. I'm not saying I'd balk at trading Floyd in a package for him, but if you do that you'd better find yourself at least 1 more starter still since leaving 40% of your rotation up in the air is not conducive to winning. Bringing in a 32-year-old SP means you've flipped the switch to make a serious, SERIOUS run at winning now. There's no point in dealing a 26-year-old starter if you're just going to sit around and wait for some other pitchers to develop. If that's the scenario, just keep Gavin because in 2010 or 2011 when you've actually got the horses to compete, 27/28-YO Gavin Floyd is probably better than 33/34-YO Roy Halladay.

Just my opinion.

doublem23
12-04-2008, 02:43 PM
What does that even mean?

Yeah, I am kinda tired of the outright dismissal of anything done in the NL as somehow substandard on this site. It's a joke. It isn't the ****ing minors, people.

If you don't want to come to your senses and deal with the fact that the National League is obviously inferior to the American League (especially when it comes to evaluating pitching stafs since NL pitchers get the added bonus of an almost guaranteed out at the end of everyone's starting lineup) that's fine, but don't chide the rest of us who have noticed the glaring disparity between the two leagues for the better part of this decade.

AL > NL... It's totally cyclical, nobody is saying the AL always rules, but the daily grind through the American League is much more difficult than through the N.L.

skottyj242
12-04-2008, 02:45 PM
If you don't want to come to your senses and deal with the fact that the National League is obviously inferior to the American League (especially when it comes to evaluating pitching stafs since NL pitchers get the added bonus of an almost guaranteed out at the end of everyone's starting lineup) that's fine, but don't chide the rest of us who have noticed the glaring disparity between the two leagues for the better part of this decade.

AL > NL


The Phillies won the World Series. BTW don't ever act like you're better than me either and talk down to me.

CashMan
12-04-2008, 02:51 PM
The Phillies won the World Series. BTW don't ever act like you're better than me either and talk down to me.



The Phillies are one team. And he is right about the entire NL, it is not as good as the AL. Name the top 5 NL teams. Phills are good, Mets have no bullpen, Dodgers will suck, who else?

doublem23
12-04-2008, 02:52 PM
The Phillies won the World Series. BTW don't ever act like you're better than me either.

A best-of-seven game series does not erase the 162-game marathon that is a baseball season. Only 2 AL teams had losing records in interleague play last season (Toronto & Cleveland) and 2 NL teams had winning records (New York & Cincinnati).

BTW, chill out. The American League is simply deeper and offers more talented teams than the National League. It's very obvious.

champagne030
12-04-2008, 03:00 PM
What does that even mean?

Yeah, I am kinda tired of the outright dismissal of anything done in the NL as somehow substandard on this site. It's a joke. It isn't the ****ing minors, people.

It's pretty simple in that the AL is better than the NL and has been for several years. And the difference has been significant.

btrain929
12-04-2008, 03:01 PM
If you don't want to come to your senses and deal with the fact that the National League is obviously inferior to the American League (especially when it comes to evaluating pitching stafs since NL pitchers get the added bonus of an almost guaranteed out at the end of everyone's starting lineup) that's fine, but don't chide the rest of us who have noticed the glaring disparity between the two leagues for the better part of this decade.

AL > NL... It's totally cyclical, nobody is saying the AL always rules, but the daily grind through the American League is much more difficult than through the N.L.

The Phillies are one team. And he is right about the entire NL, it is not as good as the AL. Name the top 5 NL teams. Phills are good, Mets have no bullpen, Dodgers will suck, who else?

A best-of-seven game series does not erase the 162-game marathon that is a baseball season. Only 2 AL teams had losing records in interleague play last season (Toronto & Cleveland) and 2 NL teams had winning records (New York & Cincinnati).

BTW, chill out. The American League is simply deeper and offers more talented teams than the National League. It's very obvious.

I tried arguing this a month or so back, and got shot down. No, the NL isn't the minors, but it definitely isn't the AL, either...

palehozenychicty
12-04-2008, 03:06 PM
Roy Freaking Halladay will turn 32 years old this season. I'm not saying I'd balk at trading Floyd in a package for him, but if you do that you'd better find yourself at least 1 more starter still since leaving 40% of your rotation up in the air is not conducive to winning. Bringing in a 32-year-old SP means you've flipped the switch to make a serious, SERIOUS run at winning now. There's no point in dealing a 26-year-old starter if you're just going to sit around and wait for some other pitchers to develop. If that's the scenario, just keep Gavin because in 2010 or 2011 when you've actually got the horses to compete, 27/28-YO Gavin Floyd is probably better than 33/34-YO Roy Halladay.

Just my opinion.


That's cool. We can agree to disagree, but I just think that if you can get a pitcher like Roy Halladay, you do it. He'll probably be good for at least three more years.

Gavin had a good year. There's a good chance he'll be solid for awhile. But I doubt that his ceiling is a Cy Young. Roy Halladay, with a stronger offense, can carry a team to the promised land.

If you can find a veteran #4 starter and use the young pitchers to battle out 5, then it would be worth a try. I know that the #5 hole killed us earlier this decade for a couple years. But it's a different team and organization at a different time. We have had some success these last four years, and that confidence is invaluable.

It's a fun scenario to speculate, but I'd fly to Toronto, drop Halladay off in Chicago, and then fly back to NY if that trade was executed. :tongue:

skottyj242
12-04-2008, 03:06 PM
It's pretty simple in that the AL is better than the NL and has been for several years. And the difference has been significant.

The Cardinals won the World Series in 2006. So no I don't agree. To me that means a lot. The difference isn't significant. I do think that the American League is better but I wouldn't say it's light years beyond like some of you think.

areilly
12-04-2008, 03:09 PM
The Cardinals won the World Series in 2006. So no I don't agree. To me that means a lot. The difference isn't significant. I do think that the American League is better but I wouldn't say it's light years beyond like some of you think.

Don't forget 2003 and 2001 were also NL teams; it's only 6-4 AL over the past ten World Series.

veeter
12-04-2008, 03:14 PM
The true sample for AL dominance is interleague play. Anyone can win a short series. The Phillies are a very good team who are a worthy champion. But overall, the AL has kicked the crap out of the NL for two weeks the last four to five years. Just ask Rich Harden and C.C. Sabathia which league they'd rather pitch in.

btrain929
12-04-2008, 03:14 PM
That's cool. We can agree to disagree, but I just think that if you can get a pitcher like Roy Halladay, you do it. He'll probably be good for at least three more years.

The only things that are a little more appealing to Peavy is he's younger and is under contract for 3 more guaranteed years, with an option on a 4th year. Halladay is a little older, and only under contract for 2 years. But maybe KW would like something like that: no much of a long term commitment?

With the Jays losing Marcum for the year and Burnett walking, they either need to splash and sign 1-2 SP's (which it doesn't sound like they will do), or trade Halladay, see what they can get for Rios/Wells, and make it a full out rebuild/restock mode. Especially if they don't think they can compete with TB/BOS in the next year or 2.

doublem23
12-04-2008, 03:16 PM
Don't forget 2003 and 2001 were also NL teams; it's only 6-4 AL over the past ten World Series.

Some of that, IMO, can be attributed to the longer postseason that really makes it more difficult for the best teams to advance. The 2001 Mariners for example, had the best regular season many of us will ever see and were eliminated in 5 games in the ALCS. Whether or not they'd beat Arizona is moot, the American League wasn't represented by it's best team in that year's World Series.

But no one has ever said the NL's best teams weren't good and could be competitive in the American League. The difference exists in the middle and end of the pack, IMO. The fact that the AL has dominated interleague play over the last few years is much more telling than World Series wins. You simply don't have as many crap teams to just roll over in the AL as you do in the NL. That is a significant difference.

btrain929
12-04-2008, 03:19 PM
But no one has ever said the NL's best teams weren't good and could be competitive in the American League. The difference exists in the middle and end of the pack, IMO. The fact that the AL has dominated interleague play over the last few years is much more telling than World Series wins. You simply don't have as many crap teams to just roll over in the AL as you do in the NL. That is a significant difference.

Agreed 200% :thumbsup:

doublem23
12-04-2008, 03:22 PM
It's a fun scenario to speculate, but I'd fly to Toronto, drop Halladay off in Chicago, and then fly back to NY if that trade was executed. :tongue:

I agree, and if KW can find another SP (an Andy Pettite or Derek Lowe, for example) to help round out the starting rotation, I would deal Floyd to Toronto in a heartbeat.

I just don't like the idea of trading good, young starting pitching unless you're throwing all your chips in the pot for a World Series run in 2009, and going into a season with 2 complete unknowns at the end of your rotation isn't.

SoxFan88
12-04-2008, 03:24 PM
Some of that, IMO, can be attributed to the longer postseason that really makes it more difficult for the best teams to advance. The 2001 Mariners for example, had the best regular season many of us will ever see and were eliminated in 5 games in the ALCS. Whether or not they'd beat Arizona is moot, the American League wasn't represented by it's best team in that year's World Series.

But no one has ever said the NL's best teams weren't good and could be competitive in the American League. The difference exists in the middle and end of the pack, IMO. The fact that the AL has dominated interleague play over the last few years is much more telling than World Series wins. You simply don't have as many crap teams to just roll over in the AL as you do in the NL. That is a significant difference.



Agree for the most part... but the best NL team doesn't always make it to the WS either (ask Cubs fans how it feels to dominate in the regular season and get swept in the playoffs)

doublem23
12-04-2008, 03:28 PM
Agree for the most part... but the best NL team doesn't always make it to the WS either (ask Cubs fans how it feels to dominate in the regular season and get swept in the playoffs)

True, but that also further goes to prove that just because a team wins a best-of-5 or best-of-7 game series, that doesn't automatically make them better.

areilly
12-04-2008, 03:35 PM
True, but that also further goes to prove that just because a team wins a best-of-5 or best-of-7 game series, that doesn't automatically make them better.

Okay, how existential do we want to get here? Is the point of a baseball season to be a good team, or to win games? Can a losing team still be called good? Can a bad team still win? Is a superior league's also-ran really any better off? Aren't they all just losers eventually anyway?




Heavy ideas, man. Gusty winds may exist.

veeter
12-04-2008, 03:42 PM
Okay, how existential do we want to get here? Is the point of a baseball season to be a good team, or to win games? Can a losing team still be called good? Can a bad team still win? Is a superior league's also-ran really any better off? Aren't they all just losers eventually anyway?




Heavy ideas, man. Gusty winds may exist.The bottom line, to me, is winning. The '83 White Sox weren't the best team, the Orioles were. The cubs this year had flaws. They were exposed in the post-season. 97 wins, yes. How many against the Pirates and Reds? History books list the winners, not the teams that had great years but lost.

doublem23
12-04-2008, 03:55 PM
Okay, how existential do we want to get here? Is the point of a baseball season to be a good team, or to win games? Can a losing team still be called good? Can a bad team still win? Is a superior league's also-ran really any better off? Aren't they all just losers eventually anyway?

Heavy ideas, man. Gusty winds may exist.

Obviously the bottom line is to win; the Phillies are World Champs, I'm not one of these statisticians who disregard the play that actually takes place on the field, but the spark of this debate was whether or not to take stats from NL players at face value when talking about crossing to the AL. In these cases, you have to factor in all variables, such as home/road splits, surrounding talent (a hitter in Boston's lineup will do better than if that same guy was in Kansas City's), and yes, level of competition. World Series and play-off games are obviously more important, but they are still only single games, and slight variances don't completely discredit established patterns.

chisoxmike
12-04-2008, 04:03 PM
The thread question and the poll question are different.

PennStater98r
12-04-2008, 04:20 PM
BTW don't ever act like you're better than me either and talk down to me.

:bitchslap:

PennStater98r
12-04-2008, 04:27 PM
This has about as much a chance of happening as the Sox giving Minnie an AB in 2009.

veeter
12-04-2008, 04:31 PM
This has about as much a chance of happening as the Sox giving Minnie an AB in 2009.You're probably right, but with what has transpired over the last two days, the Sox are a perfect fit. They have tons of prospects to trade, and now DESPARATELY need a good starter.

PKalltheway
12-04-2008, 04:55 PM
I don't think that Peavy would be all that bad on the Sox, or even in the AL. His ERA would go up, but he's a power/strikeout pitcher, not a soft tosser, and he doesn't pitch to contact. I think he would be fine in the AL. If I heard the Sox got Peavy, I'd probably be happier than a pig in ****. With that being said, I don't think it will happen, but KW does like to work under the radar, and suprise people, so you never know.

As for the AL/NL argument, the AL at this point in time, is better. I'd say that only the Phillies and yes, the Cubs could legitimately compete in the AL. Yeah, you could say that the Cubs feasted on an inferior division, but you could honestly say the same thing about the Angels this year, too. Let's face it: The Angels and Cubs are good teams that just played their worst baseball of the season at the worst possible time. You could really say that about most playoff teams that don't get the trophy.

veeter
12-04-2008, 05:48 PM
Yep. The cubs and Angels fattened up their records by playing in ****ty divisions.

chunk
12-04-2008, 05:53 PM
The angels were an incredibly lucky team last year that heavily outplayed their pythagorean score.

DSpivack
12-04-2008, 06:03 PM
You're probably right, but with what has transpired over the last two days, the Sox are a perfect fit. They have tons of prospects to trade, and now DESPARATELY need a good starter.

Like whom? Whom have the Sox acquired that is a top level prospect to acquire Peavy?

btrain929
12-04-2008, 07:01 PM
Like whom? Whom have the Sox acquired that is a top level prospect to acquire Peavy?

Besides Vitters, what top prospects do the Cubs have to acquire Peavy?

the1tab
12-04-2008, 07:04 PM
Yep. The cubs and Angels fattened up their records by playing in ****ty divisions.

The NL Central, at one point, had the three best records in the NL last year. So to say the Cubs fattened up their record on crap is misleading. They didn't get 15 games against the Giants & Padres; the Astros were decent until Carlos Lee got hurt and the Cardinals overachieved until their pitching finally woke up.

There are going to be crap teams in every division. The Sox had Cleveland and KC this past year... two teams that were as miserable as anyone in baseball.

The point of baseball isn't to win more than anyone else for 5 months, it's to get your act together and be clicking at the right time. Look at the Cardinals when they won it all. They barely broke 80 wins that year, and went on to run the table.

If it's Peavy or Halladay, the Sox become the team to beat in the AL Central. Look what that label did for Detroit last year... lol.

the1tab
12-04-2008, 07:07 PM
Like whom? Whom have the Sox acquired that is a top level prospect to acquire Peavy?

It isn't even whom the Sox have acquired... it's what they now have to put together.

There isn't a team out there that could package put together a package with a major league ready 3B like Fields, a major league ready 2B like Getz, and multiple arms like Poreda, Marquez, Ely, Floyd, Broadway, etc.

The Sox have the depth in the middle infield and at third base, as well as pitching-wise, to unload to make a deal happen. The Cubs don't have it; they need a third team in the deal. Vitters hasn't hit 20+ homers in the bigs already. Sean Marshall doesn't have the ceiling Poreda does.

Craig Grebeck
12-04-2008, 07:19 PM
There isn't a team out there that could package put together a package with a major league ready 3B like Fields, a major league ready 2B like Getz, and multiple arms like Poreda, Marquez, Ely, Floyd, Broadway, etc.
Sure there are.

champagne030
12-04-2008, 07:37 PM
The NL Central, at one point, had the three best records in the NL last year. So to say the Cubs fattened up their record on crap is misleading. They didn't get 15 games against the Giants & Padres;

You're right. It was the Giants, Padres and Pirates.

It isn't even whom the Sox have acquired... it's what they now have to put together.

There isn't a team out there that could package put together a package with a major league ready 3B like Fields, a major league ready 2B like Getz, and multiple arms like Poreda, Marquez, Ely, Floyd, Broadway, etc.

The Sox have the depth in the middle infield and at third base, as well as pitching-wise, to unload to make a deal happen. The Cubs don't have it; they need a third team in the deal. Vitters hasn't hit 20+ homers in the bigs already. Sean Marshall doesn't have the ceiling Poreda does.

You think that Fields, Getz, Poreda and Marquez would bring back Peavy? This is another example of us trading our bull**** for a stud. Maybe we can trade Dye, Owens and McCulloch to the Giants for Lincecum.

Sargeant79
12-04-2008, 08:14 PM
I'm reading this thread with absolute amazement. This is Jake ****ing Peavy. There are only a handful of pitchers in baseball who, if available, you should do just about whatever you can to acquire. This is one of them.

kittle42
12-04-2008, 08:54 PM
I'm reading this thread with absolute amazement. This is Jake ****ing Peavy. There are only a handful of pitchers in baseball who, if available, you should do just about whatever you can to acquire. This is one of them.

He's in the NL. Thus, he is terrible. 4.50 ERA minimum in the AL.

Greg Maddux? He only has 300 wins because he got to pitch to a pitcher every time through the lineup.

getonbckthr
12-04-2008, 09:01 PM
Besides Vitters, what top prospects do the Cubs have to acquire Peavy?
Ask yourself this if your Jake Peavy and since the last game you have basically felt unwanted, how much determiniation are entering next season with?
As far as SD goes they have gone to the point now where they almost have to trade Peavy.
Also today on WSCR the announcer of the Padres (forgot his name) said the Padres are dropping salary to around 35 million. Peavy makes 13. They almost have to move him if thats true. Apparently the SD owner is in a nasty divorce and California is a 50/50 state.

areilly
12-04-2008, 09:57 PM
He's in the NL. Thus, he is terrible. 4.50 ERA minimum in the AL.

Greg Maddux? He only has 300 wins because he got to pitch to a pitcher every time through the lineup.

I'm assuming the teal is implied...isn't it?

kittle42
12-05-2008, 12:13 AM
I'm assuming the teal is implied...isn't it?

I hate when you have to ask. :smile:

rdivaldi
12-05-2008, 12:29 AM
You think that Fields, Getz, Poreda and Marquez would bring back Peavy? This is another example of us trading our bull**** for a stud.

While I agree that those 4 players would likely not bring back Peavy, I would not call any of those promising/talented youngsters bull****.

Frater Perdurabo
12-05-2008, 05:49 AM
He's in the NL. Thus, he is terrible. 4.50 ERA minimum in the AL.

Greg Maddux? He only has 300 wins because he got to pitch to a pitcher every time through the lineup.

No one has said that Peavy would be terrible in the AL. No one has said that Maddux wouldn't be a 300-game winner in the AL. You're trying to refute a reasonable argument by mocking two ridiculously hyperbolic exaggerations of that argument.

Any reasonable person should be able to conclude, based on yearly interleague records, that the AL is significantly stronger than the NL and has been for several years.

Craig Grebeck
12-05-2008, 06:58 AM
No one has said that Peavy would be terrible in the AL. No one has said that Maddux wouldn't be a 300-game winner in the AL. You're trying to refute a reasonable argument by mocking two ridiculously hyperbolic exaggerations of that argument.

Any reasonable person should be able to conclude, based on yearly interleague records, that the AL is significantly stronger than the NL and has been for several years.
I don't buy it. Interleague play is not the best way, or even a good way, to measure league strength.

veeter
12-05-2008, 07:38 AM
I don't buy it. Interleague play is not the best way, or even a good way, to measure league strength.It's the only way.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 08:16 AM
CC Sabatha
in AL - 122.1 IP, 117 H, 34 BB, 123 K, 6-8 record, 3.83 ERA, 1.234 WHIP
in NL - 130.2 IP, 106 H, 25 BB, 128 K, 11-2 record, 1.65 ERA, 1.003 WHIP

Rich Harden
in AL - 77 IP, 57 H, 31 BB, 92 K, 5-1 record, 2.34 ERA, 1.143 WHIP
in NL - 71 IP, 39 H, 30 BB, 89 K, 5-1 record, 1.77 ERA, 0.972 WHIP

Manny Ramirez
in AL - 365 AB, 109 H, 20 HR, 52 BB, 86 K, .299/.398/.529
in NL - 187 AB, 74 H, 17 HR, 35 BB, 38 K, .396/.489/.743

Craig Grebeck
12-05-2008, 08:32 AM
CC Sabatha
in AL - 122.1 IP, 117 H, 34 BB, 123 K, 6-8 record, 3.83 ERA, 1.234 WHIP
in NL - 130.2 IP, 106 H, 25 BB, 128 K, 11-2 record, 1.65 ERA, 1.003 WHIP

Rich Harden
in AL - 77 IP, 57 H, 31 BB, 92 K, 5-1 record, 2.34 ERA, 1.143 WHIP
in NL - 71 IP, 39 H, 30 BB, 89 K, 5-1 record, 1.77 ERA, 0.972 WHIP

Manny Ramirez
in AL - 365 AB, 109 H, 20 HR, 52 BB, 86 K, .299/.398/.529
in NL - 187 AB, 74 H, 17 HR, 35 BB, 38 K, .396/.489/.743
To be fair, with regards to C.C., if you look at his last 14 starts in the AL, he was absolutely fabulous.

the1tab
12-05-2008, 08:50 AM
Best argument for the AL being stronger than the NL: Ted Lilly won 17 last year.

But while we can argue until May about how much better the American League is than the National League, the White Sox have the resources and an opportunity before them. Jake Peavy is an elite pitcher, whether it's American or National. He isn't Johan or CC, but he's next in line when it comes to quality on the mound.

To say that just because he played on a bad team in a weak division that he wouldn't come to Chicago and make an impact is absurd. I never said he would have a Clemens-like 2.00 ERA, but he could certainly win 17-20 with a low- to mid-4's ERA if the Sox bullpen and offense do what they're capable of.

CashMan
12-05-2008, 08:59 AM
Best argument for the AL being stronger than the NL: Ted Lilly won 17 last year.

But while we can argue until May about how much better the American League is than the National League, the White Sox have the resources and an opportunity before them. Jake Peavy is an elite pitcher, whether it's American or National. He isn't Johan or CC, but he's next in line when it comes to quality on the mound.

To say that just because he played on a bad team in a weak division that he wouldn't come to Chicago and make an impact is absurd. I never said he would have a Clemens-like 2.00 ERA, but he could certainly win 17-20 with a low- to mid-4's ERA if the Sox bullpen and offense do what they're capable of.


He was 10-11 in a weak NL, and you think he can win 17 games in the AL?

champagne030
12-05-2008, 09:04 AM
the White Sox have the resources and an opportunity before them.

The White Sox don't have the minor league pieces to pull off a trade for Peavy.

the1tab
12-05-2008, 09:06 AM
He was 10-11 in a weak NL, and you think he can win 17 games in the AL?

He was 10-11 for a team that had Hellen Keller in middle relief and an army of Gary Coleman's playing behind him. The 2008 Padres were Adrian Gonzalez from not scoring 100 runs all season.

If he has a good bullpen, and an offense that gives him anything, he could win 17 in the AL. Yes. I do believe that absolutely.

Based on their abilities and their production in the National League, if Gavin Floyd could do for the Sox what he did last year there is NO reason Peavy couldn't win 17-20 with the same support. None.

jabrch
12-05-2008, 09:09 AM
The angels were an incredibly lucky team last year that heavily outplayed their pythagorean score.


How many baseball games has pythagorous watched?

Pythagorean score is completely worthless trash.

the1tab
12-05-2008, 09:11 AM
The White Sox don't have the minor league pieces to pull off a trade for Peavy.

Based on speculation, there are 3-5 names that keep getting bounced around as far as cornerstones in a Cubs-Peavy deal. I feel the Sox have better pieces than the Cubs in almost every spot.

Fields > Vitters
Getz < Fontenot
Poreda > Marshall, Hart, Veal, etc
BA > Pie

Looks to me like the Sox have the ability to part with three pieces that are better than the rumored names the Padres are willing to accept from the Cubs. Throw in Marquez or Broadway and that might get it down. If the piece the Padres "need" for a Cubs deal to happen is Garrett Olson, Marquez has been ranked in the same class as Olson.

Taliesinrk
12-05-2008, 09:12 AM
How many baseball games has pythagorous watched?

Pythagorean score is completely worthless trash.

I didn't even know Shaq was a baseball fan

jabrch
12-05-2008, 09:15 AM
You're probably right, but with what has transpired over the last two days, the Sox are a perfect fit. They have tons of prospects to trade, and now DESPARATELY need a good starter.


We are not a perfect fit since Jake has listed teams he'd waive his NTC to go to, and we are nowhere to be found on that list.

jabrch
12-05-2008, 09:17 AM
Fields > Vitters
Getz < Fontenot
Poreda > Marshall, Hart, Veal, etc
BA > Pie


Fields is not better than Vitters as far as prospects go. Vitters projects to be a much more complete player than Fields.

Poreda is not ahead of Marshall, who can contribute today in the back of a rotation.

And BA is not better than Pie. I'd call them both a wash as neither looks like they will ever be able to hold down an every day job in this game.

Taliesinrk
12-05-2008, 09:21 AM
Fields is not better than Vitters as far as prospects go. Vitters projects to be a much more complete player than Fields.

Poreda is not ahead of Marshall, who can contribute today in the back of a rotation.

And BA is not better than Pie. I'd call them both a wash as neither looks like they will ever be able to hold down an every day job in this game.

I disagree. I think while Marshall may be able to contribute NOW, Poreda isn't far off (if at all), and is more desirable. Further, BA would start on a few teams, and I'm sure a team with a CF like SDs wouldn't mind solid defense there.

the1tab
12-05-2008, 09:24 AM
Fields is not better than Vitters as far as prospects go. Vitters projects to be a much more complete player than Fields.

Poreda is not ahead of Marshall, who can contribute today in the back of a rotation.

And BA is not better than Pie. I'd call them both a wash as neither looks like they will ever be able to hold down an every day job in this game.

I'll back up my comparisons better:

Vitters might project to being more complete than Fields, but Fields could likely play for the Padres in 2009. Vitters maybe not until 2011.

Marshall might fill the back of the Padres rotation now, but he'll be set for arbitration in a year. If I back up to the statement I made about adding a Broadway or Marquez, that pitcher would be the one aimed at the back of the Padres rotation in late '09-2010 where Marshall would fit in.

Poreda might replace Trevor Hoffman in 2009.

And BA might end up being a break-even w/ Pie, you're right. Tricky thing w/ Pie is that he's out of minor league options and he's played all of what? 60 major league games? The tie-breaker between BA and Pie is experience (albeit that isn't saying much).

kittle42
12-05-2008, 09:35 AM
Further, BA would start on a few team

Yes, in the International League.

jabrch
12-05-2008, 09:39 AM
Vitters might project to being more complete than Fields, but Fields could likely play for the Padres in 2009. Vitters maybe not until 2011.

That's 100% true.

Marshall might fill the back of the Padres rotation now, but he'll be set for arbitration in a year. If I back up to the statement I made about adding a Broadway or Marquez, that pitcher would be the one aimed at the back of the Padres rotation in late '09-2010 where Marshall would fit in.

None of those guys are as good of pitchers as Marshall. They may be cheaper - and that may be what SD wants - but none are better.

Poreda might replace Trevor Hoffman in 2009.

That's true - he might. But the % likelihood of that happening is relatively low. And the odds of it happening, and of Poreda being prepared to do it, and of doing it at a level above what someone they already have in house, is fairly low.

And BA might end up being a break-even w/ Pie, you're right. Tricky thing w/ Pie is that he's out of minor league options and he's played all of what? 60 major league games? The tie-breaker between BA and Pie is experience (albeit that isn't saying much).

Both are out of options - so that's a wash. I hear ya - but this is like splitting hairs off of a fly's behind. I don't thing either of them would be able to put up MLB average CF numbers in Petco. Heck, either might be the worst offensive everyday CF in Petco. Both play solid D, but not enough to recover from currently not being adequate hitters.

jabrch
12-05-2008, 09:45 AM
I disagree. I think while Marshall may be able to contribute NOW, Poreda isn't far off (if at all), and is more desirable. Further, BA would start on a few teams, and I'm sure a team with a CF like SDs wouldn't mind solid defense there.

Marshall is a SP. Poreda, at this time, is not projecting to be a SP. If he gets 2 more pitches (at least 1) then maybe - until then - he's not.

I can't name many teams where BA would start. And I can't say he'd start over Pie either. But if you are starting guys like that, you are in trouble.

Pie/BA won't make or break this deal anyhow. The Pads need to get at least one TOP TIER prospect. Vitters is that. We don't have a Vitters.

And...again...

Jake is willing to waive his NTC to be a Cub. He is not willing (at this point) to do it to join our club. The discussion, while interesting, is moot.


http://sk1.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/38fe5d4bd483fb42 (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S020qUTDlJFT8AxKWJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBpdnJhMHU zBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNzcgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=1hefv9ns7/EXP=1228578324/**http%3A//images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3Fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo .com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fp%253DJesse%252BJac kson%252BMoot%2526fr%253Dyfp-t-501%2526ei%253Dutf-8%2526x%253Dwrt%26w=186%26h=242%26imgurl=www.johnn ygoodtimes.com%252Farchives%252Fjesse.jackson.ap.j pg%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.johnnygoodtimes.c om%252Farchives%252F000782.shtml%26size=12.3kB%26n ame=jesse.jackson.ap.jpg%26p=Jesse%2BJackson%2BMoo t%26type=JPG%26oid=38fe5d4bd483fb42%26no=1%26tt=1% 26sigr=11km13l6a%26sigi=11l9925h2%26sigb=12ti3l409 ) "The question is moot. I get the car!"

doublem23
12-05-2008, 10:04 AM
How many baseball games has pythagorous watched?

Pythagorean score is completely worthless trash.

No it's not.

jabrch
12-05-2008, 10:21 AM
No it's not.

The concept that a team should win a certain number of games based on runs allowed and runs scored and that anything outside of that is "luck" is just sillyness. It's not luck - it is directly related to a team being consistent or inconsistent. A team is not UNLUCKY if they are prone to big games and small games - it is a result of their play. That's not luck. Pythag. wins makes a nonsensical assumption about something ridiculous like luck.

WORTHLESS.

It is a backwards looking measure of how "lucky" a team was. What's that worth?

doublem23
12-05-2008, 10:33 AM
The concept that a team should win a certain number of games based on runs allowed and runs scored and that anything outside of that is "luck" is just sillyness. It's not luck - it is directly related to a team being consistent or inconsistent. A team is not UNLUCKY if they are prone to big games and small games - it is a result of their play. That's not luck. Pythag. wins makes a nonsensical assumption about something ridiculous like luck.

WORTHLESS.

It is a backwards looking measure of how "lucky" a team was. What's that worth?

:scratch:

It's still a human game, so there's tons of luck involved in baseball. The notion that teams win or lose games based only on their skill is what is ridiculous, IMO.

esbrechtel
12-05-2008, 11:04 AM
Sometimes you are lucky that the fly ball you just hit caught the wind and is a HR...sometimes you are not so lucky and the HR ball you just hit is a fly out...

Luck is involved whether anyone wants to admit it or not. However good players can "make their own luck" in some cases...

doublem23
12-05-2008, 11:14 AM
Sometimes you are lucky that the fly ball you just hit caught the wind and is a HR...sometimes you are not so lucky and the HR ball you just hit is a fly out...

Luck is involved whether anyone wants to admit it or not. However good players can "make their own luck" in some cases...

I agree. I don't think it's revolutionary to think that over the long haul, teams that have the widest gap between the runs they score and the runs they allow are generally the better teams. I don't think Pythagorem W-L is a tell all stat that undeniably ranks teams correctly all the time, but it is a handy way to see if a team's record truly is the product of their play or the product of a few lucky (or unlucky) bounces.

A good example would have been this year's Angels/Red Sox ALDS. Yeah, the Angels won 100 games this season, but if you looked at their expected W/L records, LA won won 12 more games than expected (!). In fact, over the course of the season, the Red Sox score more runs than LAA and allowed fewer, so while their records might indicate it was a bit of an usept when the Sawx beat the Angels, in reality, Boston was just probably a better team and should have advanced.

the1tab
12-05-2008, 11:15 AM
Using the argument that some players and teams are lucky while others aren't let me ask the mathematicians in our midst this hypothetical question:

Ryne Sandberg didn't commit an error in what seemed like a decade. Critics will say he limited his range, rarely trying to make an impossible play but consistently playing flawless defense on reachable balls.

Jim Edmonds has how many Gold Gloves? He has spectacular range, and will, on occassion, give up a deep fly ball because he plays a shallow CF. He gambles on the side of the special play, not the conservative.

Is a team with Sandberg's 1.000 fielding % more or less lucky than one with Edmonds' .988?

There are hundreds of factors that go into playing baseball. The wind, the rain, the heat, the travel...

THEY'RE ALL EXCUSES.

The beauty of real, true sports is that there is a winner and a loser (thank you, hockey, for joining us). To say a team should or shouldn't have done something after the fact, to me, is garbage. Reality is in the print: W's and L's. For some that are "lucky" enough, it's in jewelry.

"Luck is preparation meeting opportunity." Champions don't wait for a theorem to prove them good; they win despite excuses.

skottyj242
12-05-2008, 11:20 AM
Yep. The cubs and Angels fattened up their records by playing in ****ty divisions.


The NL Central sent two teams to the playoffs this year. The Astros were pretty good for a bit as were the Cardinals. I wouldn't want to have to play Cincy and face Arroyo and Volquez either. So your logic is flawed.

the1tab
12-05-2008, 11:23 AM
A good example would have been this year's Angels/Red Sox ALDS. Yeah, the Angels won 100 games this season, but if you looked at their expected W/L records, LA won won 12 more games than expected (!). In fact, over the course of the season, the Red Sox score more runs than LAA and allowed fewer, so while their records might indicate it was a bit of an usept when the Sawx beat the Angels, in reality, Boston was just probably a better team and should have advanced.

The pause I have in making run differential to determine a should've-could've theoretical won-loss total is that there is another factor to consider: the junk games.

How often a year do the good teams like Boston or the Angels get up 6-7 runs (or more) on a team and either the hitters put it in neutral out of sportsmanship or the manager puts in the last guy in their bullpen for a couple innings to get some work in a blowout because they don't care if he gives a couple up here and there?

I'm more impressed with teams that have a closer run differential and bigger win total that a team that outscores their opponent by 100 runs over the course of a season and can't win a close game (2007, 2008 Cubs). But to assume a winner based on numbers that have 5 months worth of variables is nothing but hyporbole. The final tally of Ws and Ls is all I need.

If you bring home the hardware, you're good. Everyone else didn't measure up to the standard you set. Period.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 11:26 AM
The beauty of real, true sports is that there is a winner and a loser (thank you, hockey, for joining us). To say a team should or shouldn't have done something after the fact, to me, is garbage. Reality is in the print: W's and L's. For some that are "lucky" enough, it's in jewelry.

"Luck is preparation meeting opportunity." Champions don't wait for a theorem to prove them good; they win despite excuses.

My goodness, do you guys even read what anyone writes about Expected W-L? No one argues it is ultimately more important than actual wins and losses, it is a statistical tool that's useful if you can get beyond an elementary understanding of the game.

Baseball games are single, volitale events. Even 3 or 4 game series are pretty much random and statistically unpredictable. But over the course of a 6-month season, you can spot clear trends. Expected W/L is a nice way to clear through the total chaotic randonmess that is a 9-inning baseball game.

I really don't understand why this is such a touchy subject; even the best teams get unlucky sometimes and the worst teams get lucky. To just shrug off luck like it doesn't exist is to bury your head in the sand, IMO.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 11:31 AM
The NL Central sent two teams to the playoffs this year. The Astros were pretty good for a bit as were the Cardinals. I wouldn't want to have to play Cincy and face Arroyo and Volquez either. So your logic is flawed.

You're talking about the Bronson Arroyo who had an ERA of 4.77 and a WHIP of 1.435, right? No mention, of course, the other 60% of their games when the Reds would trot out Johnny Cueto, Aaron Harang, Josh Fogg, Homer Bailey, Matt Belisle, Ramon Ramirez, Daryl Thompson, or Adam Pettyjohn.

The Reds were a joke this year.

the1tab
12-05-2008, 11:35 AM
Doublem: I'm in no way intending on throwing you under the bus. This has turned into a moneyball argument between the old school "feel" of baseball and the new school "science" of the game. I appreciate that thru statistics trends develop and can be identified to improve the experience and expectations of the game. It's good to know that Ryan Howard can't hit a curveball or that Alfonso Soriano swings at the first pitch 99.9% of the time. That's all. I'm not burying my head in the sand by any means. I guess I'm just not quite a guy for expectations to be centered around a formula to tell you who should win.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 11:43 AM
Doublem: I'm in no way intending on throwing you under the bus. This has turned into a moneyball argument between the old school "feel" of baseball and the new school "science" of the game. I appreciate that thru statistics trends develop and can be identified to improve the experience and expectations of the game. It's good to know that Ryan Howard can't hit a curveball or that Alfonso Soriano swings at the first pitch 99.9% of the time. That's all. I'm not burying my head in the sand by any means. I guess I'm just not quite a guy for expectations to be centered around a formula to tell you who should win.

Hey, that's what's fun about debate. Of course, I'd much rather win the actual World Series than the "Pythagoreum World Series," I just don't think you need to subscribe too much into the "new wave" of baseball thinking to conclude that what Expected W/L measures is legitmate. If you want to trash some of the more ridiculous stats out there, like VORP, go right ahead, I'll be the first to agree with you that anyone who actually puts any stock into someone's VORP is a complete idiot.

1/2 the reason I love baseball so much are the statistics. Of course I love sitting in the bleachers on a sunny day, but when that's gone, there's just an insane amount of information available to try and decipher. It's the greatest game, IMO, because there's so much more going on than just what's happening between the white lines.

Gammons Peter
12-05-2008, 11:50 AM
Toss in Konerko or Dye with some of these prospects.


They dont want old expensive players....thats why they are trying to trade Peavy

the1tab
12-05-2008, 11:51 AM
Hey, that's what's fun about debate. Of course, I'd much rather win the actual World Series than the "Pythagoreum World Series," I just don't think you need to subscribe too much into the "new wave" of baseball thinking to conclude that what Expected W/L measures is legitmate. If you want to trash some of the more ridiculous stats out there, like VORP, go right ahead, I'll be the first to agree with you that anyone who actually puts any stock into someone's VORP is a complete idiot.

1/2 the reason I love baseball so much are the statistics. Of course I love sitting in the bleachers on a sunny day, but when that's gone, there's just an insane amount of information available to try and decipher. It's the greatest game, IMO, because there's so much more going on than just what's happening between the white lines.

Agreed.

So are you on board w/ a trade for Peavy? Where do you fall in that discussion? LOL

skottyj242
12-05-2008, 12:08 PM
I'm more impressed with teams that have a closer run differential and bigger win total that a team that outscores their opponent by 100 runs over the course of a season and can't win a close game (2007, 2008 Cubs). But to assume a winner based on numbers that have 5 months worth of variables is nothing but hyporbole. The final tally of Ws and Ls is all I need.

.


The Cubs were 24-22 in one run games in 2008 and 23-22 in 2007. Just sayin.

skottyj242
12-05-2008, 12:11 PM
You're talking about the Bronson Arroyo who had an ERA of 4.77 and a WHIP of 1.435, right? No mention, of course, the other 60% of their games when the Reds would trot out Johnny Cueto, Aaron Harang, Josh Fogg, Homer Bailey, Matt Belisle, Ramon Ramirez, Daryl Thompson, or Adam Pettyjohn.

The Reds were a joke this year.

I never said they were good. I said they have two tough pitchers. (Arroyo isn't that good, I've always liked him though so I think he's good.) I wouldn't want to have to face Volquez at all. Oh but wait he sucks because he pitches in the NL. He would have a 17.59 ERA in the uber superior AL.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 12:43 PM
I never said they were good. I said they have two tough pitchers. (Arroyo isn't that good, I've always liked him though so I think he's good.) I wouldn't want to have to face Volquez at all. Oh but wait he sucks because he pitches in the NL. He would have a 17.59 ERA in the uber superior AL.

I like Arroyo, too, but yeah he was terrible this season. I agree with the fundamentals of this post, but Volquez's ERA in the AL would be closer to 30, IMO. :cool:

champagne030
12-05-2008, 01:06 PM
I wouldn't want to have to face Volquez at all. Oh but wait he sucks because he pitches in the NL. He would have a 17.59 ERA in the uber superior AL.

His career ERA in the AL is 6.94. :redneck

jabrch
12-05-2008, 02:09 PM
My problem with Pythag wins is that it is backwards looking, and trys to explain actual results as luck or a lack of luck. I don't think that over 162 games teams win or lose more or less due to luck. I think that stuff averages itself out in a sample size like this. I don't think you can project an expected number of wins from runs scored and runs allowed if you are insistent on saying anything outside of your formula is the result of luck.

To me, that's the creation of a bull**** variable (luck) to explain a real result set. If I want to measure the results of a baseball season in hindsight, in a manner that is not worthless, there are lots of ways to do it that I find more descriptive of what happened, other than Pythag Wins which aggregates the billions of combinations or permutations of events that happen in 162 games. In fact, I think the components to Pythag Wins, Rs and Ra are much better ways to discuss a season than is squaring them and dividing them by themselves to create an expected winning %.

If I am going to look backward at results - I'd rather look at real results and raw statistical results than an aggregated bull**** "statistic" that is only used to explain "luck".

jabrch
12-05-2008, 02:11 PM
1/2 the reason I love baseball so much are the statistics.

me too - as long as we talk about real statistics that measure something.

Pythagorean Wins are not a statistic. It is the result of a mathematical gyration to real statistics that results only in the explanation that, "anything else, outside of this, is luck". That's not a statistic.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 03:50 PM
If you really don't believe luck exists in baseball then we just have to agree to disagree, but the difference between a deep HR and harmless pop up on the infield is only a few millimeters on the bat.

Over the long run, a season, or a career, skill will always rise to the top, but in short time frames, such as an at-bat, a game, or even a week; the likelihood that other variables (i.e. luck) will have significant results is far greater.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 03:50 PM
me too - as long as we talk about real statistics that measure something.

Runs scored vs. runs allowed is a made up stat that doesn't measure anything?

That's the most basic concept in baseball; to score more runs than you give up.

btrain929
12-05-2008, 05:14 PM
If you really don't believe luck exists in baseball then we just have to agree to disagree, but the difference between a deep HR and harmless pop up on the infield is only a few millimeters on the bat.

Joe Crede = unluckiest man in baseball. :D:

jabrch
12-05-2008, 08:31 PM
Runs scored vs. runs allowed is a made up stat that doesn't measure anything?

That's the most basic concept in baseball; to score more runs than you give up.

Pythagoreans Wins is not Rs-Ra. Not close. That's run differential. Specifically, tell me what Pythag Wins measures... Expected wins? *** is an expected win?

It's bull**** and it is worthless.

jabrch
12-05-2008, 08:35 PM
If you really don't believe luck exists in baseball then we just have to agree to disagree,

I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. I said luck exists in the millions and millions of permutaions and combinations that happen in a game.

but the difference between a deep HR and harmless pop up on the infield is only a few millimeters on the bat.

And if you think the difference between a HR and an out can only be explained by luck, then we have to agree to disagree. I think SKILL plays into it much more than luck. And I think the luck piece is completely neutralized by a ~7000 PA sample size that a team has over the course of a season.

Over the long run, a season, or a career, skill will always rise to the top, but in short time frames, such as an at-bat, a game, or even a week; the likelihood that other variables (i.e. luck) will have significant results is far greater.

I agree 100%. But Pythag Wins says that the gap between expected wins and wins = luck. That's assinine horse****.