PDA

View Full Version : Lastings Milledge PECOTA projections


SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 08:04 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?PHPSESSID=f796d29b84461d225fc73a9163fb1492

Interesting discussion over at BaseballProspectus.com. Nate Silver pleads with Mets GM Minaya to not trade Milledge to Oakand for SP Joe Blanton. Milledge has also been linked to some White Sox trade rumors involving Javier Vazquez.

Anyway, BP has released Milledge's PECOTA projections. I would love to see what PECOTA would say about Milledge playing at USCF.

Here’s what PECOTA sees for the next five seasons:

BA/OBP/SLG/VORP
2007: .284 /.356/.457/24.5; 2008: .287/.361/.467/27.6; 2009: .288/.365/.472/30.0; 2010: .290/.371/.480/33.2; 2011: .287/.368/.477/30.6

Daver
01-01-2007, 08:24 PM
More propellerhead crap that has no known basis in fact.

itsnotrequired
01-01-2007, 08:28 PM
More propellerhead crap that has no known basis in fact.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5609

PECOTA numbers from last year were comparable to Vegas odds.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 10:05 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5609

PECOTA numbers from last year were comparable to Vegas odds.

PECOTA's picking of the year end win totals is "comparable" by some set of standards that I am not sure of to the Vegas over/under. (what % accuracy did the have? I didn't see it in the article.) I imagine "Expert" picks would be within that "comparable" range, as well as would the combined WSI picks if done as an aggregate of all the picks.

Now PECOTA's individual individual player picks deviate much further from expectations than do their team picks because individual players performance varies much more from year to year than does a team's aggregated performance.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 10:10 PM
More propellerhead crap that has no known basis in fact.

If you don't like statistical analysis and projections, then why bother posting your trademark insults? Move on to the subjects that interest you.

Frater Perdurabo
01-01-2007, 10:16 PM
Is this where BabyFisk posts a picture of a dalek and types the words "observing silently" underneath the picture?

DaleJRFan
01-01-2007, 10:19 PM
PECOTA also projects Thome to hit.. what... 260?? And Konerko 280?

PECOTA = L A M E

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 10:21 PM
PECOTA also projects Thome to hit.. what... 260?? And Konerko 280?

PECOTA = L A M E

I haven't seen all the White Sox PECOTA projections. Can you provide a link? [It is my understanding that the PECOTA projections are fully releases with the Baseball Prospectus annual edition, which come out in mid-Feb.]

In any event, PECOTA was spot-on last year in forecasting the underperfomance of the White Sox starting staff.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 10:23 PM
I haven't seen all the White Sox PECOTA projections. Can you provide a link? [It is my understanding that the PECOTA projections are fully releases with the Baseball Prospectus annual edition, which come out in mid-Feb.]

In any event, PECOTA was spot-on last year in forecasting the underperfomance of the White Sox starting staff.

And they were nowhere close to predicting them to perform as they have in 2005.

ilsox7
01-01-2007, 10:25 PM
And they were nowhere close to predicting them to perform as they have in 2005.

You need to remember that you are supposed to ignore the times when PECOTA is not accurate. Therefore, it is always accurate.

DaleJRFan
01-01-2007, 10:26 PM
If you don't like statistical analysis and projections, then why bother posting your trademark insults? Move on to the subjects that interest you.

Maybe you should consider that Daver does find interest in the subject matter, that statistical projections such as PECOTA are baseless, historically completely innacurate and a waste of time.

The only reason I visit MLBTradeRumors.com is to read his comical projections and the links to PECOTA projections. PECOTA actually projects Thome to retire after 2007.

SABRSox
01-01-2007, 10:28 PM
In any event, PECOTA was spot-on last year in forecasting the underperfomance of the White Sox starting staff.

It didn't take a genius to see that the White Sox starters threw too many innings in 2005. And that's okay, because, you know, they won the World Series. Anyway, I think we all knew that our pitchers were going to not perform at their 2005 levels. It wasn't humanly possible, and we didn't need PECOTA to tell us that.

Again, let me state, PECOTA is worthless. Sabermetrics are best used to provide a statistical, historical context, and should have very little to do with predicting the future, especially individual player performance.

Daver
01-01-2007, 10:29 PM
If you don't like statistical analysis and projections, then why bother posting your trademark insults? Move on to the subjects that interest you.

Disspelling propellerhead myths interests me.

I have never trademarked an insult, so what are you trying to say?

jabrch
01-01-2007, 11:00 PM
It didn't take a genius to see that the White Sox starters threw too many innings in 2005. And that's okay, because, you know, they won the World Series. Anyway, I think we all knew that our pitchers were going to not perform at their 2005 levels. It wasn't humanly possible, and we didn't need PECOTA to tell us that.

Again, let me state, PECOTA is worthless. Sabermetrics are best used to provide a statistical, historical context, and should have very little to do with predicting the future, especially individual player performance.


You are on my short list of favorite stat-heads!

I love stats - when used correctly. They tell you what happened. Some stats can tell you at a very macro level, others at a very micro level. The key is to understand the context of an individual statistic and what it means in the course of the actual game and the actual processes that are natural to the game. (roster management, salary, performance variations, etc.)

In the case of sports, they are of only nominal use for projections; and of tremendous use for historical review.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 11:11 PM
Disspelling propellerhead myths interests me.

I have never trademarked an insult, so what are you trying to say?


I went back to check who first used that term (propeller-head) on WSI and whom specifically they were referring to.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7335&highlight=propeller

Unless my use of the search feature is poor, Ode to Veck first coined that term here. I'm not quite sure who he was talking about at the time.

FedEx227
01-01-2007, 11:38 PM
You are on my short list of favorite stat-heads!

I love stats - when used correctly. They tell you what happened. Some stats can tell you at a very macro level, others at a very micro level. The key is to understand the context of an individual statistic and what it means in the course of the actual game and the actual processes that are natural to the game. (roster management, salary, performance variations, etc.)

In the case of sports, they are of only nominal use for projections; and of tremendous use for historical review.

I'm a huge stat guy, I've read all the BP books, get Bill James Handbook regularly, but I no doubt agree that it's impossible to predict. Even in the James Handbook he shows 15 instances of almost spot-on projections from last year, then about 30 completely off ones just to show its impossible to project.

I've never been a big fan of PECOTA because frankly I don't think you can predict a hot streak, injuries, extended playing time, new roles, etc. Stats should be used to analyze the past not predict the future.

DSpivack
01-01-2007, 11:40 PM
Disspelling propellerhead myths interests me.

I have never trademarked an insult, so what are you trying to say?

But think of the royalties involved!

Domeshot17
01-01-2007, 11:42 PM
Question

that half homerun they project Milledge to hit, shouldnt that have just been put down as a double?

this is why I hate over use of stats. I like some of the indepth stats, I was a huge fan of WHIP when it started getting used more, but players cant hit half a home run.

Im a fan of the one stat that matters, the number under the W column

Daver
01-01-2007, 11:43 PM
But think of the royalties involved!

How will that rank against what I get paid to mod this forum?

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-02-2007, 12:46 AM
Again, let me state, PECOTA is worthless. Sabermetrics are best used to provide a statistical, historical context, and should have very little to do with predicting the future, especially individual player performance.

Your opinion is interesting, but not the last word.

The reason I put the Milledge PECOTA projection up there is because he has been linked in trade rumors to the White Sox. I thought his PECOTA projections would make for interesting discussion fodder, given our dire need for a decent LF.

jabrch
01-02-2007, 01:07 AM
given our dire need for a decent LF.

You have a dire need for a decent LF. I think LF is an organizational strength with Pods now, then BA/Sweeney and possibly Fields (if Crede re-signs) coming up.

spiffie
01-02-2007, 11:53 AM
PECOTA is about as useful as just taking a career average, bumping it up a bit for young players and dropping it down a bit for old players. At that point you'll get close to enough players to be able to talk about it next year, since very rarely will a player completely collapse or totally break out and wildly exceed career norms.

And we don't need any OF, we have Podsednik. Why would you want to trade a former all-star and prototypical lead-off man for a guy who is still nothing but potential and from reports on him seems to be a head case. No thanks. If Kenny decides that Milledge can be harnessed and has true potential to be a star, then of course I would back him, but since he hasn't made that trade yet, I would not be in favor of it.

SABRSox
01-02-2007, 12:16 PM
And we don't need any OF, we have Podsednik. Why would you want to trade a former all-star and prototypical lead-off man for a guy who is still nothing but potential and from reports on him seems to be a head case.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The only reason Podsednik is a former all-star is because of the White Sox Army.

spiffie
01-02-2007, 01:14 PM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The only reason Podsednik is a former all-star is because of the White Sox Army.
As opposed to the other all-stars who make it by fan voting?

Scott Podsednik was the dictionary definition of a leadoff man in 2005. If you were creating the perfect team you would want a bunting, fast-running, base-stealing singles hitter in the leadoff spot, since getting on base is able to cause havoc that reverberates through the lineup in a way that even a leadoff HR really can't. Scott Podsednik on first base, due to the psychological impact on the pitcher-catcher battery, and the ensuing defensive shifts and alteration of pitch selection, inevitably leads to a greater run-scoring effect than it would be even if he were to get a leadoff double, triple, or home run. Those might help the Sox get one run. Podsednik on first base can lead to 4 or more runs due to the complete paradigm shift in the game, as once the pitcher has been rattled due to Podsednik's base-stealing threat, the impact can last far beyond after he has crossed the plate. Hence the totally deserved and completely legitimate bestowing of AL All-Star status on Scott Podsednik.

the gooch
01-02-2007, 02:41 PM
As opposed to the other all-stars who make it by fan voting?

Scott Podsednik was the dictionary definition of a leadoff man in 2005. If you were creating the perfect team you would want a bunting, fast-running, base-stealing singles hitter in the leadoff spot, since getting on base is able to cause havoc that reverberates through the lineup in a way that even a leadoff HR really can't. Scott Podsednik on first base, due to the psychological impact on the pitcher-catcher battery, and the ensuing defensive shifts and alteration of pitch selection, inevitably leads to a greater run-scoring effect than it would be even if he were to get a leadoff double, triple, or home run. Those might help the Sox get one run. Podsednik on first base can lead to 4 or more runs due to the complete paradigm shift in the game, as once the pitcher has been rattled due to Podsednik's base-stealing threat, the impact can last far beyond after he has crossed the plate. Hence the totally deserved and completely legitimate bestowing of AL All-Star status on Scott Podsednik.
no.

Show me a baseball simulation where 0 outs with 1 run already across the plate is not better than 0 outs with a runner on first. You say it CAN lead to more runs, but it goes back to that saying about one in the hand vs two in the bush.

Pitchers with a mindset as fragile as you suggest don't make it to the major leagues (exception: Zambrano).

I agree with you about Podsednik being worthy of going to the All-Star Game in '05, but mostly because All-Star teams are full of the same type of hitters (3-4-5 hitters) and teams would be better with variety. Even the All-Star laden Yankees use leadoff hitters (and probably even pinch runners).

Edit: I propose the 2007 32nd man vote for the last all-star spot be determined by who can eat the most dirt in 10 minutes.

spiffie
01-02-2007, 04:11 PM
no.

Show me a baseball simulation where 0 outs with 1 run already across the plate is not better than 0 outs with a runner on first. You say it CAN lead to more runs, but it goes back to that saying about one in the hand vs two in the bush.

Pitchers with a mindset as fragile as you suggest don't make it to the major leagues (exception: Zambrano).

I agree with you about Podsednik being worthy of going to the All-Star Game in '05, but mostly because All-Star teams are full of the same type of hitters (3-4-5 hitters) and teams would be better with variety. Even the All-Star laden Yankees use leadoff hitters (and probably even pinch runners).

Edit: I propose the 2007 32nd man vote for the last all-star spot be determined by who can eat the most dirt in 10 minutes.
I don't need no stinking simulator! I saw the 2005 WHITE SOX! They showed it more effectively than 1,000 computers ever could. That's why the game is on the field.

And if you need more proof of that, ask ondafarm. This is a guy who played catcher in professional baseball, and HE says that it rattles a pitcher. I'll take his opinion, someone who wore the uniform, over everyone combined who has ever analyzed a game without being able to play it at a high level.

the gooch
01-02-2007, 04:52 PM
I don't need no stinking simulator! I saw the 2005 WHITE SOX! They showed it more effectively than 1,000 computers ever could. That's why the game is on the field.

And if you need more proof of that, ask ondafarm. This is a guy who played catcher in professional baseball, and HE says that it rattles a pitcher. I'll take his opinion, someone who wore the uniform, over everyone combined who has ever analyzed a game without being able to play it at a high level.
Remove: simulator
Replace with: situation
Sorry, the thread got to me.
Back to the more important point:

I don't want to put words into your mouth so just tell me if this really is what you believe:
1. Hitting for the cycle (or four singles if you prefer) helps your team more than hitting four home runs as long as you are a fast runner/good basestealer.
2. Zero outs, fast runner on first, no score is better than zero outs, bases empty, leading by one run.

spiffie
01-02-2007, 05:08 PM
Remove: simulator
Replace with: situation
Sorry, the thread got to me.
Back to the more important point:

I don't want to put words into your mouth so just tell me if this really is what you believe:
1. Hitting for the cycle (or four singles if you prefer) helps your team more than hitting four home runs as long as you are a fast runner/good basestealer.
2. Zero outs, fast runner on first, no score is better than zero outs, bases empty, leading by one run.
As with all things you cannot apply one simple answer to a complex, dynamic situation such as baseball. You create drastic extremes, especially in your first situation, which do not properly consider the varied nuances of baseball. Perhaps we can create some examples which more accurately depict the situation.

1. Which would I rather have, a fast base-stealer on first, or a slow plodding runner on second base with no outs and power hitters coming up behind? In that case, the former. The power hitter is going to see almost all fastballs, the pitcher is going to be distracted by the man on first. The likelihood of scoring two runs, and the attendant impact on the opposing team due to that scoring, would seem to be much greater than the odds of punching home more than the one run with the plodder.

2. Team is down by two runs in the ninth. Which would I rather have, my speedy leadoff man getting on with a single, or a solo HR, if I have power guys in the lineup behind? In that case, probably the fast guy. His presence greatly enhances the chance of a pitcher being rattled into throwing a pitch that can be crushed for a multi-run homer.

Obviously I would much prefer if my leadoff hitter were able to hit 4 HR every game. But considering the unlikeliness of such an event, that sort of hypothetical is pointless. In your second scenario, I would prefer the fast runner. He brings a much greater range of possibilities that can impact the entire flow of the game much more than a solo home run can. I'm sure the WSI minds will agree with me on this one. The benefits of the speedster on base stretch far beyond what can be quantified on the scoreboard at any single moment in a game.

jabrch
01-02-2007, 05:29 PM
Show me a baseball simulation

In baseball Simulations, the Cubs win the Simulated World Series every year with their great simulated pitching.

The real game works very differently than your desired simulation. Give me the run and the out over the guy on 1st with nobody out nearly every time. Unless you are down a lot of runs, you are better off putting runs on the board when you can.

jabrch
01-02-2007, 05:34 PM
I don't want to put words into your mouth so just tell me if this really is what you believe:
1. Hitting for the cycle (or four singles if you prefer) helps your team more than hitting four home runs as long as you are a fast runner/good basestealer.
2. Zero outs, fast runner on first, no score is better than zero outs, bases empty, leading by one run.

1) But if you have a guy likely to hit 4 HRs, you shouldn't be leading him off. You are taking baseball games and running them through out simulator, or your situationor or whatever you want to call it, rather than talking about real baseball examples. Everyone knows a HR is better than a single. But that's not the option. The quesiton is what do you get for (in 2005) 700K to play LF, or if you'd have spent more, then what player would you have not spent it on.

2) Equally bad arguement. As if you had the choice, you'd take the HR. But that's not what's being discussed here. It is an unrealistic option to propose Pods or a guy who'd hit 4 HRs.

JorgeFabregas
01-02-2007, 05:46 PM
I remember when this site was in a tizzy about PECOTA projecting Joe Mauer to be the league MVP before last year. Then Mauer went and had a breakout, MVP-type season.

Not saying that proves anything. Just one example. It amused me, though, because I was surprised at how well Mauer did.

the gooch
01-02-2007, 05:51 PM
As with all things you cannot apply one simple answer to a complex, dynamic situation such as baseball. You create drastic extremes, especially in your first situation, which do not properly consider the varied nuances of baseball. Perhaps we can create some examples which more accurately depict the situation.

1. Which would I rather have, a fast base-stealer on first, or a slow plodding runner on second base with no outs and power hitters coming up behind? In that case, the former. The power hitter is going to see almost all fastballs, the pitcher is going to be distracted by the man on first. The likelihood of scoring two runs, and the attendant impact on the opposing team due to that scoring, would seem to be much greater than the odds of punching home more than the one run with the plodder.

2. Team is down by two runs in the ninth. Which would I rather have, my speedy leadoff man getting on with a single, or a solo HR, if I have power guys in the lineup behind? In that case, probably the fast guy. His presence greatly enhances the chance of a pitcher being rattled into throwing a pitch that can be crushed for a multi-run homer.

Obviously I would much prefer if my leadoff hitter were able to hit 4 HR every game. But considering the unlikeliness of such an event, that sort of hypothetical is pointless. In your second scenario, I would prefer the fast runner. He brings a much greater range of possibilities that can impact the entire flow of the game much more than a solo home run can. I'm sure the WSI minds will agree with me on this one. The benefits of the speedster on base stretch far beyond what can be quantified on the scoreboard at any single moment in a game.
I'll remove the drastic extremes then and address what you put:

1. If Jim Thome is up to bat, I'll take the slow guy at 2nd. Straight pull lefty still advances the guy to third with one out. Late innings you can pinch run.
I agree with you in some aspects, but probably in more of a middle innings type of situation.

2. I disagree. because if it is the 9th inning, any baserunners that aren't the tying or go-ahead run are not going to get in a pitcher's head. Having the chance at a double play hurts one's chances. Also, if a guy just went yard on the guy, wouldn't that affect the pitcher too? Now it's a 1 run game.

I would rather have bases empty, no outs, down one run against a pitcher that just gave one up rather than fast guy on first, no outs, down two runs.

What puts more pressure on a pitcher in the 9th: Two run lead with a fast runner on first,
or
you just got taken yard by the freaking leadoff guy to shrink the lead to one run and their big bopper is up next? If pitchers are so fragile like you say, wouldn't they start questioning their stuff that day? Tipping pitches? Pitchers seem to care more about what antics a player is doing while rounding the bases than the game situation sometimes.

Frater Perdurabo
01-02-2007, 05:54 PM
How will that rank against what I get paid to mod this forum?

According to my scientific calculator, at least 500 times more. Still, I don't need a calculator to multiply by zero. :redneck

Daver
01-02-2007, 05:57 PM
you just got taken yard by the freaking leadoff guy to shrink the lead to one run and their big bopper is up next? If pitchers are so fragile like you say, wouldn't they start questioning their stuff that day? Tipping pitches? Pitchers seem to care more about what antics a player is doing while rounding the bases than the game situation sometimes.

The object is to rattle the catcher moreso than the pitcher, known basestealers will make catchers alter their pitch calls, moreso when they are on second as opposed to on first. And there are a lot of pitchers that are not comfortable pitching out of the stretch as opposed to a regular wind-up, it alters their mechanics.

jabrch
01-02-2007, 06:07 PM
you just got taken yard by the freaking leadoff guy

If you are projecting any significant power from your leadoff hitter, the odds are good you have the guy hitting out of position because he could add more value hitting where people will be more likely to be on base, than to hit either leadoff, or after 8/9.

Power from your leadoff hitter is great to have - but it shouldn't be what you measure him on. If it is, and that trumps getting on base and being able to score more easy (disrupting a P/C/D, SBs or better/faster baserunning) then you should put your best hitting #1, your second best hitter #2 and so on. That's nuts.

A leadoff hitter in baseball has a job to do. Hitting HRs is nice when it happens, but it shouldn't be how you measure that guy. If it is, you've got the guy hitting in a suboptimal spot. Take a look at Jeter. They'd love to have not had him lead off ever. But before acquiring Damon, he was their best bet. But he wasn't the type of guy they wanted as a leadoff hitter. They wanted him in the heart of the order where he'd be more productive. Damon comes - Jeter moves. Simple story.

You are projecting HRs from a guy who's skill set is almost surely not centered around hitting HRs.

Example - Grady Sizemore is leading off, and hitting HRs. If anyone else could lead off to the tune of .290/.350, Sizemore would be hitting 3 or 5 where he'd be a run producer.

the gooch
01-02-2007, 06:08 PM
1) But if you have a guy likely to hit 4 HRs, you shouldn't be leading him off. I didn't say likely, and I didn't say get rid of Pods anywhere. I asked what performance would help the team win more than the other. 4 ABs is extreme, so...
Everyone knows a HR is better than a single. apparently not everybody, and that is what I tried (badly) to prove in my original post.But that's not the option. The quesiton is what do you get for (in 2005) 700K to play LF, or if you'd have spent more, then what player would you have not spent it on.I never discussed Pods specifically. I questioned Spiffie on what helps a team win more.
2) Equally bad arguement. As if you had the choice, you'd take the HR. But that's not what's being discussed here. It is an unrealistic option to propose Pods or a guy who'd hit 4 HRs.I'm not talking 4 HRs in this one. In the first I asked what would help the team more, I didn't say he would do it every damn game. It was a hyperbole, and has been thrown out.

the gooch
01-02-2007, 06:26 PM
The object is to rattle the catcher moreso than the pitcher, known basestealers will make catchers alter their pitch calls, moreso when they are on second as opposed to on first. And there are a lot of pitchers that are not comfortable pitching out of the stretch as opposed to a regular wind-up, it alters their mechanics.That's true. But is it more valuable than removing the possibility of a double-play? I guess that comes down to opinion. I've stated mine, and I am in the minority.

If you are projecting any significant power from your leadoff hitter, the odds are good you have the guy hitting out of position because he could add more value hitting where people will be more likely to be on base, than to hit either leadoff, or after 8/9.

Power from your leadoff hitter is great to have - but it shouldn't be what you measure him on. ..... [stopped reading]Dammit! I didn't want to get caught up in this. Listen. I am not projecting ****. I got blasted for using the wrong damn word earlier. I am not building a team. I am not saying someone else is better than Podsednik.

What I am saying is this:
In the situation discussed (9th inning down two runs), GETTING a home run on the first AB of an inning, in my freaking opinion, is better than a leadoff hitter getting a single/walk. I don't care who did it. I am saying I think that makes the team have a better chance of winning.

I'm sure there are people out there that can think long enough about this and come up with a different opinion. I won't say they are flat-out wrong. I stated my opinion, and it sounds like everybody disagrees with me. Life goes on. If you can convince me of more reasons why it is better, go ahead. I want to learn. Daver made a good point, but I am not convinced it outweighs the threat of a DP just yet.

Daver
01-02-2007, 06:42 PM
That's true. But is it more valuable than removing the possibility of a double-play? I guess that comes down to opinion. I've stated mine, and I am in the minority.



If your two or three hitter is seeing a steady diet of fastballs to prevent a steal, how does it increase his chance to get a meatball? You have to weigh that again the possibility of a double play. Also consider, if the runner steals second, the double play possibilty is greatly reduced. Baseball is a mental game, you have to cover all the angles.

itsnotrequired
01-02-2007, 06:48 PM
If your two or three hitter is seeing a steady diet of fastballs to prevent a steal, how does it increase his chance to get a meatball? You have to weigh that again the possibility of a double play. Also consider, if the runner steals second, the double play possibilty is greatly reduced. Baseball is a mental game, you have to cover all the angles.

The best part about PECOTA and other critical sabermetric stats is that they fully address all these issues.

the gooch
01-02-2007, 07:54 PM
If your two or three hitter is seeing a steady diet of fastballs to prevent a steal, how does it increase his chance to get a meatball? You have to weigh that again the possibility of a double play. Also consider, if the runner steals second, the double play possibilty is greatly reduced. Baseball is a mental game, you have to cover all the angles.

The best part about PECOTA and other critical sabermetric stats is that they fully address all these issues.
So what do PECOTA and other critical sabermetric stats that fully address all these issues say?

itsnotrequired
01-02-2007, 08:00 PM
So what do PECOTA and other critical sabermetric stats that fully address all these issues say?

It says we should stick to more traditional modes of analysis:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/winfieldscott/AJ.jpg

DSpivack
01-02-2007, 08:06 PM
How will that rank against what I get paid to mod this forum?

Good point. But trademarking an insult just seems like more fun. I tried adding the tab, and the calculator said no.

Daver
01-02-2007, 08:09 PM
Good point. But trademarking an insult just seems like more fun. I tried adding the tab, and the calculator said no.

Your calculator does not like negative numbers.

Mohoney
01-05-2007, 08:30 AM
Edit: I propose the 2007 32nd man vote for the last all-star spot be determined by who can eat the most dirt in 10 minutes.

Sidney Ponson just locked up an All-Star bid next year. Happy now?