Baseball Toaster Dodger Thoughts
Help
Jon Weisman's outlet
for dealing psychologically
with the Los Angeles Dodgers
and baseball.
Frozen Toast
Search
Google Search
Web
Toaster
Dodger Thoughts
Archives

2009
02  01 

2008
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2007
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2006
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2005
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2004
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2003
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2002
09  08  07 
About Jon
Thank You For Not ...

1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

We Were All Goofus
2006-11-21 22:35
by Jon Weisman
Note: The Dodger Thoughts blog has moved to the Los Angeles Times.

When Goofus signed up for his subscription to Highlights magazine, he checked off the box for the smallest term possible.

Gallant subscribed for multiple years. It meant he had to pay more up front, but it was cheaper per issue over the long haul, and it protected him against rate increases for the lengthy duration of his subscription.

Of course, Gallant didn't have to worry about Highlights having Tommy John surgery.

But given the apparent new realities of baseball's salary structure, it's possible that almost every contract with an above-replacement-value player signed before this month and carrying into or past 2007 was a gallant contract. A deal with a veteran from before November 2006 might be the equivalent of getting that player at roughly 40 percent off the current market.

I wonder if front offices should have been able to see this coming, if they should have been able to look at baseball's overall financial trends and the prospects of labor piece, and been more aggressive in locking players. I don't know. But it would have been interesting to see a team go into the 2005-06 offseason like a bat out of Hell, Michigan and grab every talented player they could, and back it up, publicly or privately, with the knowledge that they were buying player stock before the boom.

It's the kind of thing almost no outsider could anticipate, but maybe an insider should have. I could never prove it, and I could be off base, but I feel like some team should have been able to see it and take advantage of it, gallantly.

Something to ponder while we're stuck in the waiting room while Juan Pierre gets his physical and paperwork processed. Perhaps he's slow filling out his W-2 or I-9.

Comments
2006-11-21 22:45:45
1.   Bob Timmermann
The problem with a long-term subscription to Highlights is that you will become too old to be interested in it.
2006-11-21 22:53:07
2.   Linkmeister
I have that same argument about Jon's part-time employer every year: one-year subscription to SI or three-year?

Cash flow always dictates one year.

2006-11-21 22:53:40
3.   Greg Brock
My dentist's waiting room really appreciates the Highlights analogy.
2006-11-21 22:57:40
4.   Jon Weisman
2 - If you can get in the habit of going long on all your subscriptions, it will improve your cash flow. You just have to bite the bullet once.

Canceling mid-subscription also works, since they are refundable.

2006-11-21 23:01:41
5.   Greg Brock
By the way, that's a great point you make, Jon.
2006-11-21 23:10:06
6.   Greg Brock
There's a great X-Files episod on Sci Fi right now. It's the one where Mulder thinks something unnatural is occuring, but Scully doesn't believe it, and later gets trapped and says "Mulder, I'm over here!" and he saves her.

You might have seen it.

2006-11-21 23:10:18
7.   bhsportsguy
I can name one person who saw this coming, Scott Boras.
2006-11-21 23:20:36
8.   trainwreck
I did not watch the X-Files, but it may be something I like now. Are the effects cheesy?
2006-11-21 23:26:04
9.   Greg Brock
8 No way man! Awesome show!

Go and grab yourself some DVD's and dive in.

2006-11-21 23:37:19
10.   trainwreck
Bruce Campbell was a possible replacement for David Duchovny, that would have been great.
2006-11-22 00:32:57
11.   overkill94
I'm mad that I missed out on the mini-riot that occurred at the end of the last thread, but I must say that I'm on CanuckDodger's side on this one. For instance, one can say that stolen bases statistically result in negative run scoring, but doesn't this also take into account slow runners getting thrown out in busted hit-and-runs? Any guy who can steal 30+ bases with more than a 70% success rate is a quality base stealer in my book. A guy may steal 15 out of 16, but his success rate is so good because teams don't focus in on him as much because they know he doesn't steal all that often.

All I'm trying to say is that you can't apply broad statistical models to individual players. You may say that teams in general don't need to steal a ton of bases, but does that discount the value of one guy who possesses great speed? Do all the other unmeasurable aspects (pitcher pressure, getting the extra base, etc) have no value?

Generally, I agree with the stathead view of things. I think OPS is a great way to assess the value of most hitters, but you still have to take into account other aspects. Some of that will come from ancillary stats, but some will also come from the things that don't show up on a stat sheet. It sounds old school and anti-scientific, but it's true. Just by saying a guy "plays the game right" you shouldn't deem him a good player, but it should at least have some bearing on overall evaluation. Anything less is just plain cold and inhuman.

2006-11-22 00:37:08
12.   CanuckDodger
9 -- Do you have any favorite episodes, Greg? I am one of those people who never really cared for the alien-conspiracy "mythology" episodes. The on-going storyline became much too convoluted. I think the best episodes were the ones with liberal doses of humor, like Darin Morgan's "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space.'"
2006-11-22 01:11:09
13.   regfairfield
11 I'm not sure what you mean when you say that slower runners bring down the worth of a stolen base. The value of a stolen base is a set thing, that isn't affected by how successful the league is. For example, from 2002-2005 a stolen base was worth .178 runs while a caught steal cost a team .441 runs. No amount of getting caught stealing will change this. Because of this if you steal somewhere between 70 and 75 percent of the time successfully it's good. Under this system, Pierre gained about 2.1 runs for his team with his running, about what Travis Hafner will get you in five games worth of at bats.

Do all the little things matter? Sure. It's been shown the speedy players increase the OPS of the hitter by .010, and taking the extra base certainly helps, but there's a reason they're called little things. They're not nearly as important as being able to get on base and hit for power.

Taking the extra base seems important, but it doesn't come up as often as you would think. In 2005, Pierre had 716 plate appearances. In these 716 plate appearances, Pierre was one base 268 times. The opportunity to take an extra base only came up 55 times, and he was only able to successfully do so 26 times, so he was able to take an extra base once every 10 times he reached base, or around once a week.

Conversly, the slowest man alive, Jason Phillips was on base less than half as much (127 times) yet he still managed to take 9 extra bases in 33 opportunities, or once every 14 times he reached base. While opportunity varies heavily from season to season, the difference between Pierre and Jason Phillips in terms of the rate of taking extra bases was around one extra base every three weeks. Does it help? Sure. Does it ultimately make a huge difference? No. Pierre's speed probably adds half a win to a win to his offensive capabilities, while his near replacement level .710 OPS costs his team far more.

If you can do the little things on top of being able to hit, great, but you need to be able to do the big things to make the little things worthwhile.

2006-11-22 01:37:38
14.   GoBears
I've been staying out of this for 2 days, remembering that my mother used to tell me that if I didn't have anything nice to say, I should just shut the heck up. And now that the blood has drained from my eyes, I can describe my reaction.

My reaction is one of sadness. Yeah, sadness. Over the last year, I'd come to doubt Colletti's approach to talent assessment and GM-ification, but I had to admit that most of the evidence was circumstantial. Most of his deals seems pointless. Not horribly harmful, because they were short-term, and while perhaps wasteful of resources (trading kids with upside for proven mediocrities or worse), they really didn't amount to much one way or the other. He got lucky on a couple, and unlucky on a couple others. Seemed pointless, as I said, but my hope was that he was just looking busy and killing time (and a few of someone else's dollars) until the kids were ready.

But the news about Pierre, especially that it was for 5 years (and not, say, 1) punctured that delusion for me. It's just finally dawned on me that he really believes what he said the day he was hired - that winning is about speed and defense and character above all. I just figured that was meaningless press-conference blather - to differentiate himself from his predecessor in the eyes of the Plaschkes - but now I'm pretty sure that he really really believes it. I don't think he signed Pierre to this deal because he was desperate for a stopgap and was forced by the market to go high and long. I think he did it because he really believes that Pierre is an excellent player, well worth one of the team's biggest and longest commitments.

And if that's true, it means that he doesn't know, or just doesn't believe in the last 25 years of baseball research. Which makes me sad. We have a GM whose basic philosophy is, in my mind, wrong-headed. He's not a bad person, or necessarily dumb. And he might be a dynamite manager of people (Drew bridge-burning aside) and a great PR guy, but his fetishising of speed (Lugo, Pierre) and veteran-ness will likely stop him and hence the team from being as successful as possible.

2006-11-22 01:54:04
15.   GoBears
Someone admitted earlier that they'd be half rooting for Pierre to fail, for this to blow up in Colletti's face. I can't see how this can happen, because success and failure are subjective judgments, not facts.

Why? If JP puts up his usual line, those who like the signing will point to it and say "see? 200 hits! 50 SBs! No errors!"

And people who dislike the signing will say "See? No power! No walks! League-leader in outs! No arm!"

And both will be right. The only difference will be about how those incontrovertible facts are valued. And that depends on what one believes matters.

2006-11-22 01:56:17
16.   GoBears
Finally, please let's find a different way of discussing these disagreements than to refer to stat-heads and non stat-heads. It's a misstatement. Every baseball fan is a stathead. Every darn one. And every baseball fan enjoys the aesthetics of the game, accusations about Gamecast-watching computer nerds notwithstanding.

Old school types are not all about gut feelings and hunches and scrappiness, moxie, or tools. They talk about AVG and HRs and RBIs and SBs and W-L records and runs scored and errors at least as often as their "opponents" talk about OBP, SLG, WARP, VORP, ISO, and Win Shares. The argument (at least about players with enough experience to measure, less so about prospects) is about which stats are more meaningful - which ones are better marshalled to the building of a winning team.

And that is not a philosophical question, where we can agree to disagree - it's an empirical one. No one knows what truth is, but it's out there. In the mean time, and even if we never get there, we just hope we're moving toward it, and should make every effort to do so.

See what happens when one keeps things bottled up for two days?

2006-11-22 02:32:45
17.   Improbable88
14-16 - Great three pointer! Great form, good elevation, nothing by net. Very Charlotte Hornets Glen Rice of you.
2006-11-22 02:33:05
18.   Improbable88
by=but
2006-11-22 02:39:22
19.   CanuckDodger
16 -- I think the word "stathead" has become firmly established as a word to describe people who believe in sabermetrics, either in the methodology or the generally accepted tenets. I believe writers of that persuausion have said in the past that they prefer to be called "sabermetricians," and I do sometimes use that term, just to avoid being repetitive in word usage, but "stathead" is shorter, pithier.
2006-11-22 03:11:53
20.   Vishal
[19] and more pejorative.
2006-11-22 03:17:43
21.   WellsforKemp
does any one else feel the signing of Pierre spells the end of Ethier as a future Dodger starter? Now with only two corner spots seemingly open for the next five years (I just dont see Pierre being benched especially b/c "he can play 162 games a year") There is an ever increasing need for production, and 3.5 while he was a perfect player to have so we could avoide signing someone like Pierre he probably doesnt cut it in the same outfield.

Its probable Ethier would outproduce Pierre for a fraction of the cost if you pluged him into CF but that won't ever happen, and I guess we can thank our "old school" thinking GM for that.......??

2006-11-22 03:26:29
22.   Sam DC
19 I didn't take GoBears point to be about the use of the word "stathead" as opposed to something else, but about the framing of the issue as two totally opposed camps.

As GoBears wrote, so-called scout people use and value some stats in some ways. Ned Colletti defendedd the Pierre signing in part by saying he gets on base a lot. That's a stat-like assertion to me. People talk about Pierre's 200 hits, 162 games, etc. They are not just saying, look at his tools, this guy can play.

And Paul DePodesta made a lot of noise when he started with the Dodgers about the scout team having access and input into his decisions. I don't know how it realy played out, you may know better than I, but it seemed to an outsider like Logan White's judgment was valued by DePodesta's team. Maybe not in every single case or every single player, but I didn't see an organization that froze out every piece of information that didn't fit in Google Boys computer.

2006-11-22 04:08:19
23.   xaphor
I had a difficult time trying to pin down my feelings on this signing and so I sought inspiration from my trusty friends: http://tinyurl.com/2kfb8

Here's a little of what they had to say about Juan Pierre:

"Are you sitting comfortably? Many an afternoon has been enjoyed by a family, bonding over the discussion of Juan Pierre. While it is becoming a hot topic for debate, Juan Pierre is not given the credit if deserves for inspiring many of the worlds famous painters. Inevitably Juan Pierre is often misunderstood by global commercial enterprises, who form the last great hope for our civilzation. With the primary aim of demonstrating my considerable intellect I will now demonstrate the complexity of the many faceted issue that is Juan Pierre."

"…Of course Juan Pierre cleary plays a significant role amongst the developing middle classes."

"…When one is faced with people of today a central theme emerges - Juan Pierre is either adored or despised, it leaves no one undecided. It has been said that the one thing in society which could survive a nuclear attack is Juan Pierre. This is incorrect, actually cockroaches are the only thing which can survive a nuclear attack."

"…There has been a great deal of discussion in the world of economics, centred on the value of Juan Pierre… …It is apparent …that the influence of Juan Pierre is strong. What is the secret to its strength? Well the national debt is in financial terms 'holding hands with Juan Pierre.' Many analysts fear a subsequent depression."

"…Comparing current political thought with that held just ten years ago is like comparing Juan Pierreilisation, as it's become known, and one's own sense of morality."

"…I feel strongly that if politicians spent less time thinking about Juan Pierre and put more effort into their family life, that we would have a very different country."

"…Where do we go from here? Only time will tell."

"…In summary, Juan Pierre is, to use the language of the streets 'Super Cool.' It enriches, brought up a generation and is a joy to behold. I'll leave you with this quote from Whoopi Paltrow: 'I would say without a shadow of a doubt: Juan Pierre ROCKS!!'"

2006-11-22 04:13:58
24.   JROBB
What if the Dodgers sign Jason Schmidt and then trade for Carl Crawford. Such a lineup would be very intriging:

Pierre
Furcal
Crawford
Kent
Garciaparra
Ethier
Betermit
Martin

Having 3 guys at the top of the lineup who could steal 40 + bases would be exciting too watch. Of course Pierre is expensive, but there are NO power bats out there. I would rather have Piere for 5-45 than Soriano 8-138.

Such a scenerio would have us wait for Loney and Kemp, or squeeze them out of the foreseeable future.

I was looking at the fielding bible, and Crawford is an amazing fielder.

Pierre was the 5th best CF in 2003. Maybe he can achieve that status again.

I cant imagine that Colletti would go after Pierre if White, Ng, and everyone else in the front office agreed that he was their best option at this point this offseason. I dont see Colletti as a lone ranger type of GM. The Dodger's have no CF prospect in their system and Kemp, is no CF.

Looking forward to seeing them offer ARB to Drew, Lugo, Maddux, and Gagne. Gotta do it.

2006-11-22 04:27:07
25.   chris in illinois
My 2 cents:

As an impartial outsider (Braves fan in central Illinois) who saw 100+ Cub games last year all I can say is that every last one of you should sign up for a zen Buddist class immediately...Juan Pierre will test your patience like no player you have ever watched:

*Juan Pierre will start the game with a groundout to second on the first pitch no less than 50 times.

*Juan Pierre will have no less than 50 PA's where he swings at the first pitch he sees after the previous two batters walked on 10 or fewer pitches.

*At least 10 times next year, YOUR PITCHER will get pitched around to get to Pierre. (this happened to Zambrano ten times alone last year).

*Juan Pierre's arm at some point will have each of you wishing for the glory days of Kenny Lofton and his "cannon". (Albert Pujols, sore hammy and knee, tagged up from first and got to second base on a flyball to Pierre in center twice in three games early last year). I have never seen baserunners abuse a centerfielder the way they did Juan.

*Pierre takes some extra bases here and there, but they always seem to be at a time and place that makes you wonder if he understands the game of baseball.

*I know at least two long term Cub Fans that swore that their Cubs days were over if Juan returned...they could tolerate 30 years of Manny Trillo, Lenny Randle, Steve Buechele, terrible trades, terrible signings, letting Maddux go in favor of a bag of magic beans, but the idea of another season of Juan the Outmaker was too horrible to imagine. There is literally a "Juan-gone" party in Peoria this Friday night.

That being said, I'm sure Juan is as swell guy and is nice to his mother, but he is the most singularly exasperating player that I have ever watched and I grew up on the 80's era Braves.

I wish you all luck and a tremendous uptick in your capacity for tolerance.

2006-11-22 04:37:18
26.   CanuckDodger
The Dodgers added three minor leaguers to the 40-man roster, to keep them safe from the Rule 5 draft: RHP Zach Hammes, LHP Mike Megrew, and RHP Eric Hull.

I am really happy about Hammes. His prospect status has risen Phoenix-like from the ashes. I have said in the past that he is the biggest black mark on Logan White's draft record, but that opinion has to be shelved now. The first of two 2nd Round picks we had in 2002 (the second was Broxton), Hammes signed for a $750,000 bonus out of an Iowa high school. Hailing from a cold weather state where high schools don't play a spring season, Hammes was raw, and he was terrible for three consecutive years between 2003 and 2005, failing to rise above low A, and struggling badly with his mechanics and his control. (Repeating his delivery with his 6-foot-6 frame was difficult for him.) But in high A this year, Hammes was used in relief for the most part, and pitching out of the stretch exclusively (like Broxton and Kuo), Hammes made progress with his control, bumped up the velocity on his fastball (reaching 95 MPH), and made strides with a change-up. In winter ball in Hawaii, his fastball was reportedly touching the high 90's as a closer. He should be in Double A Jacksonville in 2007, where one hopes he will continue to improve. By his own account, Hammes needs to work on throwing his fastball for a strike on the outside corner when he faces right-handed batters. He doesn't turn 23 till May 15. Broxton may have beaten him to the majors by quite a bit, but it would not surprise me if Hammes turns out to be another Broxton, a big, hard-throwing righty out of the pen who does not use a wind-up when the bases are empty.

2006-11-22 06:34:50
27.   dzzrtRatt
Jon, you've perfectly articulated the strangeness of this off-season. On the other thread, my first reaction to the Pierre signing was (to quote myself), "$9 million is the new $4 million." By 2009, $9 million could be the equivalent of $2 million.

Thus, the assumption that the Dodgers are "stuck with" Pierre for 162 games over the next five years might be wrong. Swallowing a $9 million year player being DFA'd or turned into a role player who starts most games on the bench will not seem so outrageous in a couple of years when the Dodger player budget is $175 million. Also, a player with a $9 million salary won't be an albatross on the trade market -- especially if Pierre keeps putting up the plus numbers that we can dangle in front of unsuspecting GMs.

That's the one silver lining to the Pierre deal. It's still pointless and I dislike it intensely, but it might not be as bad as it looks for as long as it looks.

P.S. I'm struck by the notion that opposing managers would pitch around Cub pitchers to get to Pierre. Did Grady Little ever do this? Did Dodger scouts, who Ned supposedly reveres, make note of this phenomenon? If Pierre is so widely overvalued, how could this be happening?

2006-11-22 07:07:18
28.   Terry A
Regarding the mini-brouhaha of threads past: You are all a bunch of sissies.

So many nine-paragraph comments, yet not one sentence longer than 86 measly words.

Andrew Shimmin mocks each of you.

2006-11-22 07:33:59
29.   JoeyP
I dont agree with you guys that think the market is going to change, and 9mils will become like 2mils.

I dont believe this, mainly bc the baseline hasnt changed. The baseline being---pre-arbitration eligible players. Their salaries arent going up, so there's always going to be a pool of players to choose from of which you have a great deal of cost certainty.

I think people are grasping for strings to justify Pierre 5/45. There just arent any. Look at Nomar, A-Ram, Edmonds...Their contracts arent out of whack. Even Soriano's deal isnt that much different than Carlos Beltran's. Jd Drew probably wont sign an out of whack contract.

Pierre's deal is what it is.
A bad one.

2006-11-22 07:45:41
30.   chris in illinois
"P.S. I'm struck by the notion that opposing managers would pitch around Cub pitchers to get to Pierre. Did Grady Little ever do this? Did Dodger scouts, who Ned supposedly reveres, make note of this phenomenon? If Pierre is so widely overvalued, how could this be happening? "

To be fair, I can really only recall this happening with Zambrano up (and even then it was my impression that the pitcher was 'pitching around' Carlos)...of course his career slugging is just .022 shy of Pierre's and his 10 career homers are two short of Juan's 12 in just 3700 fewer at bats.

I stand by my point that you will literally begin to cringe when he bats, but at least you will all really appreciate the good players on your team that much more because of the contrast.

2006-11-22 07:45:49
31.   bhsportsguy
29 Actually, I think what is going to happen is teams are going to try and tie up their pre-arbitration eligible players and it will be a test of wills to see if the players/agents will sign for some guaranteed money upfront and give up arbitration.

Now, I don't think 9 million is going to be like 2 million but I don't think 9 million is going to be out of whack for a veteran starting outfielder. And again I do think that what is going to happen is that payrolls are going to creep up for the upper half of the teams in the majors.

I don't know if the Dodgers will cross 120 million payroll but 110, I think there is pretty good chance of that.

2006-11-22 07:50:08
32.   Bob Timmermann
In my lifetime, I don't believe I've ever seen a pitcher pitched around to get to the leadoff hitter. In any baseball game above the high school level that is.

As bad as you might think Juan Pierre is, he is a LOT better hitter than every pither. Zambrano did have a higher SLG than Pierre (.397 to .388), but Pierre had an OBP of .330 while Zambrano's was .160.

In the words of Milhous van Houten, "That's crazy talk. You're talking crazy."

2006-11-22 07:56:48
33.   dzzrtRatt
Just reading over last night's comments. It's interesting that the people who adopt the "sabermetrics isn't everything" position are still mostly down on the Pierre deal. Chris in Illinois doesn't use any fancy saber-stat; his perspective is that of a fan, and, if anything, it sounds even worse than the sheer numbers suggest.

As a fan and poster who comes here to learn as much as to comment, I want to make one semantic suggestion: Don't use the word "science" to support sabermetrics.

Science is a politically loaded word that history has shown more often than not leads society down dangerous paths. 100 years ago there was a scientific consensus that you could improve the human species by disallowing "inferior" people to breed. It was not a crackpot theory--quite the reverse. The only dispute was over how to define inferiority, but there were many who agreed with the idea that certain "races" fell into the category of "inferior." The ideas on which Nazism were based did not come from the prejudiced, uneducated masses. They came from intellectuals and people who invoked science to support their evil arguments. Communism arose in much the same way -- the application of alleged "science" to economics and history. I consider myself an enviro, but nowadays whenever I hear Al Gore or another member of the environmental community say there is a "scientific consensus" about the coming global warming catastrophe--as if the "consensus" is supposed to persuade all doubters--I begin to wonder if I'm on the wrong side. One era's "scientific consensus" is the next era's laughingstock, or worse.

I respect science deeply for the way in which it has added to the sum of human knowledge, but I think we have to be humble about applying what at a given point in time is called "science" to the organization of human activities or to making predictions about future events. Some of history's biggest and most tragic errors are made in the name of "science." To say one has arrived at one's opinion about something as subjective as organizing a baseball team via the use of "science" seems like a micro-example of this fallacy.

There is plenty of room to argue about the weight we each give to one statistic over another, or to anecdotal observations over any statistics; and there are certainly ideas we can say with assurance are bad or good based on repeated observations. But in any policy discussion -- and building a baseball team falls into the category of policy -- when I hear the word "science" evoked, my skepticism meter shoots up.

2006-11-22 08:15:53
34.   bhsportsguy
The real problem is that finally we have the money and the GM who will spend it and we can't get a Vlad Guerreo for the money he went for in 2003-2004 and we have to look the Juan Pierre's of the world.
2006-11-22 08:17:21
35.   Vishal
[33] say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos.
2006-11-22 08:17:46
36.   ToyCannon
33
As usual, well said. Next to Jon your the 2nd best reason to read DT. Canuck is the 3rd even with the arrogant tone cause he just brings a different insight that is missing from this board.

26
Good point on Hammes. I noticed he was pitching in the HWB league and was unprotected which didn't make sense to me. Any Dodgers that aren't on the 40 man roster that you think they are making a mistake on?

2006-11-22 08:20:37
37.   chris in illinois
32

Fair enough, I do believe I saw it happen last year though. Carlos has a rep as a good hitter and in fact hit over .300 the year before (small sample size warning). The last two years combined Carlos is 229/234/431. Granted the chnces of Juan getting a hit are better than Carlos, but we've all seen examples of a lesser hitter getting walked because of an open base.

Of course, my total revulsion for all things Juan might be coloring my vision.

"Out-maker be gone (that's you Juan.)"

2006-11-22 08:22:19
38.   Vishal
seriously though, the use of the term "science" i think is merely meant to imply a certain rationality and logic in approach that more subjective methods lack. one can just as easily argue that "some of history's biggest and most tragic errors are made in the name of", say, faith. i'd say that the scientific method is a pretty good method of determining what's true and not true, especially given enough time and data, but that still doesn't excuse one from making moral judgements and value judgements.
2006-11-22 08:24:19
39.   ToyCannon
25
Thanks for coming by and cheering us all up.
2006-11-22 08:25:11
40.   Big Game
According to the OC Register, its down to the Dodgers and the M's for Schmidt.

http://tinyurl.com/y7kvyc

2006-11-22 08:32:53
41.   Jon Weisman
New post up top - but feel free to continue commenting on the money issue here if you like.
2006-11-22 08:33:42
42.   Jon Weisman
40 - Just a column full of rumors. No sourcing.
2006-11-22 08:34:02
43.   underdog
This thread is so five minutes ago. Try posting in Jon's new improved thread about stats, scouts, Proust and XFSDLKFJLK, above.

40 Wow. I still think he's going to Seattle, and I still have slight preference for Zito... but we'll see.

2006-11-22 08:39:37
44.   dzzrtRatt
38 i'd say that the scientific method is a pretty good method of determining what's true and not true, especially given enough time and data, but that still doesn't excuse one from making moral judgements and value judgements.

I completely agree. But "what's true and what's not true" does not necessarily extend to "what you should do." Some of the scientists 100 years ago who found there to be a tension between their eugenics views and, say, the Christian doctrines of the intrinsic worth of every human being then went about trying to overturn Christianity as a social force that was holding back the human species. Allowing "moral judgments" to intrude in the march of science was regarded a sign of a weak mind.

Once again, I love science. But use the word with humility. What we think of today as "science" might be seen later as "faith" adorned with misleading evidence. That's all I'm saying.

2006-11-22 09:00:38
45.   chris in illinois
39

Sorry.

He does have a ring, so it is possible to overcome his Juan-ness...he could also have another season like '03 or '04 where he's actually useful.

(There, optimistic post completed, check...is that laundry done....??)

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.