01-22-2010, 11:25 AM
I'm not going line by line, because we will take up the whole page. I'll try to be more succinct. Your initial response was that teams can succeed by relying on unproven players. You then showed 4 teams over the last 3 years which had success with unproven players. I believe this is hideously illogical, as I can probably show you 30 teams over the last 3 years which relied on unproven players and sucked.
If your argument is that going into a season with 3 unproven players on the roster CAN work, I won't argue. If your argument is that those 4 teams prove that it's a sound plan, I will argue. First of all, the guys you mention are varying degrees of "unproven". Second of all, even if you didn't say "rookies", all of the guys you are suggesting should make up 16 percent of the Cubs roster ARE rookies. Third of all, at least half of those teams had an enormous safety net, which the Cubs don't. Lastly, the whole argument is a logical fallacy. It's essentially the same argument as saying teams should actively seek guys who throw under 90 MPH because Jaime Moyer and Tim Wakefield had successful careers.
On another note, I can't let one of your points slide.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Tavares put up a .367 OPS with 33 stolen bases that year for the Rockies. I have a feeling they didn't replace him with Spilborghs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to assume you meant OPB, since a .367 OPS would be a whole new world of suck. But that's not what I take issue with. Let's say for a second Spilborghs didn't take Tavares' spot. Are you suggesting that he took the spot of Holliday, who had over 700 plate appearances and an OPS over .1000? Or that he took the spot of Hawpe, who had 600 PA's and an OPS over .900? Because if he didn't take their spots (and he clearly didn't), and he didn't take Tavares' spot, that leaves 2 options. Either he didn't play (which pretty much negates your point), or the Rockies fielded 4 outfielders that year. I think I would have remembered that.
If your argument is that going into a season with 3 unproven players on the roster CAN work, I won't argue. If your argument is that those 4 teams prove that it's a sound plan, I will argue. First of all, the guys you mention are varying degrees of "unproven". Second of all, even if you didn't say "rookies", all of the guys you are suggesting should make up 16 percent of the Cubs roster ARE rookies. Third of all, at least half of those teams had an enormous safety net, which the Cubs don't. Lastly, the whole argument is a logical fallacy. It's essentially the same argument as saying teams should actively seek guys who throw under 90 MPH because Jaime Moyer and Tim Wakefield had successful careers.
On another note, I can't let one of your points slide.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Tavares put up a .367 OPS with 33 stolen bases that year for the Rockies. I have a feeling they didn't replace him with Spilborghs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to assume you meant OPB, since a .367 OPS would be a whole new world of suck. But that's not what I take issue with. Let's say for a second Spilborghs didn't take Tavares' spot. Are you suggesting that he took the spot of Holliday, who had over 700 plate appearances and an OPS over .1000? Or that he took the spot of Hawpe, who had 600 PA's and an OPS over .900? Because if he didn't take their spots (and he clearly didn't), and he didn't take Tavares' spot, that leaves 2 options. Either he didn't play (which pretty much negates your point), or the Rockies fielded 4 outfielders that year. I think I would have remembered that.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.