Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=56205:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:45 PM:name=cubbieblue)-->QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 10:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56202:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:43 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 6 2009, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->What does this mean? I've read it over 5 times, and I still can't make sense of it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->the Cubs are paying almost $39.5 million to players who have lost the Cubs 2 more games than a team of minimum wage replacements players theoretically would.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm, yes, the article really hasn't been proofread it appears. It has some spelling, grammatical errors. But I don't see anything wrong with that sentence. Or do you just not understand WAR?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is "theoretically" anything like "hypothetically?"
What is "WAR?"
<!--quoteo(post=56201:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:40 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Aug 6 2009, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Yikes, your "friend" is spending way too much time making blog posts that are poorly written, factually faulty, and completely convoluted.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is my friend's, not mine. And yes, I have helped him with it. I'm not denying that. I'm actually editing some of it as we speak. Do you have proof the facts are false? If so please let me know. I won't support something that is false. Hopefully it is a typo, not someone lying about facts to support a point (although I'm not sure what the exact point is).
<!--quoteo(post=56207:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:49 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 6 2009, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56205:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:45 PM:name=cubbieblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 10:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56202:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:43 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 6 2009, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->What does this mean? I've read it over 5 times, and I still can't make sense of it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->the Cubs are paying almost $39.5 million to players who have lost the Cubs 2 more games than a team of minimum wage replacements players theoretically would.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm, yes, the article really hasn't been proofread it appears. It has some spelling, grammatical errors. But I don't see anything wrong with that sentence. Or do you just not understand WAR?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is "theoretically" anything like "hypothetically?"
What is "WAR?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm guessing the fact that you don't know what WAR is it why it makes no sense. WAR is wins above replacement. It's the amount of wins a player provides a team over a replacement player. A replacement player is about equal to a minor league player any team could find to replace any given player (or something like that). It's not a stat he made up. It's used fairly often in the new era statistics.
Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=56198:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:36 PM:name=Bricklayer)-->QUOTE (Bricklayer @ Aug 6 2009, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56196:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:20 PM:name=cubbieblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Soriano isn't the only player performing. This is the last paragraph of my friend's latest blog entry.
"Heilman and Gregg are being paid nearly $6 million and they are producing worse than someone the Cubs could find at AAA. Not to mention they are paying Gaudin, Vizcaino, and Cotts $5.4 million dollars to not pitch At least they aren't hurting the team though. Combine that with the $23 million from Soriano and Bradley, the $2.2 miles is being paid to suck, and money from a few other players the Cubs are paying to not play for them, the Cubs are paying almost $39.5 million to players who have lost the Cubs 2 more games than a team of minimum wage replacements players theoretically would. That is more than the Marlins, Pirates, and Padres complete team salaries. And we wonder why this team can't win with a $140 million dollar payroll."
You can see more of the data here:
http://onebadcentury.com/?p=57<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, what a shitty team. No wonder they're in first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
@TheBlogfines
Based on the beginning of the article I don't think he was trying to imply the Cubs suck. He is a die hard Cubs fan. He was more talking about why the Cubs aren't running away with the division the way everyone thought they were. The Cardinals have what, $40 million less in salary and they are keeping up? There is your wasted $40 million. Although Soriano and Bradley are going to improve their WAR a lot of the next 2 months I believe.
Posts: 14,097
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=56211:date=Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM:name=cubbieblue)-->QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Based on the beginning of the article I don't think he was trying to imply the Cubs suck. He is a die hard Cubs fan. He was more talking about why the Cubs aren't running away with the division the way everyone thought they were. The Cardinals have what, $40 million less in salary and they are keeping up? There is your wasted $40 million. Although Soriano and Bradley are going to improve their WAR a lot of the next 2 months I believe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So according to that theory, by fielding a team with a few more unproven minor leaguers instead of the overpriced players you mentioned, we'd be running away with the division, or at minimum have 2 more wins? Forget the fact that not all of the sunk costs that your buddy mentioned take up roster spots and don't factor into W/L, but I think that's partly what people are finding difficult to take seriously from that article.
Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=56212:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:31 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 6 2009, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56211:date=Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM:name=cubbieblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Based on the beginning of the article I don't think he was trying to imply the Cubs suck. He is a die hard Cubs fan. He was more talking about why the Cubs aren't running away with the division the way everyone thought they were. The Cardinals have what, $40 million less in salary and they are keeping up? There is your wasted $40 million. Although Soriano and Bradley are going to improve their WAR a lot of the next 2 months I believe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So according to that theory, by fielding a team with a few more unproven minor leaguers instead of the overpriced players you mentioned, we'd be running away with the division, or at minimum have 2 more wins? Forget the fact that not all of the sunk costs that your buddy mentioned take up roster spots and don't factor into W/L, but I think that's partly what people are finding difficult to take seriously from that article.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without looking over the stats, I'd guess Milton Bradley and Alfonso Soriano won their teams a shitload more than they lost over the last five years. We've just had some bad luck but you can't fault the organization for this one.
And I'm really sick of the blame on Hendry for signing Bradley. The injury and personality stuff we knew going in, but that hasn't been the problem. Milton Bradley has been an absolute stud at the plate over the last few years. Even in his worst seasons since he became a regular, he was very good. You could predict he'd tear a hamstring, fuck the players' mothers and shit on home plate, but you couldn't predict he wouldn't hit.
@TheBlogfines
<!--quoteo(post=56212:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:31 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 6 2009, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56211:date=Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM:name=cubbieblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Based on the beginning of the article I don't think he was trying to imply the Cubs suck. He is a die hard Cubs fan. He was more talking about why the Cubs aren't running away with the division the way everyone thought they were. The Cardinals have what, $40 million less in salary and they are keeping up? There is your wasted $40 million. Although Soriano and Bradley are going to improve their WAR a lot of the next 2 months I believe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So according to that theory, by fielding a team with a few more unproven minor leaguers instead of the overpriced players you mentioned, we'd be running away with the division, or at minimum have 2 more wins? Forget the fact that not all of the sunk costs that your buddy mentioned take up roster spots and don't factor into W/L, but I think that's partly what people are finding difficult to take seriously from that article.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's just the WAR numbers. He nor I came up with them, he just grouped that group of players together in that section I quoted. Yes, the ones that aren't taking up roster spots don't affect the W/L record, but they do prevent the Cubs from having the payroll flexibility to adding other players. And yes, assuming his data is right, the Cubs would have 2 more wins if the above players were replaced by "replacement players." Again, they aren't his numbers. If you don't understand wOBA, UZR, FIR, WAR, RAR, etc. then you might want to read up on those if you want to understand these numbers (although I think FIR sucks, but that is just my opinion).
<!--quoteo(post=56213:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:39 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Aug 6 2009, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56212:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:31 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 6 2009, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56211:date=Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM:name=cubbieblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Based on the beginning of the article I don't think he was trying to imply the Cubs suck. He is a die hard Cubs fan. He was more talking about why the Cubs aren't running away with the division the way everyone thought they were. The Cardinals have what, $40 million less in salary and they are keeping up? There is your wasted $40 million. Although Soriano and Bradley are going to improve their WAR a lot of the next 2 months I believe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So according to that theory, by fielding a team with a few more unproven minor leaguers instead of the overpriced players you mentioned, we'd be running away with the division, or at minimum have 2 more wins? Forget the fact that not all of the sunk costs that your buddy mentioned take up roster spots and don't factor into W/L, but I think that's partly what people are finding difficult to take seriously from that article.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without looking over the stats, I'd guess Milton Bradley and Alfonso Soriano won their teams a shitload more than they lost over the last five years. We've just had some bad luck but you can't fault the organization for this one.
And I'm really sick of the blame on Hendry for signing Bradley. The injury and personality stuff we knew going in, but that hasn't been the problem. Milton Bradley has been an absolute stud at the plate over the last few years. Even in his worst seasons since he became a regular, he was very good. You could predict he'd tear a hamstring, fuck the players' mothers and shit on home plate, but you couldn't predict he wouldn't hit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know his opinion on the Bradley but I personally was a fan of the Bradley signing. In no way am I blaming the Cubs front office at all. They have done a great job over the past few years. And because of his high on base percentage he has had a much better offensive season than people give him credit for. According to the same stats used in the article, Bradley is the 5th best hitter for the Cubs this year, at 3.3 runs better than the average player(not replacement player this time). It's his defense that kills him, at -6.6 runs worse than the average fielder.
Edit: Oh, and by the way, I thought I would mention that Fox is fourth in that list, at 5.0 runs better in his limited at bats. And he is only -0.1 in the field. They have to find a way to get this guy in the lineup more.
Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=56215:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:43 PM:name=cubbieblue)-->QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56213:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:39 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Aug 6 2009, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56212:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:31 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 6 2009, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56211:date=Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM:name=cubbieblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Based on the beginning of the article I don't think he was trying to imply the Cubs suck. He is a die hard Cubs fan. He was more talking about why the Cubs aren't running away with the division the way everyone thought they were. The Cardinals have what, $40 million less in salary and they are keeping up? There is your wasted $40 million. Although Soriano and Bradley are going to improve their WAR a lot of the next 2 months I believe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So according to that theory, by fielding a team with a few more unproven minor leaguers instead of the overpriced players you mentioned, we'd be running away with the division, or at minimum have 2 more wins? Forget the fact that not all of the sunk costs that your buddy mentioned take up roster spots and don't factor into W/L, but I think that's partly what people are finding difficult to take seriously from that article.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without looking over the stats, I'd guess Milton Bradley and Alfonso Soriano won their teams a shitload more than they lost over the last five years. We've just had some bad luck but you can't fault the organization for this one.
And I'm really sick of the blame on Hendry for signing Bradley. The injury and personality stuff we knew going in, but that hasn't been the problem. Milton Bradley has been an absolute stud at the plate over the last few years. Even in his worst seasons since he became a regular, he was very good. You could predict he'd tear a hamstring, fuck the players' mothers and shit on home plate, but you couldn't predict he wouldn't hit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know his opinion on the Bradley but I personally was a fan of the Bradley signing. In no way am I blaming the Cubs front office at all. They have done a great job over the past few years. And because of his high on base percentage he has had a much better offensive season than people give him credit for. According to the same stats used in the article, Bradley is the 5th best hitter for the Cubs this year, at 3.3 runs better than the average player(not replacement player this time). It's his defense that kills him, at -6.6 runs worse than the average fielder.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't speaking of you/your site, just saying in general.
@TheBlogfines
Understood. Really the only move I didn't like was getting rid of Derosa for prospects. But after seeing Stevens I'm starting to get on board with it a little bit more. I like his stuff.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
WAR? what is good for? absolutely nothing.
Wang.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=56208:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:50 PM:name=cubbieblue)-->QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 10:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56201:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:40 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Aug 6 2009, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Yikes, your "friend" is spending way too much time making blog posts that are poorly written, factually faulty, and completely convoluted.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is my friend's, not mine. And yes, I have helped him with it. I'm not denying that. I'm actually editing some of it as we speak. Do you have proof the facts are false? If so please let me know. I won't support something that is false. Hopefully it is a typo, not someone lying about facts to support a point (although I'm not sure what the exact point is).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's factually faulty because everything it's trying to "prove" is done so by using statistical metrics that are convoluted, then comparing them with other stats that are convoluted, and finally assigning a $$$ (for which there is basically no explanation) value to the players worth. It's also weighted with a fielding metric, every fielding metric is grossly faulty, even further negating anything written in the blog.
Honestly, do you think Randy Wells has been worth 2000% of what his entire season value is, after only 65% of the season has been played, and he's only been in the rotation for 3 months? He's had a nice season, but he's not giving the team value that's in the 10's of millions, that's just retarded (like the entire blog post).
Also, don't come here and post shit about your blog or your "friend's" blog anymore, we don't give a shit about it and it's poorly written. If there's a good Cubs blog out there, we'll find it on our own, we always do. We're OK on our own and we don't need your assistance pointing us in the direction of some of anymore poorly written, researched, and executed blogs. Stop trolling.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Ruby - I didn't know you thought there were any good Cubs blogs out there. Which ones do you like (serious question, not bait)?
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=56209:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:53 PM:name=cubbieblue)-->QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 10:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56207:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:49 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 6 2009, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56205:date=Aug 6 2009, 10:45 PM:name=cubbieblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubbieblue @ Aug 6 2009, 10:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=56202:date=Aug 6 2009, 09:43 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 6 2009, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->What does this mean? I've read it over 5 times, and I still can't make sense of it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->the Cubs are paying almost $39.5 million to players who have lost the Cubs 2 more games than a team of minimum wage replacements players theoretically would.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm, yes, the article really hasn't been proofread it appears. It has some spelling, grammatical errors. But I don't see anything wrong with that sentence. Or do you just not understand WAR?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is "theoretically" anything like "hypothetically?"
What is "WAR?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm guessing the fact that you don't know what WAR is it why it makes no sense. WAR is wins above replacement. It's the amount of wins a player provides a team over a replacement player. A replacement player is about equal to a minor league player any team could find to replace any given player (or something like that). It's not a stat he made up. It's used fairly often in the new era statistics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes no sense because it's not writing. I can't even get close to the facts because the condition in which it's presented obscures the information.
|
