Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bob

Maybe the Yankees did not get screwed in the Pineda deal after all.

Recommended Posts

Let's get back on topic.  Who has more stolen bases?  Pineda or Montero? Who has a higher success rate?

I really want to know if Phil Hughes' Has started on his HOF speech.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to know if Phil Hughes' Has started on his HOF speech.

 

Yeah that is up there with JonE's statement the Jets' have as good an offense as the Manning and the Colts a few years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but if you cannot hit and save yourself with your normal low thought response, who cares?

 

Where are you going to bat him? Leadoff? He is not good enough. 2nd or 3rd? :rl: 4th? There is no doubt he has the power to hit there, but he is more likely to strikeout and leave people on base. 5th? He would be adequate protection, but I could see people going to him because he is more likely to strikeout than hit a HR.

 

If you get the guy that crushed it for the Tigers for two years, yeah he is a lot better than Jacoby. Unfortunately, that guy has not been seen in 7 years. 

 

Dave Kingman had power.  No one thought he was a good player much less a great one.

This post is a tour de force in proud "know-nothingness." Congrats. The argument seems to be, "he can't hit because I say so, therefore the fact that he can and does hit can have no effect on my argument, dave kingman dave kingman, dave kingman." I especially like the part about how he's "more likely to strikeout than hit a homer" Because apparently he isn't one of the ZERO players in baseball history with over 100 HR's and more HR's than strikeouts.  I'm not sure what Dave kingman has to do with this because Granderson is just unarguably a better player than Kingman was but I'm sure it makes sense in your head. Also, Granderson's best year was with the Yankees, not the Tigers, in 2011 and he's pretty much been better than Ellsbury every year after that including this year when he's playing in a ballpark that is much worse for him so again I'm not really sure what you're talking about. But I'm sure it makes sense to you!!!

 

 

I really want to know if Phil Hughes' Has started on his HOF speech.

I want to know the mental gymnastics you had to go through to think that that moronic statement anyway addresses what I said about Hughes 5 years ago...

Edited by unbanmadmike1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is a tour de force in proud "know-nothingness." Congrats. The argument seems to be, "he can't hit because I say so, therefore the fact that he can and does hit can have no effect on my argument, dave kingman dave kingman, dave kingman." I especially like the part about how he's "more likely to strikeout than hit a homer" Because apparently he isn't one of the ZERO players in baseball history with over 100 HR's and more HR's than strikeouts.  I'm not sure what Dave kingman has to do with this because Granderson is just unarguably a better player than Kingman was but I'm sure it makes sense in your head. Also, Granderson's best year was with the Yankees, not the Tigers, in 2011 and he's pretty much been better than Ellsbury every year after that including this year when he's playing in a ballpark that is much worse for him so again I'm not really sure what you're talking about. But I'm sure it makes sense to you!!!

 

 

Yeah, I make up all the standards players have been judged on over the last oh....138 years.

 

He cannot hit because the standard that has been a mark since the dawn of baseball, .300, he has accomplished once in ten seasons. 

 

He has been closer to the Mendoza line, .200 just in case you were wondering, in 5 of his last 6 seasons then .300.  That is not good by any measurement. 

 

Again, I will give you he has power, but he is not the be all end all you make him out to be.  1279 games.  1253 Ks.  1234 hits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you still think that batting average is the stat you should bring up when trying to figure out if someone is a "good hitter" you're just being proudly ignorant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billyball is here to stay.

 

Not a good look going against it anymore.

 

I am not arguing Money Ball is witchcraft.  I like it, but MM gets his panties in a bunch over Granderson and OPS. 

 

If you still think that batting average is the stat you should bring up when trying to figure out if someone is a "good hitter" you're just being proudly ignorant. 

 

No, I do not, but I do not take your myopic view of it like you do OPS of it being the be all end all.  In your view, Gwynn (.career .847) is only a few hits better over his career than Granderson (.824).  Go look at Granderson's numbers.  He is rarely top 10 in anything outside of Ks.  Yes, all his Money Ball stats put him in the Top 50 of active players.  You are honestly saying he is a Top 50 player?  Not even close.  OPS says Ortiz is one of the 30 best players.  He is not even close this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing Money Ball is witchcraft.  I like it, but MM gets his panties in a bunch over Granderson and OPS. 

 

 

No, I do not, but I do not take your myopic view of it like you do OPS of it being the be all end all.  In your view, Gwynn (.career .847) is only a few hits better over his career than Granderson (.824).  Go look at Granderson's numbers.  He is rarely top 10 in anything outside of Ks.  Yes, all his Money Ball stats put him in the Top 50 of active players.  You are honestly saying he is a Top 50 player?  Not even close.  OPS says Ortiz is one of the 30 best players.  He is not even close this year.

I never said OPS was the "be all end all." I just said that the stats that you're using (BA and K's) are meaningless. Those aren't the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said OPS was the "be all end all." I just said that the stats that you're using (BA and K's) are meaningless. Those aren't the same thing. 

Wow.  Way to back track.  Your sole point that Granderson is better than Ellsbury was his OPS. 

 

Ks are meaningless?  You are dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  Way to back track.  Your sole point that Granderson is better than Ellsbury was his OPS. 

 

Ks are meaningless?  You are dumb.

There is ZERO correlation between K's and how good a hitter is. That's pretty much the definition of meaningless. (Mike Trout is 2nd in the AL in K's so he must suck according to your stupid logic.) There are many other stats (including OPS) that aren't meaningless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is ZERO correlation between K's and how good a hitter is. That's pretty much the definition of meaningless. (Mike Trout is 2nd in the AL in K's so he must suck according to your stupid logic.) There are many other stats (including OPS) that aren't meaningless. 

 

You and your simplistic toe deep views.  :rl:

 

Great example, guess what Trout does that Granderson does not?  Get on base.  A .302 average is always going to be better than Granderson's .230.  Yeah, K's do not mean much when you are an offensive weapon like Trout that hits for average, power and is an XBH machine.  Yeah, I will take those K's but when your K machine is a hole in the lineup like Granderson...no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and your simplistic toe deep views.  :rl:

 

Great example, guess what Trout does that Granderson does not?  Get on base.  A .302 average is always going to be better than Granderson's .230.  Yeah, K's do not mean much when you are an offensive weapon like Trout that hits for average, power and is an XBH machine.  Yeah, I will take those K's but when your K machine is a hole in the lineup like Granderson...no thanks.

Either you are just dumb or trolling, I'm not sure. You're basically making my point for me just by using bad stats like BA which is meaningless. Trout's OPB is 390. He's clearly a great hitter and the fact that he's second in the AL in K's really is absolutely meaningless. Similarly, in Granderson's better years, his OPB was in the 360s which while not as good as Trout's, was perfectly fine and the fact that he K'd a lot was absolutely meaningless.

 

Your big problem is that you think that stats like BA and K's mean something and they don't. They are 1940's level baseball thinking and shorthand for people who don't have even a tiny bit of understanding of a stat's predictive value. You say that K's don't mean much "when you are an offensive weapon like Trout" whatever the hell that means, but they don't mean anything do matter how good a hitter you are. They don't effect it one way or another. The point is that there are great hitters who don't K at all and there are great hitters who K all the time, the nature of the outs a player makes is much less important than how many outs that player makes which is what you still just don't (or won't) understand. I like how the guy who wants to pretend that we haven't learned a THING about baseball analysis since World War 2 is calling my points "simplistic."

 

BTW, Brett Gardner is still better than Ellsbury (Despite having 30 more K's!.) 

Edited by unbanmadmike1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either you are just dumb or trolling, I'm not sure. You're basically making my point for me just by using bad stats like BA which is meaningless. Trout's OPB is 390. He's clearly a great hitter and the fact that he's second in the AL in K's really is absolutely meaningless. Similarly, in Granderson's better years, his OPB was in the 360s which while not as good as Trout's, was perfectly fine and the fact that he K'd a lot was absolutely meaningless.

 

Your big problem is that you think that stats like BA and K's mean something and they don't. They are 1940's level baseball thinking and shorthand for people who don't have even a tiny bit of understanding of a stat's predictive value. You say that K's don't mean much "when you are an offensive weapon like Trout" whatever the hell that means, but they don't mean anything do matter how good a hitter you are. They don't effect it one way or another. The point is that there are great hitters who don't K at all and there are great hitters who K all the time, the nature of the outs a player makes is much less important than how many outs that player makes which is what you still just don't (or won't) understand. I like how the guy who wants to pretend that we haven't learned a THING about baseball analysis since World War 2 is calling my points "simplistic."

 

BTW, Brett Gardner is still better than Ellsbury (Despite having 30 more K's!.) 

 

First, someone needs to piss test old Brett. The guy averages 8 a year and now has 8 in the last month.  I guess that dumb contract the Yankees gave him allowed him to buy better PEDs.

 

What makes Trout a great hitter? 

 

You do know how OBP is factored right?  The ability to hit e.g. get on base in some fashion is pretty important to having a good OBP.  Again, in it's simplest form, batting average, which is all I have conveyed is a means, not the means to determine a player's value.  

 

And way to cherry pick Granderson's 'good' years.  You know what else seemed to happen those years?  He hit for average.  You do know the correlation of hitting for average and how it raised his OBP?  Right?  I do not see you championing his .330 OBP these last two years when he is hitting only .230.

 

Granderson has more Ks than hits with RISP.  Yeah, the K means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, someone needs to piss test old Brett. The guy averages 8 a year and now has 8 in the last month.  I guess that dumb contract the Yankees gave him allowed him to buy better PEDs.

 

What makes Trout a great hitter? 

 

You do know how OBP is factored right?  The ability to hit e.g. get on base in some fashion is pretty important to having a good OBP.  Again, in it's simplest form, batting average, which is all I have conveyed is a means, not the means to determine a player's value.  

 

And way to cherry pick Granderson's 'good' years.  You know what else seemed to happen those years?  He hit for average.  You do know the correlation of hitting for average and how it raised his OBP?  Right?  I do not see you championing his .330 OBP these last two years when he is hitting only .230.

 

Granderson has more Ks than hits with RISP.  Yeah, the K means nothing.

 

 

Someone should piss test Ellsbury for 2011. He's never had double digit homers in another season. 

 

BTW Mike Trout also has more K's than hits with RISP. He must suck! Stop making a fool of yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should piss test Ellsbury for 2011. He's never had double digit homers in another season. 

 

BTW Mike Trout also has more K's than hits with RISP. He must suck! Stop making a fool of yourself. 

 

No doubt on Els.

 

Then answer the question?

 

What makes Trout a great hitter?  I am not arguing the point.  I just want to see your pure spin is.

 

He is great at "putting a round bat on a round ball and hitting squarely".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt on Els.

 

Then answer the question?

 

What makes Trout a great hitter?  I am not arguing the point.  I just want to see your pure spin is.

 

He is great at "putting a round bat on a round ball and hitting squarely".

Did you really just ignore me pointing out how moronic your hilarious argument about Granderson having more K's than hits with RISP is? LMAO 

Edited by unbanmadmike1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really just ignore me pointing out how moronic your hilarious argument about Granderson having more K's than hits with RISP is? LMAO 

 

Did you really ignore my question as to what makes Mike Trout a great hitter?

 

And for his career, Trot has more hits than Ks.

Edited by PFSIKH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really ignore my question as to what makes Mike Trout a great hitter?

 

And for his career, Trot has more hits than Ks.

Trout is a great hitter because all the metrics that measure how good a hitter is accurately say he's a great hitter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trout is a great hitter because all the metrics that measure how good a hitter is accurately say he's a great hitter. 

 

Such as?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...