Bio not provided
good fucking riddance
2 years ago on Dodgers @ Diamondbacks July 5, 2012: Another One Bites the Dust
And to whom it may concern: Fuck all of you who ruined this site. I've followed this site long enough that I felt it was worth pointing out before I very calmly take my business elsewhere
In conclusion: fuck that shit
But these people have somehow taken over the comments so it feels that way.
I know that most people here aren't doing that
How does this happen on a blog that itself represents such a rational perspective?
what the fuck is that shit?
how insulting and dismissive
while other make sexist jokes
@VietnamDodger is telling @LA Woman to "calm down" and saying that so and so "is obviously getting to her."
But holy shit I'm looking at the shit @SCruzDodgers and @LA Woman are putting up with.
Sure only like 10% of the posters now are capable of rational discussion, but I can deal.
All this I can deal with
@WestonTaylor Well I'm not at the good part yet
@wilhud I'm never posting on this site again after this so don't worry
I ask people to back up their baseless assertions and somehow that means I'm a stat nerd who doesn't know anything about baseball challenging old pros who don't have the time or need to explain their deep understanding to a dork like me.
I cite a single statistic and that means I watch too much moneyball
But now this shit is a dump.
I provided a statistical perspective that was one of many that were represented in what I believe was a pretty healthy and productive discussion.
Mike isn't saber-fan number one but he's always recognized the value of statistics without putting too much emphasis on them.
and they were always from people who at least put a little bit of thought into their posts.
And I stayed because the comments were always about baseball.
I've been following and commenting on this blog for a long time, longer that most of you based on the usernames I remember from before.
I'm pretty dumbfounded that this has happened
When did this site's community become populated almost entirely by assholes and morons?
@SCruzDodgers owning these commenters about as hard as Harang owned the Reds today. Let's continue both of these trends.
2 years ago on Dodgers Top Reds, But Have They Lost Dee Gordon?
@VietnamDodger Stop talking to me.
@VietnamDodger @JeffKlein thanks for the input.
One of us asks for explanation, the other makes assertions. I think it's funny that YOU are sarcastically insulting my expertise. You'll notice I didn't resort to sarcasm when you were talking out your ass before.
@Bill Grabarkewitz @SCruzDodgers @LA Woman @JohnM @The_Real_Paul @Deuce "I'm sorry if you were offended,"
I'm sorry you think that fauxpologies mean anything and should ever be used in any situation
"but if you thought for a minute I was serious, well then, I don't know what to say."
but if you thought that her response was predicated on a presupposition that you weren't joking, then you clearly made no effort to read and understand a comment from a woman directed at you.
@SCruzDodgers Fuck yeah.
@JeffKlein @Justincredible14 @Deuce @JohnM Casey Blake was good but that doesn't count because we only traded for the rest of 2008 Casey Blake. Everything after that we didn't need to give up Santana for.
@RareBlue @JeffKlein I would love Victorino. I hate him as much as anyone but he can play baseball.
@JeffKlein @ED_IN_DE Both UZR and DRS agree that Dee is basically the worst SS in the bigs defensively. He makes some good plays but not nearly enough of them. And actually every player makes what appear to be good plays sometimes, but diving for a ball that another player can jog to does not a good defender make.
@JohnM @Deuce @JeffKlein Sure he needs to learn how to hit major league pitching. But in this meantime, we have a major league ballclub that is trying to win games and Dee Gordon is actively hurting that. That's what the minors are for, doing as much as we can for players without allowing them to hurt the major league club.
@JeffKlein "we need him we don't win without him."
.... you can't possibly be serious. By what inconceivable line of reasoning can you assert this?
Did you say this when Matt Kemp got injured? Because if we don't win without Dee "negative WAR" Gordon, then what do we do without Matt Kemp? Cease to be a major league franchise?
@Cadtalfryn All sports fans suck. really. They're almost all morons. Even the ones who supposedly take a rational approach to the game. Some of us here were convinced that Jerry Hairston, Elian Herrera and Tony Gwynn were good hitters. One cannot frequent this blog without experiencing some sort exposure to rational sports analysis and yet we all believed for a second we were a good team because we're idiots.
@EephusBlue No one was signed to be a 5th starter. That doesn't even make sense. I say Kershaw is our 5th starter because we have 5 starters so someone is a fifth stater.
@EephusBlue AK just might be better than Dee right now. They're both equally bad on offense but AK isn't actively losing games with his defense.
Ethier to DL also. Someone posted this already I'm guessing.
@JeffKlein @AnotherBrian Dee Gordon belongs in the minor leagues
2 years ago on A Trading Season Primer
Billingsley doesn't know how to win.
2 years ago on Reds @ Dodgers July 2, 2012: Bailey vs Billingsley
@el serracho I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that he's not that great and compared him to Blake as proof. If your intention was to show that he IS good, and compared him to Blake as proof, then you did exactly what you intended to do.
My apologies, good citizen.
@nsxtasy 7 *defensive* runs above average, or 2 if looking at b-ref.
@CptPineapple @nsxtasy He's not the ninth best 3B in the bigs. His OPS number, taken totally out of context, is the ninth best among 3B. Phrased correctly, the statement becomes meaningless.
@nsxtasy "Headley has never been worth 6 WAR (or even 4 WAR) over the course of an entire season"
He's on pace to right now. He's 15th in the majors among all position players. And in 2010 he was worth 5 wins.
"He's never been an All-Star."
"His career BA is .269 and OPS is .743, nothing inspiring, and while those numbers are a little higher than that on the road, that probably has more to do with his lucky BABIP on the road of .369 than anything else. Even this year's OPS of .789, the best of his career, only ranks him 9 out of 16 qualifying third basemen in MLB."
What are you doing citing his OPS out of context and then going on to quote BABIP? BAPIP is far less about luck with hitters, as hitters have way more control over the type of batted ball they create. Headley has a BABIP of .340 over 2400 career PA, which is enough to believe it is sustainable. In addition, he's shown decent power for Petco, and he's kept he walk rate over 10%.
Also people, stop quoting his OPS, PETCO, people, PETCO. It's really so severe there that it's almost like anti-Coors. Both OPS+ and wRC+ exist to try to account for park factors, so as to scale a players offense relative to run environment, which factors in park and the state of the league. 100 is average, and Headley has a wRC+ of 128 and an OPS+ of 124, both decidedly above average.
He plays an above average position, 3B. He is worth 7 runs above average among 3B according to fangraphs and 2 according to b-ref. I still fail to see any way in which he is average.
@el serracho A) Both of those look pretty good from a valuable position like 3B. Not sure what your point is in comparing them, considering Blake was a very good player when healthy, and at 28 with no significant injury history, Headley should be healthier than Blake.
C) This is the most depressed offensive environment in the MLB in a long long time. Run production is down massively, and the National League in particular is totally pathetic at hitting. So by comparison, those numbers are much better than league average, whereas 10 years ago they might have been average.
I like how people post slash lines but do no further analysis. You might as well tell me you don't want Headley because he has 38 RBIs.
@el serracho Casey Blake on a good year is an elite player. Blake simply took too long to break into the bigs and he spent too much time sidelined by injury. In 2009, Blake was worth 5 wins, but Headley is hitting better than Blake ever did right now, and Blake was still a career minor leaguer at the age Headley is now.
I think it's funny how last year we were saying this team was going to be severely OBP-challenged and now, partly by chance we're a pretty good OBP team, but we have so little power that I wonder why teams don't throw fastballs down the middle all day.
Chase headley is an average baseball player if the major leagues contains only 30 baseball players, the worst of which is Miguel Cabrera. Chase Headley is an average baseball player if the average baseball player projects to be worth about 6 wins over a whole seasons. Chase Headley is an average baseball player if the average player has a wRC+ of 128 even though the stat is scaled so the average player has an 100, or of the average player is worth 7 defensive runs above average so far.
Chase Headley, in actuality, is in no sense and average baseball player.
2 years ago on Mets @ Dodgers June 30, 2012: Santana vs Eovaldi
@Morry @Bip @Justincredible14 @Lobo You guys are misunderstanding me. By definition, he would be a patch if we're acquiring him with any intention of saving our current offense from itself in hope of salvaging this season. Our offense is currently broken, so acquiring outside players represents an attempt to patch it up. The fact that he has long term value as well doesn't mean he's not also a patch. However, the more we need a player, the less leverage we have. If we wait until the offseason, we can deal for Headley as an offense with 5 years of Ethier and 8 years of Kemp ahead of it, but now, we're dealing as the worst offense in the game with neither Kemp nor Ethier.
2 years ago on Dodgers Embarrass Themselves On the Field, But What's Happening Off It?
@SamAdams For example, we know that Albert Pujols is an excellent defender, and indeed he's been worth 69 runs above average over his career according to UZR. However, b-ref has him at only 3.2 dWAR over his whole career. This is because it's much easier to find players who can play first base, so replacement level is higher, and that defense at first base has an inherently smaller impact than defense at other positions.
@SamAdams UZR has him at +12 runs above average over the last 5 seasons, which is pretty good given the limited defensive impact of the first base position. The reason his dWAR is negative is UZR on fangraphs and b-ref dWAR measure two different things.
Baseball reference has a new weird dWAR system. The new dWAR accounts for the fact that first base is the least valuable position. UZR says that James Loney plays above average defense among first basemen, and Carlos Lee plays mostly below average defense. dWAR says that Loney is less valuable than the average player defensively, but that counts shortstops and center fielders and such. That is useful when arguing against those people that say that Loney is so good defensively that he's as valuable as the better hitting 1B's, but it's not useful when we're comparing two 1B's in a limited sample.
@RealTom How meta of you
@Justincredible14 I realize that, but making a long term deal while in the midst of an offensive slump of epic proportions is hardly dealing from a position of strength. I don't want to weaken our position when we're talking about a deal that would necessarily involve our top prospects no matter what.
I like/want Headley, but I also want to be smart about it. I see a Headley deal as more or less irrelevant to the topic of this post.
@JeffKlein Yes, homers, the ultimate moneyball stat. I forgot that before moneyball there was only RBIs and stolen bases.
quit with the clown comments bro
@The_Real_Paul I fail to see how this is relevant to either baseball or the topic at hand.
@Justincredible14 @Lobo You guys are talking about fundamentally different deals here. Carlos Lee is a 37-year-old going into free agency on a terrible team. His only value to the Astros is as a trade chip, and this is well known. Teams can basically low-ball the Astros all day, but in the end they have no reason not to accept *some* deal for him. However, Lowrie and Headley are both 28 with two more years of team control left after this year, and both are also simply better players than Lee at the moment, at more valuable positions. We're talking about a fundamentally different trade scenario in this case, that being one where either
A) the Astros and Padres see that player as having future value to the team and therefore will not give them up easily or
B) they have committed to rebuilding so thoroughly that they are giving up they most valuable players, something they will not to for anything less than a comparable player they can build around.
Trading for a player like Lee makes sense. We have an immediate need to buy and the Astros have an immediate need to sell. However, those other guys are not the kind of deals you make in the throes of a slump. Those deals are made in the offseason after careful consideration of the state of the franchise. I like both those players, but we absolutely should not be looking at them as midseason patches to the offense.
@SCruzDodgers You are not allowed to like this post. You should be for whatever reduces Loney's playing time as much as possible, unless you are prepared to renounce previous statements.
@JeffKlein 5 homers and a BABIP under .300? Not what I would call a threat.
I think it's partially a sad reflection of the overall offensive environment that this deal represents an upgrade from below-replacement level to replacement level.
To be honest, I don't really like this deal, but it's not because I'm particularly upset about losing Gould. I just don't really want Carlos Lee. Lee is about a league average hitter, which is still way better than Loney is right now. However, he's as one dimensional as a player can be. He can't field, he can't run, and he plays the worst position. Loney can field, and he's not a liability on the bases, but he's been hitting so poorly that Lee, at the moment, is still more valuable. However, we have to remember this is James Loney we're talking about. Last year at this time we were wondering if he'd make it even a month without being released. Well, it's a good thing we didn't, because we'd have thrown away one of the best offensive players in the league from that point on. Of course it's unlikely he'll do the same thing this year, but remember, we're not paying for past performance, we're paying for future performance. Lee and Loney are not going to change their defense and baserunning, so we have to consider their future offense. Lee is at a wRC+ of 106, and considering he's 37 and moving to a more pitcher-friendly park, I don't see that going anywhere but down. Loney is at an unacceptable wRC+ of 66, but he's 28 and over the last 4 years he's had a wRC+ between 95 and 109, even if it took him the whole season to do it. Factor in defense and base running and Loney doesn't even have to match Lee going forward in order to exceed his value.
My point is, yeah Loney has been worse than Lee over the season so far, but do we expect Lee to outhit Loney by a large enough margin going forward to counter the ways in which Loney is better? Even if the answer is yes, my feeling is that it won't be by a large enough margin to be worth giving up anything of even a little value.
@The_Real_Paul Just a tad concerned? Just a smidge concerned? You probably conflagrated those two.
I mean you conflated them.
2 years ago on Dodgers Attempt to Distract From Slump By Reportedly Signing Cuban Yasiel Puig To Record Deal
@The_Real_Paul We're paying him less per year than we're paying Uribe.
I'm still pretty ok with this.
I love this. I have no idea if this guy will be any good, but I'm not really concerned about that now. 21 years old? Dodgers investing in international market? Love it.
@Lobo @EephusBlue @JustinMurray Headley is an established almost-star player at the very worst, he's got 2 years of team control left so he's very cheap, and Lee, as good as he is, is not a Harper/Strasburg level prospect. You should never expect a prospect to become a star except in the aforementioned Harper/Strasburg case, and therefore trading a prospect for a 4-win player under team control while you're at 75% odds of making the playoffs is an easily defensible move.
2 years ago on Dodgers @ Giants June 26, 2012: Kershaw vs Vogelsong
@EephusBlue @The_Real_Paul me like
@EephusBlue All our players outperform like crazy just to piss me off
@The_Real_Paul The best thing to do would be to just paste a troll face on the ball.
or put this:
on kershaw's face and this:
@EephusBlue @JustinMurray They signed Ozzie Guillen and Carlos Zambrano. If anything, they need to keep Hanley as angry as possible to preserve team chemistry.
@EephusBlue @JustinMurray Signed through 2014 for about $15.5M a year. Pretty damn good, which means that the Marlins, who obviously plan on contending and not rebuilding, are very unlikely to trade him.
@EephusBlue @JustinMurray Both of those are extremely tempting. But that is the caliber of player that we would need in order for me to be ok with losing Lee.
That game sucked... like it really sucked, but on the bright side, it did also produce perhaps the greatest pitch I have ever seen:
Someone should make gifs of every individual reaction from every person in the crowd. I know that I made a really embarrassing noise that I'm very ashamed someone else had to hear.
@JustinMurray Also I can't imagine that we're going to give up our top prospect for a pitcher given how our offense is doing. I'm sure Colletti is scrambling for hitters.
@MatthewSaydah @JustinMurray I wouldn't trade Zach Lee for less than two years of anyone.
hey guys it's been fun but I'm sick of this place so I'm taking some time off. see you in a week, maybe
2 years, 1 month ago on A New Hero Every Night: Juan Rivera Edition
@SCruzDodgers @Bob Meripol if two things are divisible by n, their sum is divisible by n.
2 and 5 are not divisible by n.
sentence is trivially true.
@SCruzDodgers @Bob Meripol Ha ha. It appears that my math is too much for even this place. There is nowhere left for me to go.
@SCruzDodgers @Bob Meripol I mean for god's sake both the digits are divisible by 3. 3*10 + 9. two things divisible by n added together are divisible by n.
Did you say you've taken algebra?
@VietnamDodger Oh yeah, I remember thinking Hudson was really good that year. As for Pierre, he could have been worse. I remember thinking he was really good at the time. I knew about statistics then, but I had never studied baseball statistics specifically. Now I don't see Pierre quite as favorably. bahaha.
@VietnamDodger Yeah that was the first sign that Matt Kemp would live up to his superstar potential, it showed us Kershaw's potential, Ethier was the most exciting player in the game, Broxton was still good. It was a great year. Really made 2010 so so disappointing. 2010 was painful.
@Mike Petriello Yeah what with us clamoring for instantaneous recaps and all.
@SCruzDodgers 39-23, while not both prime, is still an attractive for the following reason:
3*13 = 39, so our record was
3 * 13 - 23
which is very aesthetically pleasing.
@veryolddodgerfan truth hurts
@veryolddodgerfan walking 4 batters isn't usually a sign of good performance to come.
I followed the Dodgers very closely in 2009 when they had the best record in baseball for 2/3 of the year, but I wasn't really involved in any sort of baseball discussion, and I didn't read any blogs or analysis at the time. My question is: did people sort of have the same feeling then as now? People seem to generally feel that this is an underdog team that has somehow scratched out its wins against all odds. Was it like that in 2009? Or did people think that was a legitimately talented team playing like it should? Because I know we lost our star that year just like this year, and that year we didn't really have an ace comparable to Clayton Kershaw today.