nymr83

good for Torre, a 1 year deal at less than he was making with an option that only vested if he made the world series is INSULTING. i hope he gets a better contract from the Cardinas or something

again, i'm not saying that duque can repeat his performance or even that we'll someone who can. i'm just saying i'd rather have 150 innings of 3.72 than 200 innings of 4.46. a couple of more points: -this isn't "costing" the bullpen mush rest- most of these innings would go to spot starters called up from AAA or to the longman, the longman isnt usually overtaxed anyway and i couldn't care less about the toll on the AAA pitching staff (and neither should any MLB team trying to win) -the league ERA is 4.26, the mets are loaded with $$, the mets can find better spot starters than the crap they paraded out there this year, guys who can pitch in the 4.26-4.51 range for a few spot starts. its on Minaya to make sure this team has better quality pitching depth.

the difference in innings between el duque and glavine was 53, not 100. i'd rather have 147 innings of el duque's production this year, 25 innings of pelfrey, 15 innings of humber, 5 innings of whoever the longman is and 8 extra innings on the good relievers than 200 innings of glavine, not to mention that glavine is unlikely to pitch even as well as he did this past year (96 ERA+) or as much as he did (200 innings) given his advanced age. this is not to say el duque is likely to pitch well again either, but he's under contract so whether or not to bring him back isn't nearly as much of a question. Glavine would have been paid what? 13 million? lets see who the Mets go out and get and THEN laud or criticize them for choosing that person (or people) over Glavine. EDIT- free agent starting pitchers (according to mlb4u.com- i dont purport that these are accurate) (divisions are mine and are for quick reference only, i dont pretend to have compared all the stats or anything) pretty good- Pettite, Garcia, Schilling not bad- Rogers, Wolf, Clemens, Chacon, Clement, Colon, Jennings, Maddux some hope- Fossum, Milton, Od.Perez, Redman, Rusch, D.Wells, Benson, Byrd, Fogg, L.Hernandez, Lopez, Mays, Ohka, Ru.Ortiz, Ponson, Tomko, Traschel, Wakefield, Weaver trash heap- Affeldt, Chen, Estes, Armas, Astacio, Elarton, Lawrence, Lohse, Miller, Moeller, Ra.Ortiz, Park, Sele, Thompson, Wasdin, K.Wells, V.Zambrano, J.Wright

i suppose that depends on how big a trekkie you are, but either way i don't think its a bad idea to try and find reasonable look-alikes.

the new guy playing McCoy is the only one who, imo, looks believable as a younger version of the character. especially bad is the guy playing Sulu where the resemblance to George Takei seems non-existant

yeah, but what i'm saying is that when the point of the movie is to get laughs from the audience the believability of hte plot really takes a back seat for me.

Vic Sage wrote: I thought her choice not to abhort seemed an unsupported plot contrivance, not a choice based on the nature of her character. That decision needed more rationale in the story. granted, but this was a comedy not a serious film so the fact that choices were made based on furthering the plot alone doesn't bother me because the movie succeeded at being funny. And I never bought their love story for a second. There didnt' seem any chemistry between either the actors or the characters. truwe as well, but it didnt subtract from the humor of the film to me, this wasnt a romantic chick flic

="Frayed Knot"]1) "Jeter is great, just look at his numbers!" But what about the numbers that show he's not so great? 2) "Jeter's greatness can't be measured by numbers!" sounds kinda like "loduca's contribution can't be measured by his poor numbers"

metsmarathon wrote: quick question: kaz matsui. has he helped or hurt the rockies this year? thats not a quick question, its a pretty hard one... he had an OPS+ of 87 but stole 32 bases while only being caught 4 times. he played the 3rd or 4th hardest of the 8 defensive positions and i'm not really sure how well he played it. if you told me that his defense was very good along with the good baserunning i'd say he helped. if you told me that along with the 87 ops+ he was a bad defender i'd say he hurt.

why the obssession with replacement level? if everyone was replacement level we'd win 50 games. you should be comparing guys to the average player to determine whether they are helping or hurting Can we just stop posting about the NBA? I honestly don't know what you're talking about. i'm trying to make the point that below-average production over a larger number of chances is hurtful not helpful.

Edgy DC wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet) who is higher on your list? The second one, and isn't that close. There's only so much you can help your team if you don't play. Sorry to the secret slugger. The second guy gave his team about 40% more. so a guy who is actually a negative at the plate is more helpful than a guy who was positive in a small sample size? i guess you're a big fan of "chuckers" in the NBA who score lots of points by ball hogging and you hate those guys who quietly go 6 for 10 for 12 points.

Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet) who is higher on your list? i'm just trying to see if you think playing time = contribution because it sure seems that way. if not where do you draw the line? because i know i'm way over towards quality over quantity.

Maine-Perez 10-11? yikes.

Edgy DC wrote: Castro made a significant offensive contribution. In far fewer at-bats, which gives him about an equal score offensively (checking win shares here, and they say exactly the same) while LoDuca's defensive win shares is a much larger number. but contributing more wins in fewer at-bats makes you BETTER. i only used the win shares to compare the 3 secondbasemen because i knew they played roughly the same amount. contributing more defensive wins in far more playing time doesnt make you better. dividing the win shares by playing time might give a better idea of who was contributing more, because you'll rack up win shares the same way a shooting guard racks up points...by playing alot or taking alot of shots, but if you shoot 5-23 for 12 points did those 12 points really help your team when taking into account your 18 missed opportnities, opportunities that could have gone elsewhere if not for your ineptitude? i feel we had this same argument when matsui was stinking up the joint, at least loduca is stinking up the joint at a more valuable position.

they (the catchers) were all pretty bad defensively and Loduca was bad offensively too, therefore he was just BAD. Castro made a significant offensive contribution. at 2B they were all the same defensively, but Easley and Gotay were superior hitters, and the 3 of them all played the same amount.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Question for the room: Explain Green relative to Delgado i had Delgado 3 spots above Green (with Alou and a pitcher between them.) The difference to me is that Delgado had about 90 ABs more than Green. they were very close on a per-ab basis. Alou is between them for me because he just didnt have the ABs for me to place him higher than delgado (who was a net positive at 104 ops+) but he had just enough ABs where i lt comfortable placing him above Green.

Easley, Castillo, and Gotay have 1.4, 1.0, and 0.9 win shares from defense respectively. so you can take "defense" off your list of excuses for placing Castillo higher.

he's the best performing Met catcher they were all pretty bad defensively, but he was bad offensively too and he did it over more innings (hurting them more.) i'd really like to argue more about 2B though... Castillo (199 ABs) .296/.371/.372 (98 OPS+) Easley (193 ABs) .280/.358/.466 (116 OPS+) Gotay (190 ABs) .295/.351/.421 (103 OPS+) even if castillo was so great on defense, which i'm not sure about, Easley was so far superior as a hitter that Castillo would have to be Roberto Alomar in his prime for the defense to even come close to making up the offensive difference. can someone help me out with the Win Shares (both from defense and overall) on these guys? thanks.

ok so heres the questions i have to ask: 1. how is Castillo higher than Easley and/or Gotay on most lists? Castillo was simply inferior to both of them playing the same position in roughly the same number of at-bats. 2. why the LoDuca-love? he had an 85 OPS+ and is not a good defensive catcher 3. why is joe smith so low? i know he pitched less innings than wagner/heilman/feliciano (who he should be below) but they were quality innings

Hitters: Wright, Beltran, Reyes, Delgado, Alou, Green, Easley, Gotay, Milledge, Castro, Castillo, LoDuca, Anderson, Chavez, Valentin, Gomez, Ledee, Difelice (see my previous post) Pitchers: Perez, Maine, Hernandez, Glavine, Wagner, Heilman, Feliciano, Smith, Sosa, Martinez, Pelfrey, Schoenweis Perez edged Maine out on superior ERA in 15 less innings and identical records, Hernandez edged Glavine out for 3rd because his ERA was 3/4 of a run better despite the missing innings. the 4 relievers that follow glavine were the only 4 that were good, sosa had some nice stretches too and his final numbers are serviceable. martinez had a few good starts but didnt pitch enough to be higher. pelfrey and suckweis are only there to fill the 30 spaces i have to assign. overall: 30 Wright 29 Beltran 28 Reyes 27 Perez 26 Maine 25 Hernandez 24 Delgado 23 Alou 22 Glavine 21 Green 20 Wagner 19 Heilman 18 Feliciano 17 Easley 16 Gotay 15 Castro 14 LoDuca 13 Milledge 12 Smith 11 Castillo 10 Anderson 9 Sosa 8 Martinez 7 Chavez 6 Valentin 5 Gomez 4 Ledee 3 Difelice 2 Pelfrey 1 Schoenweis

theres 6 letters in his middle name: "fuckin"

even in a league full of catch-and-throw guys you're going to have 4 catchers named to all-star teams each year at a minimum. in 1981 he hit .207/.275/.404 in the first half and was named an all-star, not sure how that happened.

there are guys who are in that should have fallen short- Tony Perez and Richie Ashburn amongst others. i'm also against guys that have been advocate for here like juan gonzalez

MFS62 wrote: ="Valadius"]I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player. That logic will be severely put to the test with Bonds, steroids or no steroids. i have to agree with Val on that, if lawrence taylor and ty cobb are in their respective sports' halls personality and off-field antics shouldn't be keeping other people out. as for Dick Allen, i'd put him in. Simmons should remain out imo.

nothing so far. i'll make position adjustments once i integrate the hitters and pitchers into 1 list