A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Fine. Denounce me all you want. Moon just posted a better retort to "CERA" than I could. Bottom line: money talks - BS walks.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon, Scioscia didn't debunk CERA. He indicated it was smaller that the up to 1.5 runs per game which both you and Harness have cited several times. It was a boston globe interview if I remember correctly and Harness and I discussed it then. Scioscia believes in CERA and basically said some catchers and pitchers prefer to work with each other but he did not indicate it was a major factor. It was a factor worth paying attention to but not a huge factor.

    Yes, the 1 to to 1.5 runs was discussed several times. That is the whole point of my disagreement on this issue. I think it has impact but not 1-1.5 runs a game in general. I've yet to see any major baseball analyst project it to that level.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Your ego is now in Softlaw territory. We - no one - us. " No one respects Moon more than me". classic Boom . You denounce writers today and then use them as a gold standard to validate your finger-pointing. 1.5 runs a game is over 240 runs a year. Where the hell did I say that was nit-picking? You ran when I asked you to look at the data, hiding behind "We'll have to agree to disagree BS". And you'll run again.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    When I say "no one respects Moon more than I" it is to note how much respect I have for Moon. I disagree with Moon on CERA but that doesn't mean I disrespect him. You unfortunately have a difficult time with anyone who disagrees with you. That's why I just say "agree to disagree" because it's the only way to keep from having a 100 post argument about it. You are on a CERA mission, a CERA crusade. No one is right on that except you right. Not Bill James or anyone except you. Some of us are sick of it harness. Some of us don't want to discuss it with you any more because you are locked in and stubborn to the core on that issue.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Final aggregate CERA tally for 2011:
    Tek: 3.56
    Lavernway: 4.39
    Salty: 4.63

    Aggregate is flawed, as catchers caught different pitchers.
    With or without Beckett, Tek still lead as predicted.
    Moon, cash UR cyberspace ticket.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I have never said a catcher makes a 1.5 run difference...not even close.

    Some of the data showed that much of a disparity with a few pitchers and catchers, but I never said the catcher was fully responsible for that number.

    I did a big study on a 0.25 to 0.50 disparity, because that is about the most I think a catcher can influence a whole staff. It might be higher with some and lower with others, but I seriously doubt it could be 1.5 runs, unless you matched up one of the alltime best with one of the alltime worst.

    Go back and look at the Catcher Relevance thread. I don't need to. I know what I said and didn't say.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : More classic Boom BS. Mathis in 2011 :  .174 BA  .225 OBP  .484 OPS VMART was sooooooooooo good behind the plate that he took DH money as his best offer. What do UR journalist experts say about that?
    Posted by harness


    By the way, that post was on the "A realistic Look at 2012" thread, not this one and I retracted it a few minutes lafter I said it with the below post. Which I'm quite sure you read but heh, another opportunity to criticize me just can't be passed up can it. If you have little in terms of facts, why not search far and wide, distort and flat out lie? I complement Moon, and thats a problem. You say I'm nit picking and I state that "Baltimore" is not nit picking. Ragging at me about Bautista was nit picking. Then you criticize that. It's just a constant loop with both of you guys. HERE IS THE RETRACTION ON THE OTHER THREAD, POSTED WELL BEFORE YOUR ABOVE POST:

    ME: 

    I looked it up and it's actually 3 propsects that have done it. It was Mike Napoli rather than Mathis ( my mistake...Sorry ). He has turned out to be a decent mlb level hitter. Another was the Blue Jays Arencibia who looks like a keeper also ( 2 out of 3 so far ! ). The last was a guy named Todd Greene back in 1995 who had an 11 year mlb career but never made it big. So all 3 guys had significant mlb level careers. ( 3 for 3 ).

    Lavarnway also hit for average though, OBP and OPS. He had better numbers than all these guys overall. Better average and OPS.

    Look at the most recent Baseball America write up on him in their 2011 All Star selections:

    Lavarnway stands well above the field, even in a season when seven other catchers hit at least 20 home runs—a group that includes Eastern League MVP Travis d'Arnaud and top prospects Wilin Rosario of the Rockies, Tommy Joseph of the Giants and Derek Norris of the Nationals. That's because Lavarnway batted .290/.376/.563 and mashed 32 homers at the two highest levels of the minors to earn his first taste of big league play. For a catcher to slug 30 homers in the minors is a rare feat. The Blue Jays' J.P. Arencibia hit 32 bombs for Triple-A Las Vegas in 2010; Mike Napoli struck 31 homers for Double-A Arkansas in 2005; and going further back, Todd Greene hit 40 at two levels in 1995.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Boom, I haven't followed the other Realistic thread until a few minutes ago. I just posted on it after my initial post directly after OP last night. So save UR paranoia.
    I'm still not caught up many of the 70 posts made since I saw Moon start it yesterday. I never saw UR retraction. Why wait til now to retract it on this thread?
    UR initial statement was made here, so why jump threads?

    As for nit-picking, I have no idea what the hell this refers to. How does Baltimore fit into anything? You are taking from one thread and spouting on another, and it's getting impossible to follow. Try staying on subject on a given thread.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : By the way, that post was on the "A realistic Look at 2012" thread, not this one and I retracted it a few minutes lafter I said it with the below post. Which I'm quite sure you read but heh, another opportunity to criticize me just can't be passed up can it. If you have little in terms of facts, why not search far and wide, distort and flat out lie? I complement Moon, and thats a problem. You say I'm nit picking and I state that "Baltimore" is not nit picking. Ragging at me about Bautista was nit picking. Then you criticize that. It's just a constant loop with both of you guys. HERE IS THE RETRACTION ON THE OTHER THREAD, POSTED WELL BEFORE YOUR ABOVE POST: ME:  I looked it up and it's actually 3 propsects that have done it. It was Mike Napoli rather than Mathis ( my mistake...Sorry ). He has turned out to be a decent mlb level hitter. Another was the Blue Jays Arencibia who looks like a keeper also ( 2 out of 3 so far ! ). The last was a guy named Todd Greene back in 1995 who had an 11 year mlb career but never made it big. So all 3 guys had significant mlb level careers. ( 3 for 3 ). Lavarnway also hit for average though, OBP and OPS. He had better numbers than all these guys overall. Better average and OPS. Look at the most recent Baseball America write up on him in their 2011 All Star selections: Lavarnway stands well above the field, even in a season when seven other catchers hit at least 20 home runs—a group that includes Eastern League MVP Travis d'Arnaud and top prospects Wilin Rosario of the Rockies, Tommy Joseph of the Giants and Derek Norris of the Nationals. That's because Lavarnway batted .290/.376/.563 and mashed 32 homers at the two highest levels of the minors to earn his first taste of big league play. For a catcher to slug 30 homers in the minors is a rare feat. The Blue Jays' J.P. Arencibia hit 32 bombs for Triple-A Las Vegas in 2010; Mike Napoli struck 31 homers for Double-A Arkansas in 2005; and going further back, Todd Greene hit 40 at two levels in 1995.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom



    R U also quite sure I might be Ex-P?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Harness. Where is this going? No matter what I say you and your new bud expitch find fault with it, as expitch did all last week. And it was nit picking, agenda based BS. 10 pages of thread posting over nothing. And you came on and said effectively that it's a good thing. Heh, 791 said it made him a better poster right! Expitch is rookie of the year ...etc. I personally don't like wasting my time responding to BS. And that is what it was, as I've clearly proven at least 10 times by now.

    For the record, I don't run. I just throw up my hands and say "Why Bother" . Every response will get distorted anyway. Every link will get ignored. I have other things to do.

    Everyone hear has a perfect memory and most have never done a single thing wrong in their entire life. Amazing. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : R U also quite sure I might be Ex-P?
    Posted by harness
    The boy doesn't know whether he's coming or going, like a punch-drunk fighter staggering from pillar to post ( from thread to thread ). Goodness knows, he's taking a lot of punishment. No one from his corner has thrown in the towel, because his corner is empty. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I think some of us might be letting the frustration get to us. Boom's a good guy and loves our Sox. Haven't we all gone a bit overbaord at some time or another? I know I have.

    Can we bury the hatchet guys? 

    Let's keep this thread focused on the Sox.


     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Harness. Where is this going?No matter what I say you and your new bud expitch find fault with it, as expitch did all last week. And it was nit picking, agenda based BS. 10 pages of thread posting over nothing. And you came on and said effectively that it's a good thing. Heh, 791 said it made him a better poster right! Expitch is rookie of the year ...etc. I personally don't like wasting my time responding to BS. And that is what it was, as I've clearly proven at least 10 times by now. For the record, I don't run. I just throw up my hands and say "Why Bother" . Every response will get distorted anyway. Every link will get ignored. I have other things to do. Everyone hear has a perfect memory and most have never done a single thing wrong in their entire life. Amazing. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    For the record, you bow out gracefully.
    "We'll have to agree to disagree".
    Which only means you are putting something off for another time.

    Not wanting to discuss it further on Moon's thread...and doing just that.
    Bopping around from one thread to another, and blaming me for not seeing a retraction from this thread that was posted on another thread.

    Blaming someone, anyone... for not stopping a feud.
    Now UR back to memory slippage, which you used before when I called you out for UR wishing Softy would expire. When I was about to research that post,
    you suddenly disappeared for weeks.

    Where's this going? It's called being held accountable for UR actions.
    For God knows how long, you've been pointing fingers at players for PED/steroid use w/o any actual proof. Ex-P got tired of it and called you out.
    You use the very journalism you denounce for supporting UR stance. When that was questioned, you claim the "facts" are on UR side.

    You had a chance to back up UR position on "CERA" when Moon offered a terrific deal for those who didn't buy into the premise. You go on and on citing "experts", and yet when it came time to put up or shut up, where were you? Where are your experts? Every year, year in and year out, same thing. Pitchers perform better with Tek. Where are your expertsto explain the phenomenon? The variance?

    For the record, you will slide away yet again, sooner than later.
    And for the record, I will be right there to re-visit it when it comes up again. And it will.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]I think some of us might be letting the frustration get to us. Boom's a good guy   and loves our Sox. Haven't we all gone a bit overbaord at some time or another? I know I have. Can we bury the hatchet guys?  Let's keep this thread focused on the Sox.  
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon, neither you nor I can let go of a loose and unsubstantiated accusation. You've had to deal with them (Softone/Crazy4Sox ludicrous claims)
    Now I'm blamed for not seeing a retraction posted elsewhere.
    Some things have to play themselves out. Better now than later.
    Better on one thread headed toward the archives than UR new one.

    Frustration from the collapse or not, I don't take to false accusations.
    And Boom is riding on them.

    EDIT: Get this one:
    "You just overestimate it (CERA) by 300%. or the discussions of many other people who actually do the math".

    The blowhard never bothered to look into the math provided on the Catcher's relevance thread.  And now that Tek finished 2011 appx. a run per game better than his counter-part, his math is now exposed.

    BTW: I do like UR overboard pun.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'm not saying you have to accept it, but I do feel it has gone on long enough. I think it's time to just let it go, but I know it's not always easy. I have done the same as well.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : The boy doesn't know whether he's coming or going, like a punch-drunk fighter staggering from pillar to post ( from thread to thread ). Goodness knows, he's taking a lot of punishment. No one from his corner has thrown in the towel, because his corner is empty. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I have a lot of time for Boom and H, Ex-P not so much  I agree with Boom that some writers will not vote for Bautista out of suspicion, despite the lack of evidence.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]I think some of us might be letting the frustration get to us. Boom's a good guy   and loves our Sox. Haven't we all gone a bit overbaord at some time or another? I know I have. Can we bury the hatchet guys?  Let's keep this thread focused on the Sox.  
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    I admire your effort to calm the waters. Boom may love our Sox, but a "good guy," no matter how frustrated or angry ( I still prefer hysterical ), would not invoke the image of handicapped kids to insult another poster.  Never. Yes, never. For all Boom's complaints about the deficits of other posters, not one of those beings supposedly inferior to him has , to my knowledge, employed such a despicable tactic in an argument. "A bit overboard"? More like sunk in the mire, an indicator of how a mind works when it's stretched beyond its limits.  He'd already tried namecalling ( "stupidest," etc. ) and the ludicrous disbelief in my baseball experience as he flailed around seeking to undermine the credibility and character of the opposition.  He has played loose and easy with players' reputations, as Harness and I have shown. All of that ten-page stuff is a red herring. 
    A man's character can be exposed in one event, in a flash.
    I wish I could say I'm sorry for dumping all of this when you are trying to pacify matters. But I can't in all honesty. 
     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Understood, ex. I respect your candidness. I have had issues with boom and almost every poster on this site. Maybe I've known him longer than some, and I know he sometimes tends to speak from his emotions and gut feelings more than some of us, but he has made many an insightful comment, and I respect his opinion on most issues, particularly our prospects.

    I have a great respect for you too, ex, after just a short time getting to read your posts. I hope you continue to post on this site. I'm not tryng to say I haven't done what has been going on between you two. I have. I regret most of it afterwards, but I know I will probably do it again.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Understood, ex. I respect your candidness. I have had issues with boom and almost every poster on this site. Maybe I've known him longer than some, and I know he sometimes tends to speak from his emotions and gut feelings more than some of us, but he has made many an insightful comment, and I respect his opinion on most issues, particularly our prospects. I have a great respect for you too, ex, after just a short time getting to read your posts. I hope you continue to post on this site. I'm not tryng to say I haven't done what has been going on between you two. I have. I regret most of it afterwards, but I know I will probably do it again.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]May I just add to this fine post by Moon, that I too have found myself in a few circular exchanges. In my experience they never end until somebody just determines to walk away from it and move on to other topics.

    This is personal, but those exchanges when I have engaged in them have never been the most rewarding part of participating in this community and moving on and letting the topic die from not feeding it has alwways improved my enjoyment of particpating here.

    That is all very personal choice and as always just my take...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Moon , neither you nor I can let go of a loose and unsubstantiated accusation. You've had to deal with them (Softone/Crazy4Sox ludicrous claims) Now I'm blamed for not seeing a retraction posted elsewhere. Some things have to play themselves out. Better now than later. Better on one thread headed toward the archives than UR new one. Frustration from the collapse or not, I don't take to false accusations. And Boom is riding on them. EDIT: Get this one: " You just overestimate it (CERA) by 300%. or the discussions of many other people who actually do the math ". The blowhard never bothered to look into the math provided on the Catcher's relevance thread.  And now that Tek finished 2011 appx. a run per game better than his counter-part, his math is now exposed. BTW: I do like UR over board pun.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    For the record, my distinct memory is that both Harness and moon discussed the impact of CERA being up to 1-1.5 runs. I remember several instances of that. Maybe I interpreted it incorrectly but I REALLY DON'T THINK SO. This is not to insult anyone. I've made my admiration of Moon known many times. I just disagree on that point. And again, maybe I got that wrong, but I do not think so.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I have a lot of time for Boom and H, Ex-P not so much  I agree with Boom that some writers will not vote for Bautista out of suspicion, despite the lack of evidence.
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    Correct. Obvious. Self Evident. ....etc.

    And I had to respond to 10 pages of ridiculous expitch BS on the subject. Calling me irresponsible etc...for stating the obvious. The subject was Ellsbury and the MVP vote, not Bautista, until expitch took the thread way off topic for no apparent reason. After 3-4 such posts yes I do sometimes explode. I find it difficult to communicate with someone who just can't follow the report.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : For the record , you bow out gracefully. "We'll have to agree to disagree". Which only means you are putting something off for another time.

    NO, It's means I don't want to waste any more time with that discussion.

     Not wanting to discuss it further on Moon's thread...and doing just that.

    I've tried several times to respect this thread and even gave expitch the last word and then you chimed it again.

    Bopping around from one thread to another, and blaming me for not seeing a retraction from this thread that was posted on another thread. 

    You cited it as BS when I had already retracted it. I just mistook the name. Mathis rather than Napoli. Easy mistake since they played on the same team, same position. And I did retract it long before your post.

    Should I have just say Blaming someone, anyone... for not stopping a feud.

    When people like expitch were making a big issue over nothing, for 10 pages of posts, people should step in like Ton-UK just did above. That is what responsible posters should do rather than say HEY, YOU ARE ROOKIE OF THE YEAR" Expitch!

     Now UR back to memory slippage, which you used before when I called you out for UR wishing Softy would expire. 

    Here is just an example of the kind of distortion  some people resort to. Maybe it's just ignorance or a reading comprehension problem. I don't know but it happens.  Last year I was talking about Softy's intransigency on subjects like Ellsbury. I said something like "Softy will have a sign on his grave saying "I hate Ellsbury". Harness interprets that to mean I wished him dead. I was being hyperboolically funny about softy's intransigence. That he would hate Ellsbury no matter what, to the end.  At no time was I saying I wish he were dead. The urban legend continues.

    How would you feel Harness if someone did that to you, and kept bringing it up? If you accuse someone enough times, people start to believe it.

    When I was about to research that post, you suddenly disappeared for weeks.

    I happened to see the post last night when looking for the CERA is worth 1-1.5 runs posts. I had no freaking idea what you were talking about until last night. Looking up that stuff takes hours I don't want to give.


     Where's this going? It's called being held accountable for UR actions. For God knows how long, you've been pointing fingers at players for PED/steroid use w/o any actual proof. Ex-P got tired of it and called you out. 

    It is true that I have researched PED use more than most of you. When I cite news reports though and lots of corroborating EVIDENCE and INDICATORS, you and expitch just say thing like "I think he's innocent" or "I think he just found his stroke" (not exact quotes but paraphrasing ). You have chosen to be Pollyannas and that is your choice. I have no problem with that no matter how uninformed and naive it is ( to me ) but you guys want the inquisition on me every time it's discussed. My data and opinion is irrelevant. Even 10 pages of google postings were irrelevant to expitch. That is pig headedness.

    I have tried to point out that we can't know for sure and it's unfortunate that some non cheaters are going to be thrown out with the cheaters but you know what, they are all making a lot of money and if they are not caught ( or are innocent ) they are doing just fine. I just want the sport to be clean and accurate information might be the key to that development.

    You use the very journalism you denounce for supporting UR stance. 

    No harness, I don't call what I denounce as journalism. Try to keep up with me here. Journalism is when they do not present both sides of the story. To ignore indicators and evidence of PED use is not journalism. It's what you guys prefer to read.

    When that was questioned, you claim the "facts" are on UR side. 

    That's because they are!

    You had a chance to back up UR position on "CERA" when Moon offered a terrific deal for those who didn't buy into the premise. 

    I didn't see Moon's offer. I tuned out most of the CERA stuff long ago. I prefer to believe sources like baseball prospectus and Bill James. I'm real sorry about that. I don't read your points on the subject any more. 300 posts were more than enough for me.

    You go on and on citing "experts", and yet when it came time to put up or shut up, where were you? Where are your experts? 

    I've cited them maybe 4 times now. How about this one:


    Salient quote from that article:

    "
    [...] if there is a true game calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn't preclude that a small ability exists that influences results on the field.


    Every year, year in and year out, same thing. Pitchers perform better with Tek. Where are your experts to explain the phenomenon? The variance? For the record , you will slide away yet again, sooner than later. And for the record , I will be right there to re-visit it when it comes up again. And it will.

    There is no question that you will argue your points. I would prefer to agree to disagree rather than keep argueing.


    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]



     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    OK, again, I will give both Harness and expitch the last word on this subject and then let's just move on please.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Correct. Obvious. Self Evident. ....etc. And I had to respond to 10 pages of ridiculous expitch BS on the subject. Calling me irresponsible etc...for stating the obvious. The subject was Ellsbury and the MVP vote, not Bautista, until expitch took the thread way off topic for no apparent reason. After 3-4 such posts yes I do sometimes explode. I find it difficult to communicate with someone who just can't follow the report.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Malarkey. You didn't just explode. You went into the gutter.
    The ten-page gambit is as much a sham and red herring now as it was the day you first posted it. Here's your English lesson. Try to pay attention. You've already shown repeatedly that reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
    The first clause in your "Ellsbury" thread is, "Bautista is so tainted..." I don't know what language you think in, if any, but in English the writer of the first clause in a sentence owns the content unless it is specifically attributed to someone else.
    There was no one else in sight until later in the sentence. Then, as an effect of the cause you stated in the first clause, you stated that some writers might withhold their votes from Bautista. You set up the cause and effect by your syntax. It was not a matter of phrasing, a dodge you once tried, as if you might have chosen better words. It was a matter of basic meaning, which in English is determined fundamentally by structure and word order. Words mean what they mean according to where they are placed in that structure.
    I reacted to the meaning of your language. It was all I had to go on. That's how reading works.  If you had started with something like, "Some writers may think Baustisa so tainted by...," there would not have been the specific charge I leveled at
    YOU.  The writers would have owned the notion of a taint right from the start.  (There could have been an issue with the writers, evidence, and all that, as Harness pointed out. ) You would merely have been reporting it. As it is, you were stating it. A huge difference. 
    I could give other examples of your linguistic sloppiness. You had already committed a similar trangression about Navarro and that gym. Harness was right. I was fed up with your carelessness about players' reputations. 
    Small potatoes. Hardly. Wars have begun over language. Contracts have been voided. Big money can be involved.
    A lawyer for a workman once engaged me as an expert witness since my specialty was teaching  graduate courses in rhetoric, grammar (that is, syntax ) and stylistics. The insurance company was trying to screw the man. But the language in its own contract tripped the company up. The judge asked me to explain why I read a passage in favor of the workman. It took two minutes. The judge ruled in our favor. We nailed that company big.
    Then, to everyone's amusement save that of the defeated hot-shot lawyer for the insurance company, the judge said, "You know, I've always had a few questions about usage. Now that I've got you here. Do you mind?" I said, "Shoot." He and I had a great time. I'm pleased to think that the workman did as well with the money that was rightfully his.
    The only thing that is "obvious" is that you brought the troubles on yourself, and then made things worse by your behavior, which finally, and perhaps predictably, descended into the crack about the Special Olympics. Some remarks are beyond apology. Yours was one of them. See how it would play with the mother of a Down Syndrome child who made it to the finish line, while I, the "backup," as you said, watched from the sidelines. Good Lord. 
    But then, there is also the possibility, at least in your mind, that I've made up my teaching experience and the episode in court, just as I made up my coaching experience. 
    "No apparent reason." It was the best reason: to protect a man's reputation. A reason that seemed good enough to Harness as well. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : For the record, my distinct memory is that both Harness and moon discussed the impact of CERA being up to 1-1.5 runs. I remember several instances of that. Maybe I interpreted it incorrectly but I REALLY DON'T THINK SO. This is not to insult anyone. I've made my admiration of Moon known many times. I just disagree on that point. And again, maybe I got that wrong, but I do not think so.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    We did say that many of the numbers came to about 1.00 to 1.50 and that was about the average disparity between individual pitchers for several years, but neither of us ever said that V'Tek was responsible for all of that CERA disparity. We easily could have, since those numbers have been pretty consistent. I am certain that I used about 25-50% of the actual disparities to make my case, allowing for other variables and factors out of respect for the fact that I do not even value ERA that highly and CERA is even more restrictive and dependenat on other players and factors. That is also one reason I expanded on harness' CERA & W-L argument by introducing opponent's OPS when each catcher caught individual pitchers. I took the time to painstakingly document those differentials, and we saw the same results: a significantly better OPS when Vtek caught almost all pitchers.

    Tito has used "personal caddy's" for several pitchers, so there are not many near equal sample sizes to compare. That is the ideal way to use CERA and Opponent's OPS. However, when we look at smaller the sample sizes of the rest of the pitchers, they overwelmingly show V'Tek got the best out of almosy every pitcher.

    Here are the updated 2010 and 2011 numbers:
    Red denotes better numbers in sample sizes larger than 30 IP.
    Blue denotes better numbers in sample sizes with at least one pitcher between 13-29 IP. 

              (IP)  OPS  CERA

    Jon Lester:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (40)  .577  2.48  -1.29

    Salty   (146) .717  3.77

    Lava     (6)   .783  3.00

    ‘10

    VTek    (38)  .492  1.88   -1.76

    VMart (136) .656  3.64

    Cash    (27)  .649  3.38

    Brown   (7)  .693  2.57

     

    Josh Beckett:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (182) .587  2.62   -4.84

    Salty     (11)  .916  7.36

    ‘10

    V’Tek  (36)  .851  7.18

    Vmart  (74) .823  5.11  -2.07

    Cash    (10) .947  6.97

    Salty     (7) .936  3.86

     

    John Lackey:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (33)   .769  6.82

    Salty   (127) .874  6.31  -0.51

    ‘10

    V’Tek   (41)  .724  3.29  -1.52

    VMart (123) .805  4.81

    Salty     (22)  .646 2.86

    Cash     (18)  .627  3.93

    Molina  (12) .883  7.50

     

    Clay Buchholtz:

    ‘11

    V’Tek    (18)  .841  3.38  -0.14

    Salty     (64)  .662  3.52

    ‘10

    V’Tek   (4)   .429  2.25

    VMart (165) .603 2.13

    Brown   (4) 1.041 11.25

     

    Tim Wakefield:

    ’11

    V’Tek   (13) .634  4.15  -1.06

    Salty   (142) .808  5.21

    ‘10

    V’Tek  (0)    n/a

    VMart (108)  .783  5.27  -0.66

    Cash    (30)   .741  5.93

     

    Daisuke Matsusaka:

    ‘11

    V’Tek (35)  .545   3.82

    Salty   (2)  1.768  31.50

    ‘10

    V’Tek (50) .622  3.81   -2.09

    VMart (69) .784 5.90

    Cash    (23) .670 3.57

    Salty    (7)  .703  5.40

    Brown (6)  .584  1.50

     

    Andrew Miller:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (30)  1.034  7.28

    Salty   (35)   .681  4.08  -3.20

     

    Erik Bedard:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (16)  .636  3.38  -0.48

    Salty    (19)  .686  3.86

     

    Kyle Weiland:

    ‘11

    V’Tek (4)  1.323 13.50

    Salty   (18)  .865  7.64

    Lava      (3)  .200  0.00

     

    Alfredo Aceves:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (42)  .580  2.34   -0.48

    Salty    (67)  .642  2.82

    Lava    (5)    .675  1.93

     

    Daniel Bard:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (40)  .472  1.44   -3.10

    Salty    (31)  .579  4.54

    Lava      (2)  .889  9.00

    ‘10

    V’Tek  (19)  .304  0.48   -2.16

    VMart  (44) .651  2.64

    Cash     (7)   .247  0.00

    Career:

    V’Tek  (80)  .523  1.79     -2.75 vs Salty/ -1.37 vs VMart

    Salty    (43)  .597  4.54

    VMart  (51)  .669  3.16

     

    Jonathan Papelbon

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (26)  .536  2.45    -0.30

    Salty    (36)  .516  2.75

    Lava     (2)   .923 10.12

    ‘10

    V”Tek  (15)  .790  4.11

    VMart  (40)  .629  4.02  -0.09

    Cash     (9)   .572  1.00

     

    Matt Albers:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (36)  .686  4.00   -1.53

    Salty    (29)  .782  5.53

    Lava     (1)   .900  9.00

     

    Dan Wheeler:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (15)  .771  5.40

    Salty    (34)  .662  4.19  -1.21

     

    Franklin Morales:

    ‘11

    V’Tek  (14)  .671  3.14    -1.10

    Salty    (17)  .871  4.24

     

    I think it is easy to see that VTek's influence is at least between 0.25 and 0.50 in ERA. The trend goes back way before 2010, as harness documented on his earlier thread. A case could be made that it is more like 0.75 to 1.25, but I won't go there.

    Although team CERA is not an accurate way to compare catchers, since each catcher has differing innings with differing pitchers, here is the final Sox numbers:

    VTek:  (575) .662  3.57

    Salty  (856) .746  4.62

    Lava  (27)   .760  4.39

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]I'm not saying you have to accept it, but I do feel it has gone on long enough. I think it's time to just let it go, but I know it's not always easy. I have done the same as well.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    I have never seen you come even close to stooping to Boom's level. Yes, you might have carried on a bit too long at times. I've done that too. But in my mind that is not the core issue here.

     

Share