TLAK Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I love you guys, but you are incredible. See, but that's the thing. I don't have to waste my time and look up what Magglio did from month to month. I watch these games. He performed poorly over long stretches of time last year.Maybe I missunderstood you, a long stretch is less than a month. My bad. Now there's a bold prediction, based on jack s***. Go find some evidence to support that statement, and then try to tell me that I need to go "look things up" before I post what I witness on a daily basis during the regular season. I had Patterson on my fantasy squad last year. I know damn well how valuable he was through the first two months. As I stated before, .320/11HR/42RBI through the end of May. We're talking about a player who has yet to peak. You may have had to bench him too. We'll never know. Play him all year this year and let me know how it works out. Just like witesoxfan said, he's a Carlos Beltran type, minus the gold glove defense and high stolen base percentage rate. And witesoxfan is almost always on point. So there you go.If Carlos Beltran didn't have the gold glove defense and high stolen base percentage rate he wouldn't be Carlos Beltran, would he? He'd be a Corey Patterson type. You make him out to be a dead beat on defense. He ain't no Andruw Jones, but he's not exactly Carl Everett, either. Give him more credit than that.Everett fielded .988 with a range of 2.52 in CF (which shocked me, I thought he would be a disaster). I agree Corey's .975 and 1.96 is not equivelent to Carl Everett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Everett fielded .988 with a range of 2.52 in CF (which shocked me, I thought he would be a disaster). I agree Corey's .975 and 1.96 is not equivelent to Carl Everett. Which shows you the flaws in FLDG% and RNGF. Almost anyone can tell you that Corey Patterson is a better defensive CFer then Carl Everett just by watching him. The fact that his FLDG% was worse(which could have something to do with him maybe throwing a ball poorly instead of botching a ball coming at him) instantly tells me that FLDG% is worse(which is also the argument made when comparing Jose Valentin and Royce Clayton, but that is so 2002). And if you are going to tell me that Carl Everett has more range in CF then Corey Patterson, you may as well throw that out the window as well. Statistics, while a very good indicator of how well a player plays the game, is not 100% and sometimes actually watching the game is necessary(though I am not suggesting you have not watched). This is especially true when comparing players defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Which shows you the flaws in FLDG% and RNGF. None of the guys we're arguing over really played enough last year for FP and range to be definitive. Corey was tops at 82 games, Aaron started only 39 and Everett 63. I also didn't mention that RF in the National League is always a little lower because they only use 8 Major League hitters, so a CF will get less balls. Further the Grub pitchers got a lot of K's last year which again reduces balls to a CF. But mitigating that, Corey played between two bad corner men, which should have got him more chances. We can go around and around in circles. I didn't see any Grub games except the Sox series (he hit .174 with 5K) and the playoff collapse when he didn't play. So if there is a hidden Corey Patterson, the emerging SuperStar who impresses you so, I may have missed him. Perhaps he plays in the alternate reality that Grub fans live in. All I can go by is the Major Leagues where they write down what you actually did. 4 errors in 156 chances for Corey, 0 in 101 for Aaron and 1 in 138 for Everett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 If they broke out Offense vs. Pitching vs. Defense, I think we would be top ten in Offense for certain. But I agree with 2K4, middle of the pack sounds about right. If we were in the AL East of West we would have zero chance of a playoff appearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I don't think you can make that analogy, the dynamics would be totally different. If we were in the east then the Yanks wouldn't have won the WS in 2000, maybe our concentration level wouldve been higher last yr, maybe with more home games vs the Yanks and Boston attendance would be better and payroll would be higher. Heck our last WS appearance in 80+ yrs came in the middle of a Yankee dynasty and during that time if we'd won a few more games maybe we have a couple of WS titles. On top of all that dont forget that the Yanks and Boston would have to play us alot more too. Does anyone here really think it'll be impossible to take 5 of 7 from the Yanks in the next 2 weeks? Or 4 of 7? We went what, 21-14 vs the East last yr, 19-14 the yr before. Assuming we'd lose in another division is just as precarious as assuming we'd win in the Central. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iguana Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Sure, if you have a .400 OBP that means your making an out 60 % of the time, does it matter if that 60% is FO's, GO's, or SO's? It's still an out. You can however increase your slg% by taking bigger hacks, if increasing your slg% also increases your SO's over GO's who cares. yes it does. if you put it in play, there is a chance for an error and a chance to get on base. getting on base as an error doesnt count towards your batting average. i'd rather have a guy that can put the ball in play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I think, for the 1st tim ever, I agree with ESPN's Power Rankings. 15 is right in the middle of the bunch and thats where we are right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Here's the top 20 strikeout guys from last yr: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/stats/ba...inpa=0&ageMin=0 Other than Hernandez who would suck even if he cut his K's in half I don't see anything wrong with the players in that list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 For comparison here's the bottom 20(min 400 AB's): http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/stats/ba...false&count=174 Actually, while there are some good players there too. As a group I'd take the top 20 SO guys over the bottom 20, so I guess strike outs do matter, they're good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I haven't read the rest of this thread, so bare with me. I think that ESPN is absolutely right putting us right in the middle of the pack, that's where we belong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 i don't know, i think we should be 14.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Did someone actually try to make a case for Everett being a better CF than Patterson? That person should be sterilized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.