santo=dorf Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 QUOTE(TLAK @ Feb 1, 2005 -> 06:24 PM) Your're. You're means you are. A nun at St. Rita taught me to remember it by saying your pants are on fire, not you are pants on fire. 40 years and I still remember it, cause she'll come back and rap me one it if forget! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "your're?" It was a reference to Anthrax's 3rd grade level grammar skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 1, 2005 -> 06:30 PM) "your're?" It was a reference to Anthrax's 3rd grade level grammar skills. She taught me the usage but not how spell the damn word! I rarely read anything Anthrax writes so I missed the satire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 2, 2005 -> 12:24 AM) Sigh. You sabermetricians are relentless. Why stop there? Why not include television ratings, and stadium atmosphere? Relentless? Not quite the word I'd use, but as they say, whatever floats your boat... I find nothing wrong with what the stat uses to judge players. Maybe you don't like it because it makes Foulke out to be an awesome reliever, making the Koch/Foulke trade look even worse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 1, 2005 -> 08:22 PM) Relentless? Not quite the word I'd use, but as they say, whatever floats your boat... I find nothing wrong with what the stat uses to judge players. Maybe you don't like it because it makes Foulke out to be an awesome reliever, making the Koch/Foulke trade look even worse? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought it was ridiculous because 2000 was not Keith Foulke's best season. Put the tin foil away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 1, 2005 -> 08:30 PM) I thought it was ridiculous because 2000 was not Keith Foulke's best season. Put the tin foil away. what was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 2, 2005 -> 12:33 AM) what was? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1999: 105.3 IP, 2.22 ERA, .94 WHIP, 123 K's. 2001: 81 IP, 2.33 ERA, .975 WHIP, 42/45 SV/SVO I would take either of those years over his 2000 season. I would also take K-Rod's season last year over both of those years, and Damaso Marte had a great 2003 as well. 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.