Crede and Garland to Texas?

[southsideirish71]

Just scanning this thread, the majority of posters think that Blalock is a better player than Crede.  RockRaines doesn't really need anyone to back up his argument.

 

Why do people take Bob seriously.

 

JP(bob) was the one that also said last year that he would rather have Buerhle than Johan Santana because at the time Santana's Era was slightly higher and Buerhle had more wins. Santana had a lower WHIP, higher Ks and outside of JP's world everyone in baseball including Mark's mother would agree that Santana is a better pitcher. Mark B is a great guy and all but come on.

 

 

I told him that if Santana was offered for Buerhle straight up, that before TR said SANTA KW would of said DEAL!!!!

 

In game chat we had a good laugh over that one.

[RockRaines]

Why do people take Bob seriously.

 

JP(bob) was the one that also said last year that he would rather have Buerhle than Johan Santana because at the time Santana's Era was slightly higher and Buerhle had more wins.  Santana had a lower WHIP, higher Ks and outside of JP's world everyone in baseball including Mark's mother would agree that Santana is a better pitcher.  Mark B is a great guy and all but come on.

I told him that if Santana was offered for Buerhle straight up, that before TR said SANTA KW would of said DEAL!!!!

 

In game chat we had a good laugh over that one.

Was his argument that Mark pitches better than Santana into a headwind, and because there are alot of headwinds at the Cell then he is a more effective pitcher?

[jphat007]

How do you figure it's one quarter of his plate opportunities? Even assuming that he hits poorly in every single road game (which he doesn't), 80% or more of the pitchers in the league are right handed. That already screws up your statement because it's more like 40% are home versus righties. Since when is Crede successful in more than about 30% of his at bats? He rarely hits over .250, and his career OBP is .303. I'll admit that Blalock isn't the greatest player in the world, but Crede isn't exactly Mike Schmidt over at 3B.

 

Never once did I saw they did. You are acting like I think Crede is better than Blalock. I don't. I said they were roughly equal, both with HUGE faults, and neither one of them all that great. THATS what I said. But don't rely on reading people like Jabroni's (SSH) posts, cause they just make s*** up that I say to make it go along with their argument.

 

ANd I understand your point. My point is this. He is a terrible, terrible player on the road on the whole. Nobody can argue that. When you are a big hitter and have an OPS lower than Pods, thats all that you need to say with that. So that is HALF of the games of the year. Then he is also terrible against lefties. Nobody can argue that. And yes, you will get more ABs against righties than lefties on the whole. So its more like ~35% or so.

 

But that is a severly limiting player. You almost have to not play him at all against lefties, and then match him up against good fits for him on the road. That, to me, is not a good player, and certainly not a $5 million player.

 

At least you dont' talk s*** and go say, "look at everyone else. they agree with me so I am right. You make your argument and I can dispute it." I appreciate that. I can work with that. Not with stuff from Rock and Jabroni.

[southsideirish71]

Was his argument that Mark pitches better than Santana into a headwind, and because there are alot of headwinds at the Cell then he is a more effective pitcher?

 

 

Actually at the time the difference between ERA was like .07. It was smaller than anything.

[jphat007]

Why do people take Bob seriously.

 

JP(bob) was the one that also said last year that he would rather have Buerhle than Johan Santana because at the time Santana's Era was slightly higher and Buerhle had more wins.  Santana had a lower WHIP, higher Ks and outside of JP's world everyone in baseball including Mark's mother would agree that Santana is a better pitcher.  Mark B is a great guy and all but come on.

I told him that if Santana was offered for Buerhle straight up, that before TR said SANTA KW would of said DEAL!!!!

 

In game chat we had a good laugh over that one.

 

One, I'm not anybody named Bob, so you need to get your facts straight. Two, I never said I'd rather have Buerhle over Santana. I might have said Buerhle was having a better year when Santana was sucking and Buerhle was dominating.

 

Get your facts straight before you spout off buddy.

[southsideirish71]

One, I'm not anybody named Bob, so you need to get your facts straight. Two, I never said I'd rather have Buerhle over Santana. I might have said Buerhle was having a better year when Santana was sucking and Buerhle was dominating.

 

Get your facts straight before you spout off buddy.

 

 

Santana was sucking????

 

When was this.

[RockRaines]

At least you dont' talk s*** and go say, "look at everyone else. they agree with me so I am right. You make your argument and I can dispute it." I appreciate that. I can work with that. Not with stuff from Rock and Jabroni.

Shut it. Every time I post numbers, or a argument to your posts you ignore the facts. Everytime I attack your statistic manipulation, you decide not to comment. Your argument is weak, your numbers are misleading. You have yet to make a decent point and back it up with facts. You constantly take the worst part about a players numbers and compare them to the entire season of another. When you can actually make a decent argument and allow yours to be picked apart, then you can have a decent conversation. Until then, you have already built yourself a reputation for making outrageous claims about players, and making ridiulous comparisons and horrible statistical references. If thats the way you want to be, good luck to you.

[jphat007]

Santana was sucking????

 

When was this.

 

When he had an ERA around 4 on July 6th last year, while Buerhle had an ERA of 2.58.

 

Anything else you need?

[SSH2005]

Santana was sucking????

 

When was this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question. Santana was never sucking if you look at his month-by-month game log:

 

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/...6371&statType=2

[WHarris1]

When he had an ERA around 4 on July 6th last year

I don't recall that

[jphat007]

Actually at the time the difference between ERA was like .07.  It was smaller than anything.

 

LOL. See. People like you make s*** up. Too bad it was an ERA difference of about 1.40 at the time. If you are going to try and talk s*** at least get your facts straight so you don't look like a dumbass when you do it.

[RockRaines]

JP,

 

Let me give you a lesson on trying to prove your point. PLease respond to post #604

[WHarris1]

LOL. See. People like you make s*** up. Too bad it was an ERA difference of about 1.40 at the time. If you are going to try and talk s*** at least get your facts straight so you don't look like a dumbass when you do it.

When was there a 1.4 difference between the two?

[jphat007]

Good question.  Santana was never sucking if you look at his month-by-month game log:

 

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/...6371&statType=2

 

On July 6th he had an ERA of 3.98 which is sucking for him and Buerhle, especailly considering Buerhle's was 2.58. Don' you wish you could erase that post now.

[jphat007]

When was there a 1.4 difference between the two?

 

Jeez. Does nobody here read?

[ZoomSlowik]

I'm done. I'm sorry, I can't see all the love for a guy that is a career .255 hitter with a .303 OBP. I can buy loyalty or defense as an argument, but not when comparing him to another player that's better than him in almost every way imaginable. We keep arguing home/away and lefty/righty, but what's the point when the guy you are trying to defend doesn't hit anyone particularly well? Is Crede's .250-ish average with an OBP barely over .300 on the road, or his mid-.270-ish average with hardly any power against lefties that big a deal that we have to worry about losing it? During the year many of us were clamoring to get someone that could crush right-handed pitching, and Blalock does that. Personally, I'd rather take a guy that hits righties pretty well, especially at home and hope he irons it out (he only needs semi-respectable numbers to put up good totals) as opposed to a guy that is decidedly mediocre in pretty much every aspect of hitting, especially when there is little to no dropoff defensively, the new guy is locked up to a reasonable contract for a while, and we don't have to worry about the new guy's back acting up in his mid to late 20's.

[jphat007]

I'm done. I'm sorry, I can't see all the love for a guy that is a career .255 hitter with a .303 OBP. I can buy loyalty or defense as an argument, but not when comparing him to another player that's better than him in almost every way imaginable. We keep arguing home/away and lefty/righty, but what's the point when the guy you are trying to defend doesn't hit anyone particularly well? Is Crede's .250-ish average with an OBP barely over .300 on the road, or his mid-.270-ish average with hardly any power against lefties that big a deal that we have to worry about losing it? During the year many of us were clamoring to get someone that could crush right-handed pitching, and Blalock does that. Personally, I'd rather take a guy that hits righties pretty well, especially at home and hope he irons it out (he only needs semi-respectable numbers to put up good totals) as opposed to a guy that is decidedly mediocre in pretty much every aspect of hitting, especially when there is little to no dropoff defensively, the new guy is locked up to a reasonable contract for a while, and we don't have to worry about the new guy's back acting up in his mid to late 20's.

 

Where do you see any love for Crede? Not from me. You see a lot of dissapointment for Crede from me, but even more for Blalock, especially considering the hype.

[SSH2005]

On July 6th he had an ERA of 3.98 which is sucking for him and Buerhle, especailly considering Buerhle's was 2.58. Don' you wish you could erase that post now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all. I would not define a 3.98 ERA as "sucking." Definately a little high of an ERA for pitchers like Buehrle and Santana but I would not label it "sucking." Buehrle has a 3.63 career ERA and put up ERA's of 4.14 in 2003 and 3.89 in 2004. A 3.98 ERA isn't much higher than those numbers.

Edited December 20, 2005 by SSH2005

[southsideirish71]

LOL. See. People like you make s*** up. Too bad it was an ERA difference of about 1.40 at the time. If you are going to try and talk s*** at least get your facts straight so you don't look like a dumbass when you do it.

 

 

Actually it was the middle of August (Buerhle had a 3.07 and Santana had a (3.37). Sorry technically it was a .30 difference. They were going head to head. Buerhle gave up a bunch of runs, I made a comment in the game thread that we should have an ACE like Santana and you jumped on how Buerhle was better because at the time he had more wins and a better ERA by a small margin.

[SSH2005]

Where do you see any love for Crede? Not from me. You see a lot of dissapointment for Crede from me, but even more for Blalock, especially considering the hype.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does Blalock's hype have to do with anything? You do know that there was a TON of hype for Crede as well, right? The stats show that Blalock is a better hitter than Crede, period.

[jphat007]

Not at all.  I would not define a 3.98 ERA as "sucking."  Definately a little high of an ERA for pitchers like Buehrle and Santana but I would not label it "sucking."  Buehrle has a 3.63 career ERA and put up ERA's of 4.14 in 2003 and 3.89 in 2004.  A 3.98 ERA isn't much higher than those numbers. 

 

LOL. Nice try. He was sucking compared to Buerhle and his CY numbers the year before, which was my point, as stated. But thats cool. Just try to weasel your way out of it. I would to if I came in an argument with your post too. its understandable.

[RockRaines]

Why do you continue to ignore my posts that refute your arguments? Seriously.

[RockRaines]

You want a player that is successful in one quarter of the opportunites in which he comes to the plate. I don't, nor will I, so you can just drop it.

[SSH2005]

LOL. Nice try. He was sucking compared to Buerhle and his CY numbers the year before, which was my point, as stated. But thats cool. Just try to weasel your way out of it. I would to if I came in an argument with your post too. its understandable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Weasel out of what? A 3.98 ERA would have been in line with Buehrle's previous numbers, just like my post stated.

[RockRaines]

Lets focus in on your comment here, shall we.  Being successful at one quarter of your opps means either your BA or OBP would be around .250, meaning that whatever way you define successful, you either get on base 1 out of 4 times, or get a hit 1 out of 4 times.  Being that Blalock does not have a BA or OBP around .250 I would guess that you are just pulling that number out of your ass.  Now you argue that you would rather have Joe Crede, now his BA is just a smidge above .250, and his OBP is around .300.  Because Blalock has a higher BA, and a higher OBP, would that mean he is more succesful in your argument?  So you say you would not want a player that is successful 25 percent of the time, but you are arguing for a player whose numbers suggest he IS successful only 25 percent of the time.  Do you even know what you are arguing for?

You said you dont want a player that is succesfull 25 percent of the time, please explain.

Edited December 20, 2005 by RockRaines