Balta1701 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) As for Damaso Marte being garbage, he has a 3.17 ERA. Clearly you don't mean to suggest that he has been the recipient of an otherworldly number of good relievers cleaning up for him for the past FIVE YEARS, including this year, in which he has a 2.97 ERA. Idiot or not, Damaso has a damn good arm. Damaso Marte was either one of the best or the best left handed reliever I saw in baseball for 2003. He started downhill in 04, and in 05, through some combination of injuries and being a head case, was just bad for much of the season. He has a damn good arm, if it's healthy and if he doesn't get rattled. But he hasn't been a dominant reliever for a couple years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) Simply because he could not stay here does not mean we needed to trade him for a player we already pretty much had. And he sucks now? He's having a fine year in Pittsburgh if you ask me, and the Pirates will probably more back than a bench player when they trade him in two weeks. Once again, this is not an "I hate Rob" thread. But take off the local boy glasses and objectively look at it. Yeah, I am looking at it objectively. I am the last person on this board to call a homer. Everyone telling you that you're wrong should let you know that you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) If Gload is a fringe player, and Mackowiak is one of the best utility players in baseball, I submit that the only f***ing difference is playing time. With Mackowiak coming from the Pirates, he received that. Gload, actually being on a good team, did not. If Gload learned how to throw with his right hand, he'd be one of the best utility players in baseball too. As for Damaso Marte being garbage, he has a 3.17 ERA. Clearly you don't mean to suggest that he has been the recipient of an otherworldly number of good relievers cleaning up for him for the past FIVE YEARS, including this year, in which he has a 2.97 ERA. Idiot or not, Damaso has a damn good arm. You are judging relievers based on 1 stat alone, and that is a poor stat to judge a reliever by. By a reliever's standards, Damaso is having a mediocre, perhaps slightly above average year out of the pen, with his 1.35 WHIP. His K numbers are back, which is a good sign for the Pirates, but imma go out on a limb here and say you have not looked at his replacement, Matt Thornton's, numbers. Slightly worse ERA, slightly worse K/9, but a very respectable 1.20 WHIP. That is something I can appreciate, especially since he is getting better as the year goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 This is not about personalities, this is about flexibility. Guillen likes guys who can play multiple positions, now on all the MLB trade deadline coverage they are saying the White Sox have been asking Houston about Chris Burke. Same type of guy, tough as nails and can play multiple positions. Gload plays one position very well, 1B. That's why he's on the team, to give Konerko a break. He plays OF mostly in garbage time because as has been pointed out he's not very good out there. And if they are indeed targeting Chris Burke or someone like him, it shows they aren't totally satisfied with their OF subs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) You're wrong. You're just wrong. You can use stats or your own eyes, and both will tell you that Mackowiak is better than Gload. Which stats? Gload has a career OPS of .751. Mackowiak has a career OPS of .747. Mackowiak has had more experience in the field because he played for a s*** organization. Don't say I am wrong just because you cannot justify your argument with anything more than "Rob is great, and he can play 3B horribly, but Gload cannot at all!" Or "Damaso didn't get along with Ozzie, so he sucks and has no value!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) Just because one has played 7 positions does not mean he plays them well. Let's remember folks, this is not Chone Figgins playing all over the field for the Angels (actually a good team). This is a guy who played all over the field for the Pirates, who have sucked balls for close to 15 years now. Rob is an average player. Just like Gload would be if given the chance. Dude, he doesn't have to play them well. He has to be able to handle the position at about a AAA level. If he can do that, with 7 positions, as well as hit the ball pretty well, he's gonna have value to a team. And he sucked balls for close to 15 years...weren't we sposed to look at this objectively? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) Which stats? Gload has a career OPS of .751. Mackowiak has a career OPS of .747. Mackowiak has had more experience in the field because he played for a s*** organization. Don't say I am wrong just because you cannot justify your argument with anything more than "Rob is great, and he can play 3B horribly, but Gload cannot at all!" Or "Damaso didn't get along with Ozzie, so he sucks and has no value!" I am giving you arguments. I told you that Rob plays a good LF/RF, and that he can play 3B and 2B pretty damn well, too. Ross Gload can play 1B, while providing zero power from that position. Ross Gload is horse s*** in the OF. What the f*** else do you want me to tell you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) Don't say I am wrong just because you cannot justify your argument with anything more than "Rob is great, and he can play 3B horribly, but Gload cannot at all!" Or "Damaso didn't get along with Ozzie, so he sucks and has no value!" Did anyone actually even make that argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 iamshack, I would like to make a poll thread asking people who is better between Gload and Mackowiak. How would you like me to word it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Well I think Gload is valuable in his role and he is very well liked in the clubhouse but he also played for some really bad organizations and couldn't stick. Cubs for one. Rockies maybe? Probably because he's not versatile. Guillen and the White Sox coaches told him, when, two years ago he needed to crash course in the OF because it was the only way he'd stay a major leaguer. Mackowiak was acquired in large part because he's played a lot of 3B and has done a good job at the hot corner in Pittsburgh. I suspect he will play there a bit more in the 2nd half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) Mackowiak has had more experience in the field because he played for a s*** organization. Ross Gload was drafted by the Florida Marlins, was traded to the Chicago Cubs, was claimed off waivers by the Colorado Rockies from the Cubs, was traded to the Mets and was then purchased by the Rockies from the Mets 4 days after he was traded. He was then traded to the Chicago White Sox for Wade Parrish. thx4plyng Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) Ross Gload was drafted by the Florida Marlins, was traded to the Chicago Cubs, was claimed off waivers by the Colorado Rockies from the Cubs, was traded to the Mets and was then purchased by the Rockies from the Mets 4 days after he was traded. He was then traded to the Chicago White Sox for Wade Parrish. thx4plyng I'm sure I'll screw this up... pwned.... How'd I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 And btw, we still don't need Rowand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) I'm sure I'll screw this up... pwned.... How'd I do? Awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) And btw, we still don't need Rowand. S of a B... at least it was just water all over the desk this time. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) Awesome Yay!! I can't usually keep up with you youngsters lingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) How exactly did Gload's baserunning blunder lead to it going 19 innings? If he had tagged up properly, he'd have scored 1 batter earlier, and then Cintron's ground ball would have happened with no one at third. Unless Dye was of course able to fix his baserunning blunders on the same play, which came even closer to costing us the game. Wouldn't DYe have tagged up? I thought Dye had tagged up and than saw Gload at 3rd base and had to go backwards. So Dye would have been on 3rd with less than 2 outs for Cintron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 05:11 PM) Wouldn't DYe have tagged up? I thought Dye had tagged up and than saw Gload at 3rd base and had to go backwards. So Dye would have been on 3rd with less than 2 outs for Cintron. No. It actually was the other way around. Gload went to tag up and saw Dye barreling down on him and then got off the base because other wise there was a shot that Dye would have passed him up. After the ball got caught, Dye had to hussle back to 2nd other wise he would have been doubled up and should have been doubled up because he didn't re-tag 3rd as he went back to 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) No. It actually was the other way around. Gload went to tag up and saw Dye barreling down on him and then got off the base because other wise there was a shot that Dye would have passed him up. After the ball got caught, Dye had to hussle back to 2nd other wise he would have been doubled up and should have been doubled up because he didn't re-tag 3rd as he went back to 2nd. This is what I get for barely watching the game (family reunion so I was in and out but happened to see the replay of the play just after it happened and just assumed it was on Gload since the camera didn't show Dye come into the picture till late). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Are we really arguing who's more valuable, Gload or Mackowiak? Great job with your argument Milkman, I couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Simply because the masses believe one thing does not make them right. You have provided absolutely no evidence that Mackowiak plays the infield well, and from everything we have to go on, he doesn,t because he hasn't played there for us with the exception of playing third for half a game and looking absolutely terrible. Some said he looked poor there because he hasn't played there in forever. Well, if he isn't taking ground balls there for us it is because we have no intention of playing him there and so he won't play there, but in the OF instead. And if Brian heats up with the bat, Rob sure as hell won't be playing center. Which relegates him to LF or RF, which is 2 positions, not 7. Ross can play 1b, or LF. And the difference between Gload and Mackowiak at the corner positions is so negligible that it certainly isn't worth the value of a LH bullpen arm with a career 3.17 ERA. Once again, don't misunderstand me. I am not saying Rob sucks. I am saying it was a mistake to trade for a redundancy. Their numbers at the plate are nearly identical this season and for their career. And I apologize for you, but as Ozzie said maybe Podsednik can play center for the Brewers, but he can't play center for a World Championship team, the same applies to Rob. He may be able to play 7 positions for the Pirates, but he sure as hell cannot for a World Championship team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) You have provided absolutely no evidence that Mackowiak plays the infield well, and from everything we have to go on, he doesn,t because he hasn't played there for us with the exception of playing third for half a game and looking absolutely terrible. Some said he looked poor there because he hasn't played there in forever. Well, if he isn't taking ground balls there for us it is because we have no intention of playing him there and so he won't play there, but in the OF instead. Fine. Here's your evidence. Rob M.'s career fielding numbers: CAREER BY POS A E DP FPCT RF ZR Total as 1B 1 0 4 1.000 9.87 1.000 Total as 2B 133 8 23 .966 5.19 .856 Total as 3B 292 18 39 .956 2.98 .783 Total as LF 3 0 0 1.000 1.90 .871 Total as CF 5 4 1 .985 2.26 .809 Total as RF 16 6 8 .980 1.97 .841 For comparison at 3rd base: Joe Crede Total as 3B 1054 53 115 .965 2.65 .774 At 3rd base career, Mack has a fielding percentage barely below Crede's. He has higher Range Factor and Zone Rating numbers, if people believe those actually mean anything. At 2nd base, Mack's committed more errors than most everyday 2nd basemen, but his RF and ZR are again respectable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 05:37 PM) Fine. Here's your evidence. Rob M.'s career fielding numbers: CAREER BY POS A E DP FPCT RF ZR Total as 1B 1 0 4 1.000 9.87 1.000 Total as 2B 133 8 23 .966 5.19 .856 Total as 3B 292 18 39 .956 2.98 .783 Total as LF 3 0 0 1.000 1.90 .871 Total as CF 5 4 1 .985 2.26 .809 Total as RF 16 6 8 .980 1.97 .841 For comparison at 3rd base: Joe Crede Total as 3B 1054 53 115 .965 2.65 .774 At 3rd base career, Mack has a fielding percentage barely below Crede's. He has higher Range Factor and Zone Rating numbers, if people believe those actually mean anything. At 2nd base, Mack's committed more errors than most everyday 2nd basemen, but his RF and ZR are again respectable. Can you post the same for Gload now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I can't wait til the end of the trade deadline because I'm tired of hearing about Rowand coming back. I'd like to see him back but baseball is a business and it doesn't seem likely that he'll be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 03:45 PM) Can you post the same for Gload now? CAREER BY POS GP GS INN TC PO A E DP FPCT RF ZR Total as 1B 96 34 424.1 428 405 22 1 33 .998 9.06 .795 Total as LF 30 17 157.2 35 33 1 1 0 .971 1.95 .892 Total as CF 1 1 6.1 2 2 0 0 0 1.000 2.84 1.000 Total as RF 33 20 188.1 53 50 1 2 0 .962 2.44 .803 I left the games/innings here because I think it's pretty hard to judge people, especially outfielders, on 150 innings (that's enough for 1-2 errors) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 05:51 PM) CAREER BY POS GP GS INN TC PO A E DP FPCT RF ZR Total as 1B 96 34 424.1 428 405 22 1 33 .998 9.06 .795 Total as LF 30 17 157.2 35 33 1 1 0 .971 1.95 .892 Total as CF 1 1 6.1 2 2 0 0 0 1.000 2.84 1.000 Total as RF 33 20 188.1 53 50 1 2 0 .962 2.44 .803 I left the games/innings here because I think it's pretty hard to judge people, especially outfielders, on 150 innings (that's enough for 1-2 errors) So why not leave the games/innings in the Mackowiak table? 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.