+ Reply to Thread
Results 46 to 60 of 107
Thread: What I was just told
04-25-2008 08:32 AM #46
04-25-2008 08:56 AM #47
I guess if I have to, I will try to pull up the original Luke Scott threads.
04-25-2008 09:14 AM #48And you seem to like to revise things in your favor. I would stake my life that there was at least one poster blathering about 40 homers.The reason I state this is it wasn't merely my imagination. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw it in astonishment. I recall posting that there was no way that was going to happen and the whole Luke Scott argument took off from there. There were also plenty of posters spouting 30 or more. I know that as well. I think even NewMarketSean thought as much and Drungo. The funny thing though is once I started posting lower teens as my prediction some of these other people's grossly inflated homer numbers started coming down. I stand by that take as it is what occurred as I recall it. I think even BaltimoreTerp may have been predicting 30 plus homers. There was a slew of posters until I rebutted with my low teen predictions and then they started lowering their predictions albeit still in the 20-25 range.
04-25-2008 09:16 AM #49
Originally Posted by CrimsonTribe
I haven't seen anyone project him to hit 40 HRs on the board. Projecting him to hit 12 is about as absurd. He could hit .250 though, but it would be a very solid .250. That's the problem, you don't realize that a .250 BA could be good.
There was a thread that had people posting best case scenarios for players. In that thread, I posted I thought the best case for Scott would be 40 HRs / 120 RBIs.
I think realistically he's a 25 / 85 guy, but there have been plenty of players just like Luke Scott who have busted out for 40 HR seasons. I also think that a .250 / 12 HR season is possible, but that's a worst case scenario and its no more probable than a 40 / 120 season.__________________
04-25-2008 09:23 AM #50
04-25-2008 09:36 AM #51
Annual moment of insanity!!
Every year I put on my orange collored glasses and convince myself this is the year the O's comeback. I work out in my mind what it will take for the O's to be good and try to convince myself that it MIGHT happen. Well here goes this seasons version.
2B - Roberts 307/395/495 55 SB, 18 HRs This is his career year, possible
CF Jones 305/360/505 22HRs Becames one of the most talked about young players in baseball.
RF Nick 318/385/575 32HRs 118 RBI 15SB, Becomes unquestioned super star.
LF Luke Scott 295/395/540 36 HRs Scott makes the astros look really dumb proving that he is a very good everyday player.
Here is another.
04-25-2008 09:42 AM #52
Posted by a "Rooter" on the why is everyone excited about Luke Scott thread.
"So in the Tejada trade we got a guy who will likely perform the same as Tejada cheap for four years... plus four other guys.
He's stating Scott will match Tejada, and I am not singling him out as he wasn't the only one either! There was another poster named "Bluedog" espousing the same thing!
Last edited by Old#5fan; 04-25-2008 at 09:44 AM.
04-25-2008 09:57 AM #53
You don't think Scott will match Tejada's .799 OPS from last year? Scott already has a .878 OPS, so he's filling those shoes plus some. Not that you would care about those numbers, because you'd rather see things through your own twisted version of reality rather than pay attention to stats and facts.
04-25-2008 10:28 AM #54
So far, you have provided one example of someone predicting over 35 homers and that is the whole board?
You are absurd...Most people felt he would be around 25, you just chose to run with one or two extreme predictions and make it seem like the whole board felt that way.
There will always be people who think someone outrageous...You are normally that person.
04-25-2008 10:33 AM #55
Last edited by Old#5fan; 04-25-2008 at 10:37 AM.
04-25-2008 11:58 AM #56Unless Tejada gets injured there is no way on this planet that Luke Scott will hit more homers this season than Tejada. No way, no how.
BTW, how many homers a guy hits isn't a measure of who was the more productive player although I know you think that.
04-25-2008 12:04 PM #57
04-25-2008 01:03 PM #58
I don't want to discourage you from contributing. I respect the hell out of you and I think you bring a necessary, admirable element to our community. I know sometimes you really don't care what other people think, but that attitude (along with the attitudes of several others) are often detrimental to the quality of the discussions that take place here.
I know you're far from a "stat-head". I'm slowly but surely acknowledging their increased relevance, but I still give a great deal of creedence to the intangibles and gut feelings. I've come to accept, though, that statistics are an absolute analysis of things that occured in the past and a fairly reliable indicator of things that will happen in the future. I think if you were more open to that ideal (vice-versa for the stat-heads), the quality of discussion would go through the roof here.
/end hijack of thread
04-25-2008 02:50 PM #59
04-26-2008 11:47 AM #60