Trade Jim Johnson!

[Moose Milligan]

I always think it's hilarious how fans on message boards think they're the only ones to access baseballreference.com and fangraphs and don't think anyone in a front office has no idea about JJ's peripherals.

[Can_of_corn]

I always think it's hilarious how fans on message boards think they're the only ones to access baseballreference.com and fangraphs and don't think anyone in a front office has no idea about JJ's peripherals.

In our defense I would be surprised if any front office actually used baseball reference or fangraphs.

[Moose Milligan]

In our defense I would be surprised if any front office actually used baseball reference or fangraphs.

Why's that?

[Can_of_corn]

Why's that?

I would hope they would have something better in house.

[Number5]

No.

You posited that was a difference between a strike out guy and a pitch to contact guy. You can not now change your argument to a good command guy versus poor command guy and say your position did not change.

You have not only not given any proof to prove your position, you are misrepresenting the proof I have shown to prove the opposite.

If you would like to change your premise then go right ahead but don't pretend that is what you meant the whole time.

Of course if you do change your premise you might want to consider that:

Porcello-63% strikes thrown for his career

Bonderman-63% strike thrown for his career

I said pitch-to-contact with good command from the very beginning, as is clearly shown in your own quote boxes. I did not add anything about command later -- it was in my initial post. It is you that continually tries to change what I said. You have yourself confirmed my statement, yet for reasons known only to yourself have chosen to disbelieve your own findings and bring up one irrelevant premise after another that is easily shown to be irrelevant. "Maybe Bonderman is being removed for ineffectiveness."" Um, remember we were discussing that he was pitching a lot of innings -- that was the point? Therefore he is clearly not being removed for ineffectiveness. "Throwing balls instead of strikes increases pitch count." Um, remember, Porcello has good command and walks fewer than Bonderman did.

You have found that Porcello has lower pitch counts than Bonderman. End of story.

You are wrong, and have proven yourself to be so. You are arguing just for the sake of argument at this point and have not supported yourself in any way, shape or form. To add to a post later that Felix Hernandez and Justin Verlander have marginally lower pitch counts than Porcello is laughable. Felix and Verlander? Really? Talk about apples and oranges. Why not compare Porcello to Tom Seaver and Walter Johnson while you are at it?

No, I'm not saying Porcello is an ace. Not at all. I have said repeatedly that Strop is pretty much the max I would offer for him.

In response to Frobby's post relating Porcello's high innings count as related to Bonderman's burnout, I made a statement that I thought Bonderman isn't necessarily a good comp for Porcello when looking at how many innings each were used. I still feel that way, and you looked at pitch counts, which confirmed what I said. You have then set upon me with post after post to argue and argue. If you want to believe that it is just a fluke that Porcello has a lower pitch count than Bonderman, be my guest.

[Can_of_corn]

I said pitch-to-contact with good command from the very beginning, as is clearly shown in your own quote boxes. I did not add anything about command later -- it was in my initial post. It is you that continually tries to change what I said. You have yourself confirmed my statement, yet for reasons known only to yourself have chosen to disbelieve your own findings and bring up one irrelevant premise after another that is easily shown to be irrelevant. "Maybe Bonderman is being removed for ineffectiveness."" Um, remember we were discussing that he was pitching a lot of innings -- that was the point? Therefore he is clearly not being removed for ineffectiveness. "Throwing balls instead of strikes increases pitch count." Um, remember, Porcello has good command and walks fewer than Bonderman did.

You have found that Porcello has lower pitch counts than Bonderman. End of story.

You are wrong, and have proven yourself to be so. You are arguing just for the sake of argument at this point and have not supported yourself in any way, shape or form. To add to a post later that Felix Hernandez and Justin Verlander have marginally lower pitch counts than Porcello is laughable. Felix and Verlander? Really? Talk about apples and oranges. Why not compare Porcello to Tom Seaver and Walter Johnson while you are at it?

No, I'm not saying Porcello is an ace. Not at all. I have said repeatedly that Strop is pretty much the max I would offer for him.

In response to Frobby's post relating Porcello's high innings count as related to Bonderman's burnout, I made a statement that I thought Bonderman isn't necessarily a good comp for Porcello when looking at how many innings each were used. I still feel that way, and you looked at pitch counts, which confirmed what I said. You have then set upon me with post after post to argue and argue. If you want to believe that it is just a fluke that Porcello has a lower pitch count than Bonderman, be my guest.

Once again no.

I said, that with a quick eyeball it looked like he had lower pitch counts. I then stated that a lower pitch count didn't mean anything due to other factors. You then proceeded to latch onto my quick glance like a tick on a dog and chose to ignore all the information that has followed.

Here is another one for you.

Career P/IP

Porcello 15.91

Bonderman 15.68

[Number5]

Once again no.

I said, that with a quick eyeball it looked like he had lower pitch counts. I then stated that a lower pitch count didn't mean anything due to other factors. You then proceeded to latch onto my quick glance like a tick on a dog and chose to ignore all the information that has followed.

Here is another one for you.

Career P/IP

Porcello 15.91

Bonderman 15.68

Seriously, Dude. I'm done with this. I have not changed anything I said. Not once. You, however, have changed tune several times, improperly attempted to claim that I was changing what I said, and have brought up numerous irrelevant points over and over again. You said things that had no bearing on the matter, and those inapplicable posts were easily and quickly refuted. If you are now saying that you were wrong about what you posted regarding pitch counts, so be it. I never doubted or checked your work. I don't care. I don't think Porcello and Bonderman are comparable players. I don't see that Porcello runs the same burn-out risk that a Bonderman does. No amount of unrelated minutia you may choose to bring up will change my opinion on that. If you think they are comparable, so be it.