D-Cab Still Bad

[Old#5fan]

Here is what I have learned from Oldfan in the last few weeks...

1. Luke Scott will put up .240/12/40 in 2008. (240/12/63)

2. Luis Hernandez's defense will outweigh his ineptitude at the plate. Basically sticking a shovel in the dirt at SS is an improvement over Tejada. (A bit of an exageration but essentially true).

3. Outs are better than walks. ( Wrong! "Productive" outs are better than "non-productive" walks or hits).

4. If you haven't watched TV for 50 years starting at the age of 4 you know nothing. (?)

5. Tennis analogies in baseball discussions are awesome. (just an expression- talk about overeacting! )

6. Respect your elders! (always a good policy).

Do I have that right?

No - wrong as usual about virtually everything I post except for number 2.

You must not have paid attention to much when you took reading in elementary school. I will correct your poor comprehension skills. Refer to above in bold!

[The Wedge]

No - wrong as usual about virtually everything I post except for number 2.

You must not have paid attention to much when you took reading in elementary school. I will correct your poor comprehension skills. Refer to above in bold!

Quoting this for posterity. Just in case someone wants to edit.

Do you fail to see how talking to people in this way is the most grating thing imaginable? Do you like picking fights or something?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Ahh, I long for the days when Eli Eon posted here...

[BaltimoreTerp]

Ahh, I long for the days when Eli Eon posted here...

You haven't realized that those days have not yet left us (unfortunately)?

[Old#5fan]

I have said it about 5 times now. I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. It is not the fault of the person who draws the walk if the batters behind him fail to bring him in. The player who drew the walk was productive. The players behind him were not. This does not invalidate the production of the player who drew the walk, it simply reflects badly on the players who couldn't move him around.

I didn't say it would "invalidate it" but it was non-productive. Just like a guy who hits a lead off triple and gets stranded at third - it was a 'non-productive' triple but not that guy's fault who hit it. However, a guy who hit a sac fly that produced a run was more productive in that particular comparison.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I didn't say it would "invalidate it" but it was non-productive. Just like a guy who hits a lead off triple and gets stranded at third - it was a 'non-productive' triple but not that guy's fault who hit it. However, a guy who hit a sac fly that produced a run was more productive in that particular comparison.

So you can have a productive triple and an unproductive triple, based on what happens in the proceeding at-bats. Isn't that the same as a walk?

[The Wedge]

I didn't say it would "invalidate it" but it was non-productive. Just like a guy who hits a lead off triple and gets stranded at third - it was a 'non-productive' triple but not that guy's fault who hit it. However, a guy who hit a sac fly that produced a run was more productive in that particular comparison.

Your undervaluing of walks would suggest you do think it would be invalidated. Getting on base is never a bad thing.

[Pedro Cerrano]

You haven't realized that those days have not yet left us (unfortunately)?

Yes, my post was dripping with sarcasm...

[Old#5fan]

Quoting this for posterity. Just in case someone wants to edit.

Do you fail to see how talking to people in this way is the most grating thing imaginable? Do you like picking fights or something?

How am I doing so. He posted a inflamatory "take" of what he has read which was all wrong but one item. If anything you should be acusing him of this, not me. I could do the same to him but I would view that as a rule violation. However, I am merely responding to his attempt to insult him because he totally miscomprehends my posts if that is what he truly believes (which I highly doubt).

[BaltimoreTerp]

Yes, my post was dripping with sarcasm...

I'm wearing a raincoat, so I didn't feel the drops. Sorry

[Old#5fan]

Quoting this for posterity. Just in case someone wants to edit.

Do you fail to see how talking to people in this way is the most grating thing imaginable? Do you like picking fights or something?

How am I doing so? He posted an inflamatory "take" of what he has read which was all wrong but one item. If anything you should be acusing him of this, not me. I could do the same to him but I would view that as a rule violation. However, I am merely responding to his attempt to insult me because he totally miscomprehends my posts if that is what he truly believes (which I highly doubt). Now I am the villan? How so????

[NewMarketSean]

First of all, how is a walk or hit non-productive? If a person gets on base, it's productive.

It's the batter(s) that fails to knock those runners in that is unproductive.

Just thought I'd clear that up, since that really can't be argued with. It's common sensical logic.

[BaltimoreTerp]

First of all, how is a walk or hit non-productive? If a person gets on base, it's productive.

It's the batter(s) that fails to knock those runners in that is unproductive.

Just thought I'd clear that up, since that really can't be argued with. It's common sensical logic.

Most of us already established that a long time ago. Some just refuse.

[byrdz]

On sacrifice hits (the ones that advance runners), the Red Sox were 29th last year, and the Yankees 20th. In 2006, 28th and 23rd. In 2005, 29th and 25th.

Sense a trend there?

Thanks BTerp but your statistical facts are no match for something someone saw once.

[Flip217]

First of all, how is a walk or hit non-productive? If a person gets on base, it's productive.

It's the batter(s) that fails to knock those runners in that is unproductive.

Just thought I'd clear that up, since that really can't be argued with. It's common sensical logic.

Oh, just you wait and see...