Gotta go with VD on this one, really.  Just own the fuckup, commie.

Posted by tylermathias on 12/10/2010 1:26:00 AM (view original):
Gotta go with VD on this one, really.  Just own the fuckup, commie.

******* Birchers are everywhere now.

Despite all the initial trade negativity - I really like the dynamic of my HR team hitting with that Steven Garcia deal. Two .325+ BAs and .400+ OBPs in the heart of the SOPs lineup... in a pitchers park. Looks like Brush and McGuire are struggling some at their new home.

It cost your team runs and defense...  like it all you want, it was still stupid.

Well, technically, with who you decided to start, it didn't cost you defense...  just a lot of runs.  Then that guy got injured and it cost you both.

Posted by robusk on 12/10/2010 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Well, technically, with who you decided to start, it didn't cost you defense...  just a lot of runs.  Then that guy got injured and it cost you both.

19 games prior to the trade (and w/ O. Mesa)... 77 runs scored, 71 runs against with a 10-9 record (avg opp record 53-65)
19 games since trade (w/o Mesa 6 games).... 126 runs scored, 78 runs against with a 14-5 record (avg opp record 59-58)

moy is the small sample size king.

Posted by AlCheez on 12/10/2010 10:18:00 AM (view original):
moy is the small sample size king.

At least its actual data... not speculation.

Yeah, but it's not really worthwhile data, especially since it looks like you were in the midst of one of your worst offensive stretches right before the deal.

Also doesn't look like the guys you dealt away have struggled (both have OPS's over .949 for new team), they just haven't played a lot of games because it looks like their new owner didn't like them playing at 94-95% and rested them a bunch.

Posted by moy23 on 12/10/2010 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 12/10/2010 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Well, technically, with who you decided to start, it didn't cost you defense...  just a lot of runs.  Then that guy got injured and it cost you both.

19 games prior to the trade (and w/ O. Mesa)... 77 runs scored, 71 runs against with a 10-9 record (avg opp record 53-65)
19 games since trade (w/o Mesa 6 games).... 126 runs scored, 78 runs against with a 14-5 record (avg opp record 59-58)

You lack of understanding basic statistics never ceases to shock me.

You have to be the worst banker ever.

Posted by robusk on 12/10/2010 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 12/10/2010 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 12/10/2010 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Well, technically, with who you decided to start, it didn't cost you defense...  just a lot of runs.  Then that guy got injured and it cost you both.

19 games prior to the trade (and w/ O. Mesa)... 77 runs scored, 71 runs against with a 10-9 record (avg opp record 53-65)
19 games since trade (w/o Mesa 6 games).... 126 runs scored, 78 runs against with a 14-5 record (avg opp record 59-58)

You lack of understanding basic statistics never ceases to shock me.

You have to be the worst banker ever.

which basic statistic am I not understanding?

Posted by moy23 on 12/10/2010 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 12/10/2010 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 12/10/2010 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 12/10/2010 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Well, technically, with who you decided to start, it didn't cost you defense...  just a lot of runs.  Then that guy got injured and it cost you both.

19 games prior to the trade (and w/ O. Mesa)... 77 runs scored, 71 runs against with a 10-9 record (avg opp record 53-65)
19 games since trade (w/o Mesa 6 games).... 126 runs scored, 78 runs against with a 14-5 record (avg opp record 59-58)

You lack of understanding basic statistics never ceases to shock me.

You have to be the worst banker ever.

which basic statistic am I not understanding?

Given the standard deviation of your runs scored and runs allowed over only a 19 game sample, you would need like 1000 games worth of data to even get 80% confidence that a change in run production is statistically viable.

Basically, you have no comprehension of sample size at all.  You are comparing samples of 19 games, which tells you nothing because of the variance you see in game to game runs.

bottom line is I said I like the new dynamic of the hitting. Its a more 'consistant' 1-5. My 6-8 guys are all hitting over .290 right now (Tessmer, Wright, Yakasomething) which has been nice.


Basically Instead of:

Philips
Mesa
Hartman
Brush (~.270-38-110 career hitter) $6 mil salary
McGuire (~.276-30-110, 30 SBs) $8.5 mil
Olmeda

It's now (more consistant with and more salary/value friendly):

Philips
Mesa
Hartman (~.324-35-110) $5.6 mil
Garcia (~.304-45-135) $7.8 mil
Olmeda

Convenient you left the 6th man off of the second list.

And that you basically glossed over the fact that you numbers, as usual, are meaningless.

Had you been batting McGuire in Brush's spot, you consistency and production at the 1-5 spot would have been nearly exactly what it is now while your 6-9 would have outproduced your current 6-9 as it still will.