I don’t want to presume to tell you how to be a fan, but . . . here I am doing just that. I’m just trying to be helpful. And like so many other people whose attempts at helpfulness produce nothing but aggravation, I’m willing to take that risk for you. I’m a giver.
What I want is for you to enjoy being a Cubs fan and to avoid looking stupid in the process. That’s not to say I don’t look stupid. It’s too late for me. Save yourself. If you start by eliminating these expressions from your personal Cubbie lexicon, you’ll also be saving me a couple thousand facepalms a week.
10. Player X needs to step up.
In basketball, sure. But in baseball? Players step up when they’re told. It’s your turn to hit. Go step up. If it’s not, sit down and find a new cliché. If a player has a bat in his hands, he should try to be as productive as possible. If he’s wearing a glove or a mitt, he should try to prevent runs from scoring. A baseball player’s duties in any given moment are pretty well defined for him. The guy who tries to do more than he can is either trying too hard or wasn’t trying hard enough to begin with. Either way, stepping up is an indicator of stupidity in baseball.
9. This loss is on Player X.
There are virtually no instances in which one player acts completely independently so as to determine the outcome of a single play let alone the entire game. For every batter who strikes out, there’s a pitcher who bests him. A pitcher can’t just give up 8 runs in the ninth; he needs the cooperation of his defense and the opposing batters to yield that result. Baseball is a game made up entirely of confrontations. Every showdown has at least one winner and at least one loser. To place the outcome of a game on one player is to ignore the efforts, failures, and victories of everyone else involved. And that’s dumb.
8. Booooo.
I just don’t get this one. It’s just funny that there are still people who actually cup their hands around their mouths, lean back, and say the word Boo. Educated, evolved human beings. I don’t get it.
7. Player X does not belong on this team.
Okay, this one isn’t something that should never be said, but for this team? How many outstanding major league talents are waiting in the wings right now? If you know how to lose half the time, you belong on this Cubs team.
6. You’ve got to get a hit, induce a groundball, make contact, hit a flyball, etc. in that situation.
We know that there’s very little any player can do 100% of the time in baseball. No pitcher can throw strikes 100% of the time or get an out 100% of the time. No hitter will make contact with every pitch. Starlin Castro began the year with 35 straight swings without missing and it was ridiculously amazing. But for some reason, everything we know about sample sizes and rates gets flushed down the mental toilet in the context of a game. We expect players to suddenly get better. Not just better, perfect. A swing and miss is unacceptable here. A ball outside of the strike zone is unacceptable. Yielding a hit is unacceptable. It’s not that easy. Hell, not saying stupid things isn’t that easy.
5. Mike Quade doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Technically, you don’t know what Mike Quade’s doing. He knows. It might be foolish on occasion, but it’s not like decisions are being made by accident.
4. Tom Ricketts doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Never mind. This is probably true.
3. Always (see also: Never)
People always use these words when they’re talking about the Cubs and they’re never right.
2. This is the year.
Of the rabbit? Yeah. Of the Cubs? Let’s just not go there anymore. Again, my goal here is for you to enjoy the Cubs fan experience. Convincing yourself that a World Series at Wrigley is imminent is not a recipe for happiness.
1. Player X is on pace to hit .400.
Normally I would have put the bit about the Cubs not winning the World Series in the top spot, but I went with this one because I’m really growing fond of the name Player X. This team needs a Player X. Maybe Soriano can be Player X. I’ll pretend he’s Starlin Castro’s long lost mysterious older brother. Yeah, that would be cool. But he’s still not on pace to hit .400 or 50 homers or make 243 errors so stop saying it.
Tags:
Win.
Player X needs to step up because this loss is on him. He does not belong on this team, but he’s on pace to hit .400. Booooo.
Mike Quade doesn’t know what he’s doing. Always. You’ve got to get a hit, induce a groundball, make contact, hit a flyball in that situation.
This is the year.
Pointless article. Could be substituted for any team. I’d like that 30 seconds of my life back.
On pace to hit .400 is especially dumb because it’s a rate stat. Not sure I’ve ever really heard anyone say that either.
[quote name=SB]Pointless article. Could be substituted for any team. I’d like that 30 seconds of my life back.[/quote]I apologize if the goat you were tending to found another suitor while you were distracted by the article.
Alvin’s comment is unchanged.
[quote name=SB]Pointless article. Could be substituted for any team. I’d like that 30 seconds of my life back.[/quote]
Spend 30 fewer seconds masturbating today and you’re even.
Aaaaand there it is.
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]On pace to hit .400 is especially dumb because it’s a rate stat. Not sure I’ve ever really heard anyone say that either.[/quote]You’re more fortunate than I, Hector.
[quote name=AndCounting]You’re more fortunate than I, Hector.[/quote]
Yeah, now that I think about it, I probably have heard that before. Still so dumb.
Alvin’s bathroom.
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
I reserve my boos for the umpires. I think they deserve it.
The “on pace” for thing drives me nuts too. If we were to say Castro was on pace to hit such and such, it would actually be what every other hitter who was hitting above .400 at this point in the season ended up hitting. I’ll guess it’s .320. Castro is on pace to hit .320. I can live with that.
Zambrano is on pace to win 16 games while the Cubs go 32-0 in his starts. No. Zambrano is on pace to win how many games other starting pitchers who were 2-0 at this point in the season were. The Cubs are also on pace to go such and such based on what other teams were at that point.
Sometimes I don’t think people understand “on pace for.” If used properly or for humor, great, but if someone says someone is on pace for .400 in a serious tone, that’s silly.
[quote name=SB]Pointless article. Could be substituted for any team. I’d like that 30 seconds of my life back.[/quote]
We have a strict no return policy.
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]Yeah, now that I think about it, I probably have heard that before. Still so dumb.[/quote]It’s not something that surprises anyone. Even the people who say it know it isn’t reliable. But even though batting average is a rate stat, that’s a bit of a misnomer. It’s not really an indicator of current pace. It speaks to past performance.
Or what mb just said. (dying laughing)
[quote name=mb21]We have a strict no return policy.[/quote]And anyone who didn’t know this would be pointless by reading the headline deserves whatever disappointment followed. (dying laughing)
Why is Starlin still mad?
[quote name=SB]Pointless article. Could be substituted for any team. I’d like that 30 seconds of my life back.[/quote]I see the short bus has forgotten to fetch one of the helmeted window-lickers.
[quote name=Rice Cube]I reserve my boos for the umpires. I think they deserve it.[/quote]They often do. Which is why they really should be replaced by robots. It’s not their fault they’re human.
[quote name=AndCounting]And anyone who didn’t know this would be pointless by reading the headline deserves whatever disappointment followed. (dying laughing)[/quote]
I would argue that you made 10 very good points.
But I reserve the right to boo.
[quote name=AndCounting]It’s not something that surprises anyone. Even the people who say it know it isn’t reliable. But even though batting average is a rate stat, that’s a bit of a misnomer. It’s not really an indicator of current pace. It speaks to past performance.
Or what mb just said. (dying laughing)[/quote]You often hear it with home runs after the first few games. Tuffy Rhodes is on pace to hit 486 home runs. That’s obviously said in humor, but take the post Tim wrote the other day about Whittenmeyer as an example of someone using on pace in a serious manner. He didn’t say it explicitly, but he implied if he could keep doing everything he has and blah blah blah.
I actually do wonder what others have hit after starting out over .400 through 16 games. I’d guess at least .320 and possibly as high as .340. I’d assume the group of hitters who were hitting over .400 at this point in the season were very good hitters who were a little lucky (like Castro). I’m sure there are some Koyie Hill’s and Sam Fuld’s in the group too, but for the most part they’re probably damn good hitters.
Fine. But what else should I surmise when the man puts on a 1-out sac bunt with Z at the dish and Starlin on deck?
[quote name=AndCounting]And anyone who didn’t know this would be pointless by reading the headline deserves whatever disappointment followed. (dying laughing)[/quote]The headline and the simple fact that 99.99999% of shit written on the internet is pointless.
[quote name=mb21]The headline and the simple fact that 99.99999% of shit written on the internet is pointless.[/quote]Correct.
How could you forget
“Triple short of the cycle”
Just drives me crazy
Maybe it’s Cubs announcers, not Cubs fans, who are most guilty of this one.
But, still …
[quote name=ednickow]How could you forget
“Triple short of the cycle”
Just drives me crazy
Maybe it’s Cubs announcers, not Cubs fans, who are most guilty of this one.
But, still …[/quote]That’s any baseball announcer, and yes, it’s truly maddening.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Fine. But what else should I surmise when the man puts on a 1-out sac bunt with Z at the dish and Starlin on deck?[/quote]I think that was more about the conditions of the game for what it’s worth. I’ve thought about looking into it. At what point would the run scoring conditions have to be for that to be a good play? With the two pitchers on the mound last night, the offense, defense and bullpens the expected run environment was about 7.5. That’s average weather. I’d guess the weather decreased those expectations to 6.5 or lower.
I’m busy so I can’t run the numbers, but it may be a break even play at that point.
I just signed up for an account but now I can’t comment with it, but I’m logged in. What gives?
Also, how can you view comments on the Android App?
Poor service. I want 27.9 seconds of my life back.
[quote name=ednickow]How could you forget
“Triple short of the cycle”
Just drives me crazy
Maybe it’s Cubs announcers, not Cubs fans, who are most guilty of this one.
But, still …[/quote]
Rule clarification…
So on home runs the batter must still run the bases in order. What if he elects to stay at third base? Is he declared out for not taking the base to which he is entitled, or do they just let him stay there?
There’s your triple for the cycle
[quote name=mb21]I think that was more about the conditions of the game for what it’s worth. I’ve thought about looking into it. At what point would the run scoring conditions have to be for that to be a good play? With the two pitchers on the mound last night, the offense, defense and bullpens the expected run environment was about 7.5. That’s average weather. I’d guess the weather decreased those expectations to 6.5 or lower.
I’m busy so I can’t run the numbers, but it may be a break even play at that point.[/quote]It probably is, but to my mind it seems to demonstrate that Quade is far too reliant on “traditional” knowledge. Personally, I’d like a little more Earl Weaver tradition and a little less Tony LaRussa tradition. Like you say, it’s likely a break-even, statistically insignificant moment, but it struck me as an opportunity to take a risk in a game where 1 run was likely to win it, and Quade went the ultra-safe route. What pisses me off the most is giving away the second out of an inning, and that just strikes me as incredibly foolish.
[quote name=ednickow]How could you forget
“Triple short of the cycle”
Just drives me crazy
Maybe it’s Cubs announcers, not Cubs fans, who are most guilty of this one.
But, still …[/quote]I love ‘triple short of a cycle,’ just because it’s the only time I actually look to an at-bat wanting to see a triple. It’s about the equivalent of a horse being one race short of the triple crown. The cycle isn’t quite so prestigious, I guess. (dying laughing)
A long Tango thread for “on pace”
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/on_pace_to/
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Fine. But what else should I surmise when the man puts on a 1-out sac bunt with Z at the dish and Starlin on deck?[/quote]That Ari Kaplan told him it will give the Cubs a 95% chance of scoring if the moon is in the second phase.
[quote name=ednickow]How could you forget
“Triple short of the cycle”
Just drives me crazy
Maybe it’s Cubs announcers, not Cubs fans, who are most guilty of this one.
But, still …[/quote]I just looked real quickly so it may be off a bit, but there were 221 players in 2010 alone who were a triple short of the cycle. Yeah, it’s a silly comment.
[quote name=WaLi2]I just signed up for an account but now I can’t comment with it, but I’m logged in. What gives?
Also, how can you view comments on the Android App?
Poor service. I want 27.9 seconds of my life back.[/quote]What happens when you try to comment?
I’m not sure there is a way to comment on the android app. I doubt there is. There is a mobile version of this site if you just go to the main domain. It should automatically detect your device.
[quote name=mb21]I actually do wonder what others have hit after starting out over .400 through 16 games. I’d guess at least .320 and possibly as high as .340. I’d assume the group of hitters who were hitting over .400 at this point in the season were very good hitters who were a little lucky (like Castro). I’m sure there are some Koyie Hill’s and Sam Fuld’s in the group too, but for the most part they’re probably damn good hitters.[/quote]I started trying to use BR’s play index to see how frequently players hit .400 in their first 80 or so plate appearances of the season. But I suck at using BR’s play index.
WaLi, your account is enabled so I’m not sure why you’re having trouble commenting. What exactly happens?
[quote name=WaLi2]I just signed up for an account but now I can’t comment with it, but I’m logged in. What gives?
Also, how can you view comments on the Android App?
Poor service. I want 27.9 seconds of my life back.[/quote]Occasionally I’ll run into this but it fixes upon refreshing the page.
[quote name=AndCounting]I started trying to use BR’s play index to see how frequently players hit .400 in their first 80 or so plate appearances of the season. But I suck at using BR’s play index.[/quote]Let me give it a try. The problem will be figuring out what those hitters hit after that part. The play index won’t help with out that. I don’t think so anyway.
[quote name=AndCounting]That Ari Kaplan told him it will give the Cubs a 95% chance of scoring if the moon is in the second phase.[/quote]Ah, yes, the JawMBABiP (Jupiter aligned with Mars Batting Average on Balls in Play)
[quote name=AndCounting]Occasionally I’ll run into this but it fixes upon refreshing the page.[/quote]Yeah, sometimes it can time you out, but it will show you as logged in when you aren’t. Don’t know why it does that. Try what AC said.
I don’t think the play index will even do that, AC.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]It probably is, but to my mind it seems to demonstrate that Quade is far too reliant on “traditional” knowledge. Personally, I’d like a little more Earl Weaver tradition and a little less Tony LaRussa tradition. Like you say, it’s likely a break-even, statistically insignificant moment, but it struck me as an opportunity to take a risk in a game where 1 run was likely to win it, and Quade went the ultra-safe route. What pisses me off the most is giving away the second out of an inning, and that just strikes me as incredibly foolish.[/quote]I think it’s foolish as well, but I’m betting nearly every manager does the same thing in that specific game. Both teams were playing for one run and it probably hurt their ability to score runs.
[quote name=mb21]I don’t think the play index will even do that, AC.[/quote]Yeah, me neither. It’s good for nothing.
[quote name=AndCounting]Yeah, me neither. It’s good for nothing.[/quote]I want my money back!
I also want 30 seconds back because I wasted time looking for it.
[quote name=mb21]I think it’s foolish as well, but I’m betting nearly every manager does the same thing in that specific game. Both teams were playing for one run and it probably hurt their ability to score runs.[/quote]Yeah, there aren’t too many managers who would’ve done differently. But Quade is in full-on auto-bunt mode. The 9-spot is an auto-out for the Cubs. That really bothers me. And since I follow the Cubs, and not other teams, I get pissed at Quade for being such a luddite.
[quote name=AndCounting]Yeah, me neither. It’s good for nothing.[/quote]BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
[quote name=mb21]I want my money back![/quote]BP needs to step up.
[quote name=mb21]I also want 30 seconds back because I wasted time looking for it.[/quote]That loss is on AC.
[quote name=mb21]I want my money back![/quote]BP don’t know what they’re doing.
(dying laughing) Just looking at the current MLB batting average leader board answers the question, though. It goes like this:
Matt Kemp
Joey Votto
Starlin Castro
Sam Fuld
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]It probably is, but to my mind it seems to demonstrate that Quade is far too reliant on “traditional” knowledge. Personally, I’d like a little more Earl Weaver tradition and a little less Tony LaRussa tradition. Like you say, it’s likely a break-even, statistically insignificant moment, but it struck me as an opportunity to take a risk in a game where 1 run was likely to win it, and Quade went the ultra-safe route. What pisses me off the most is giving away the second out of an inning, and that just strikes me as incredibly foolish.[/quote]
I am pretty sure I heard in the post-game presser that Quade said he doesn’t like playing small-ball that much, but that the weather conditions dictated it. Or at least something like that.
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]I am pretty sure I heard in the post-game presser that Quade said he doesn’t like playing small-ball that much, but that the weather conditions dictated it. Or at least something like that.[/quote]
Soto said that the wind was whipping up through the batter’s box so it was tough to see clearly since that would cause one to tear up.
At the same time…despite the weather, shouldn’t you still be able to hit line drives?
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]I am pretty sure I heard in the post-game presser that Quade said he doesn’t like playing small-ball that much, but that the weather conditions dictated it. Or at least something like that.[/quote]Oh, God, I’d have rather heard him say he plays small ball. Now he sounds like a man who will be bitching about all the day games come the June Swoon.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]That loss is on AC.[/quote]If you can’t tell by the dwindling lengths of descriptions, I started this list with two or three things in mind. By the time I got to 8 I was just making stuff up. (dying laughing)
[quote name=AndCounting]If you can’t tell by the dwindling lengths of descriptions, I started this list with two or three things in mind. By the time I got to 8 I was just making stuff up. (dying laughing)[/quote]You always do this. I’m never reading another of your articles.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Oh, God, I’d have rather heard him say he plays small ball. Now he sounds like a man who will be bitching about all the day games come the June Swoon.[/quote]
I don’t know. We’ll see. I have an open mind about Quade. I don’t really think managers make much of a difference and I’m already tired of the Ryno-backers bitching about Quade.
I didn’t watch the game, but Z isn’t such a great hitter that I don’t mind giving up his out considering the game situation. We are talking about a guy with a .273 career wOBA. At what point is a hitter so bad that the run expectancy is increased by giving up the out and moving the hitter to 2nd?
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]You always do this. I’m never reading another of your articles.[/quote]I wish that first part weren’t true. (dying laughing)
From Sullivan: Weird factoid: Cubs have gone 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8 for first time since 1930.
It literally is a roller coaster ride to .500 (dying laughing)
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]I don’t know. We’ll see.
I didn’t watch the game, but Z isn’t such a great hitter that I don’t mind giving up his out considering the game situation. We are talking about a guy with a .273 career wOBA. At what point is a hitter so bad that the run expectancy is increased by giving up the out?[/quote]
Given the conditions, and the numbers you cite, I wouldn’t be as upset about it if there were not outs. Takes away the DP and gets a guy in scoring position for Castro. But to give away the second out with a decent-hitting pitcher at the plate in a tight game is just foolish.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I see the short bus has forgotten to fetch one of the helmeted window-lickers.[/quote]
There goes MO, freaking out before he ascertains whether the poster is a sock or not…
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]I don’t know. We’ll see.
I didn’t watch the game, but Z isn’t such a great hitter that I don’t mind giving up his out considering the game situation. We are talking about a guy with a .273 career wOBA. At what point is a hitter so bad that the run expectancy is increased by giving up the out and moving the hitter to 2nd?[/quote]The question I always wonder about is run expectancy versus probability of scoring at all. Let’s say the sac bunt lowers run expectancy by half a run but increases the probability of scoring by 25%, it makes sense in a game where neither team is likely to score much or in late-inning situations.
[quote name=Mish]From Sullivan: Weird factoid: Cubs have gone 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8 for first time since 1930.
It literally is a roller coaster ride to .500 (dying laughing)[/quote]
A kiddie rollercoaster. A real roller coaster would have more large inclines and drops.
[quote name=Mish]From Sullivan: Weird factoid: Cubs have gone 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8 for first time since 1930.
It literally is a roller coaster ride to .500 (dying laughing)[/quote]
[quote name=Aisle424]A kiddie rollercoaster. A real roller coaster would have more large inclines and drops.[/quote]It’s a roller coaster ride to .500 even Sully is allowed to enjoy.
These were the top 12 in batting average last season through the end of April
Manny
Pudge
Cano
Nate Schierholz
Kearns
Sandoval
Austin Jackson
Ryan Zimmerman
Hawpe
Prado
Braun
Carlos Gonzalez
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Given the conditions, and the numbers you cite, I wouldn’t be as upset about it if there were not outs. Takes away the DP and gets a guy in scoring position for Castro. But to give away the second out with a decent-hitting pitcher at the plate in a tight game is just foolish.[/quote]
Ok. But at what point is the pitcher such a bad hitter that you are ok with giving up the out? Does the difference between a .150 OBP and a .250 OBP make that much of a difference?
Run expectancy tables are great, but I think they have to be adjusted a bit when you are talking about the pitcher.
Something else I noticed that surprised me. Three of the most sabermetrically inclined teams last year in the AL (Oak, TB, and Sea) were all above league average in sacrifice bunt hits.
[quote name=Jame Gumb]There goes MO, freaking out before he ascertains whether the poster is a sock or not…[/quote]
[quote name=AndCounting]It’s a roller coaster ride to .500 even Sully is allowed to enjoy.[/quote](dying laughing)
Sullivan doesn’t get roller coasters. How can you go up one hill, when you’ve used all that momentum to go up the previous one?
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Oh, God, I’d have rather heard him say he plays small ball. Now he sounds like a man who will be bitching about all the day games come the June Swoon.[/quote]I think you’re looking too much into it. I didn’t like the decision, but I do think it’s one that 29 other managers make in that same situation.
[quote name=mb21]I think you’re looking too much into it. I didn’t like the decision, but I do think it’s one that 29 other managers make in that same situation.[/quote]Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox now. But don’t think I won’t “I told you so” the fuck out of this place when he does it on a sunny day in June. (dying laughing)
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]Ok. But at what point is the pitcher such a bad hitter that you are ok with giving up the out? Does the difference between a .150 OBP and a .250 OBP make that much of a difference?
Run expectancy tables are great, but I think they have to be adjusted a bit when you are talking about the pitcher.
Something else I noticed that surprised me. Three of the most sabermetrically inclined teams last year in the AL (Oak, TB, and Sea) were all above league average in sacrifice bunt hits.[/quote]Bunting with the average pitcher is almost always an increase in run expectancy. The lower scoring the environment is, the more valuable it is. However, Zambrano isn’t a typical pitcher at the plate.
I don’t mind it because Zambrano still isn’t a good hitter. He’s basically Koyie Hill at the plate except he’s probably slower. I also think you want the pitcher in the dugout in the dugout in that situation anyway.
[quote name=mb21]I don’t mind it because Zambrano still isn’t a good hitter. [/quote]
That’s basically my stance. I think you would be asking an awful lot of Quade in that situation to let Z swing away. Bunting in that situation is just so ingrained in baseball culture.
[quote name=mb21]I think you’re looking too much into it. I didn’t like the decision, but I do think it’s one that 29 other managers make in that same situation.[/quote]I’m never going to get that upset if he bunts with the pitcher though. like HV said, Zambrano is still an awful hitter. He’s a great hitting pitcher, but that bar is set ridiculously low. Compared to Ted Lilly, Carlos Zambrano is an awesome hitter. Compared to Darwin Barney, he’s pretty bad.
[quote name=mb21]WaLi, your account is enabled so I’m not sure why you’re having trouble commenting. What exactly happens?[/quote]
Thoughts?
[quote name=mb21]I’m never going to get that upset if he bunts with the pitcher though. like HV said, Zambrano is still an awful hitter. He’s a great hitting pitcher, but that bar is set ridiculously low. Compared to Ted Lilly, Carlos Zambrano is an awesome hitter. Compared to Darwin Barney, he’s pretty bad.[/quote]
Who, aside from the Revolutionist, is a good hitter when compared to Mr. Purple?
[quote name=Wali2]Thoughts?[/quote]Go to the top of the page and logout. Then log back in. What appears to be happening is that you’re logged in, but your browser isn’t recognizing it for some reason. Usually refresh works, but try logging out and back in.
[quote name=Wali2]Who, aside from the Revolutionist, is a good hitter when compared to Mr. Purple?[/quote]
I am assuming this is a joke.
If not: Marlon Byrd, Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Pena, Soto, Ramirez, Baker, Colvin.
Basically everyone on the roster except the pitchers and Koyie Hill.
[quote name=mb21]Go to the top of the page and logout. Then log back in. What appears to be happening is that you’re logged in, but your browser isn’t recognizing it for some reason. Usually refresh works, but try logging out and back in.[/quote]
Hmm I tried that and changed windows. I’m at work and work has a bunch of internet restrictions so that might be fucking things up. I’ll try again at home.
Part of the issue may be that you’re logged in about 50 different times. Let me clear that out and you’ll probably have better luck.
OK, try to log back in now. Just once though.
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]I am assuming this is a joke.
If not: Marlon Byrd, Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Pena, Soto, Ramirez, Baker, Colvin.
Basically everyone on the roster except the pitchers and Koyie Hill.[/quote]Mr. Purple is Starlin Castro. (dying laughing)
[quote name=mb21]Mr. Purple is Starlin Castro. (dying laughing)[/quote]Wasn’t nickname. Blame Al for his Purple Revolutionist nickname idea for the top two hitters in the Cubs lineup.
[quote name=mb21]Mr. Purple is Starlin Castro. (dying laughing)[/quote]
I thought the Revolutionist was Castro.
[quote name=mb21]OK, try to log back in now. Just once though.[/quote]
Nope, I suck at life. I may have messed it up because I am logged in on my phone too. Oh well.
[quote name=mb21]Mr. Purple is Starlin Castro. (dying laughing)[/quote]
Ah yes, because he Castro bats first.
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]I am assuming this is a joke.
If not: Marlon Byrd, Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Pena, Soto, Ramirez, Baker, Colvin.
Basically everyone on the roster except the pitchers and Koyie Hill.[/quote]
No joke. I love Barney, and he loves me. We’re a happy family.
[quote name=mb21]Mr. Purple is Starlin Castro. (dying laughing)[/quote]
Oh, I thought Castro was the Revolutionist and Barney was Mr. Purple.
I actually kind of like calling Barney Mr. Purple. I feel bad for the guy. he is really going to disappoint a lot of people in the next couple months. People on BCB are already comparing him to Lou Whitaker.
Lou Whitaker. (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)
That’s what makes sense (Barney being Mr. Purple), but that’s not what is implied. That’s part of what makes the nickname so ridiculous.
What did Whitaker do? He’s one of my favorites.
[quote name=mb21]What did Whitaker do? He’s one of my favorites.[/quote]BCB has decided he’s Barney’s ceiling. (dying laughing)
[quote name=WaLi2]Ah yes, because he Castro bats first.[/quote]For some reason when you login you’re logging in a million times. It has to be something with your firewall at work. I’ve never seen it before.
[quote name=mb21]For some reason when you login you’re logging in a million times. It has to be something with your firewall at work. I’ve never seen it before.[/quote]
Figures. No problem
It’s not wrong to say that someone is on pace to hit .400. It is redundant. I can prove this by showing that P implies Q and that Q implies P.
In this case, if batting average => pace and pace => batting average.
Well I know that batting average is H/AB.
When someone with a BA of .300 comes up to bat, I can say that he is on pace to get a hit three out of every ten AB.
Therefore, Pace = H/AB.
Thus BA => Pace and Pace => BA.
Therefore the statement is redundant, but not technically wrong.
Booya!
Wait, in terms of logical implication, P –> Q implies ~Q –> ~P, not Q –> P
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Wait, in terms of logical implication, P –> Q implies ~Q –> ~P, not Q –> P[/quote]
Yes, I know. My point is, that a redundancy is an if and only if.
Therefore if both Q => P and P => Q is true. Then the statement is an if and only if, meaning that stating both things in one sentence is a redundancy but not an incorrect statement.
For example, saying I have 2+2 dollars and I have 4 dollars. Is redundant, but not wrong.
If someone says so and so is on pace to hit .278, nobody pays any attention because it’s reasonable. 300 is reasonable. If someone says so and so is on pace to hit 26 home runs, that’s more than reasonable. The problem happens when people say so and so is on pace to hit 50 home runs or on pace to bat .350 or .400. None of those are reasonable and we know that because of how many people were hitting .350 or .400 and what they ended up hitting.
We already had this conversation. Your redundant point is redundant. (dying laughing)
Did you honestly expect me to read all of that crap? I don’t have time for that. I just wanted to say it.
And yes, it is unreasonable. But still not wrong.
EDIT: By crap I just mean large pile of comments.
[quote name=Doogolas]Yes, I know. My point is, that a redundancy is an if and only if.
Therefore if both Q => P and P => Q is true. Then the statement is an if and only if, meaning that stating both things in one sentence is a redundancy but not an incorrect statement.
For example, saying I have 2+2 dollars and I have 4 dollars. Is redundant, but not wrong.[/quote]Ah, I was reading it as a materially conditional statement, not a materially biconditional statement. All apologies.
I have to disagree. I think you can plug Grabow at #9 on your list.
New stuff: http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/when-god-was-handing-out-brains-nathan-h-from-omaha-thought-they-said-qtrainsq-and-got-out-of-the-way.html
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Ah, I was reading it as a materially conditional statement, not a materially biconditional statement. All apologies.[/quote]All is well. I’m doing mathematical proofs homework. So I felt like writing a proof for something in English to see if it’d work. That’s really the only reason I said anything. (dying laughing)
[quote name=Doogolas]Did you honestly expect me to read all of that crap? I don’t have time for that. I just wanted to say it.
And yes, it is unreasonable. But still not wrong.
EDIT: By crap I just mean large pile of comments.[/quote]Not at all. (dying laughing)
Bubbles says hello. He has been slammed at work