iamshack

Kind of crazy that the Packers have taken out the #3 and #1 seeds on the road before we've even stepped on the field.

QUOTE (beckham15 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 10:17 PM) if i was a bears fan i'd be more worried about getting past Seattle first of all Well, luckily for us, it doesn't matter if we look ahead. I just hope the players are more worried about getting past Seattle first.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 10:13 PM) That was on Martz. Calling deep drops and big plays when the line couldn't pick up a blitz for the entire game. Totally preventable. Oh, absolutely. But it was what was happening and it was tough to keep trying to win when your QB could be injured on just about every down.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 10:00 PM) That's why I wanted the Bears to knock them out in Week 17. Mmmhmm...it was really tough how it unfolded because of that fact that Cutler was getting beaten down in the second half though...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 09:55 PM) I've always thought Matt Ryan was an overrated QB... until the end of the season Cutler actually had a higher QB rating than Ryan. I just never had the energy to make that argument. He is very good but not a top QB like so many people say he is. Well, I like Matt Ryan, but I was shocked to hear they were last in plays of +20 yards this year. I was just not that impressed with this Falcons team all year. They're a solid, balanced team, but their secondary sucks and their offense is really so dependent on execution because of the lack of big plays that if they get down like this, they are not particularly well-suited to come from behind. I would honestly rather play the Falcons in Atlanta than the Packers at home, should we win tomorrow.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 08:20 PM) I'm getting a disturbingly large amount of writing done on my Hawaii paper tonight, despite the NFL games on and the whiskey bottle next to me. I'm not sure what this means. Now we just need to get you some ganja!

OVERRATED

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 07:03 PM) Of course as soon as I start working out the Soxtalk Gym forum is closed. I love how good I feel after running, even if I was running in 3 degree weather. F*** is it cold here. Wow, did that hurt your lungs?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 06:10 PM) If the Bears had played the exact same first half as the Ravens, everyone would be talking about how the Bears are just getting lucky again. That's absolutely correct. Especially if we scored an uncontested td because the other team thought the play was over. I can see it now..."Could anything else possibly go their way?"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) They'd be paying a premium price but they'd be getting production well beyond that price if they got the 2007 Peavy. Again, I never argued against this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) If Jake Peavy is only worth $10 million in the fangraphs numbers, it could well be hard for the Sox to win this year, just like last year. You get the 2007 Peavy last year and the Sox are right in it. Instead, they spend a lot of money and didn't get their money's worth. That's not what you argued though. You argued that even if the player produces as much as he is being paid, the Sox still cannot win, because by default, the Sox cannot win if they are paying a premium price.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:32 PM) No, I don't. I guess I said that wrong. I'm just saying at that many years and that kinda coin [is it almost 17 million?], he's being paid like a superstar or damn near close to it. And he quite frankly hasn't been that for a majority of his career. Ballparks be damned. Well, I can concede your position has merit. It's a calculated risk I would have taken, given our roster and contract commitments, but that is certainly up for debate. What I don't agree with, is this notion that paying for elite defense is somehow wrong.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) But he's being paid like he's Gonzalez because of his defensive reputation. That's my point. And c'mon, Shack. Beltre was not signing a damn thing two months ago. His agent is Boras. Do you really think that Adrian Gonzalez is going to sign a 6/$96 extension?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) I'll let you have the last word, but my response is built in your words. Defense is "at more of a premium". And teams are paying for defense that way. I think the Yankees can win by paying a premium price for the thing that everyone is paying a premium for. I think teams that are loaded with both new revenue and young, performing talent might be able to win by paying a premium for the thing that everyone is paying a premium for (the Rangers fit here). I think that a team like the White Sox cannot win by winning bidding wars for the thing that everyone is paying a premium for. A team like the White Sox needs to find its value by finding wins that other teams are not willing to pay a premium price for. It's just not that simple. The White Sox can afford to pay a premium for things that they need, if they happen to be paying less than the premium price for other aspects of production that they require. If you're going to argue that position, and it is indeed true, the White Sox cannot win this year, because of the money they are paying Jake Peavy.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 05:10 PM) I edited my post and added some stuff. Not sure you saw it. But Agon was still able to put up monster seasons playing half his game at Petco. The messiah for pitchers' parks. All I'm saying is that by year 3, or maybe even earlier, the Rangers could be regretting that deal. But I get what you're saying as far as just 2011 or even 2012 goes. I'm not that kinda fan. I think more like a GM. Well a GM not named Kenny Williams. I look at 3-5 years down the road as much as I do the current year. That's why I value draft picks and a strong farm more than the average fan does. I'm not saying the guy is Adrian Gonzalez. I'm saying he's Adrian Beltre. And I'm not saying I would have been comfortable offering what the Rangers offered, I said I think if we would have offered 5/$78 2 months ago maybe we would have been able to get it done. I think Beltre will probably slow down in year 4 and 5, but I think his production in years 1-3 will help offset that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) Really? I just did the math on this and I don't believe so. In 2002, Bonds's year, the average team had 7 more at bats than in 2010. The average team had 24 more hits, but 15 of those were HR. However, in 2010 there were on average 100 more strikeouts per team than in 2002. So, there were about 90 fewer balls in play per team last year than at the peak of the steroid era. And furthermore, that's 90 balls in play out of 5500 at bats, so the difference you're talking about there is very small. Leave it to you to do this. Fine. Runs are far more valuable now that offensive production is down, and therefore, defense is at more of a premium. Happy?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) I praise him because of his defense and pretty much only his defense. Beltre, other than 2004 and last year, has been nothing to write home about offensively. But he's being paid like a top-10 player in baseball because of the fact, like Balta stated multiple times, that he's a premier defender. That still doesn't really justify the years/money spent on him by the Rangers. I think that was Balta's point. Now I get what you're saying as far as Safeco depressing Beltre's offensive numbers. But at 5-6 years and all that coin, way too risky for me for a guy that's only had two great years. And you pretty much made my point for me. I'm not saying defense was completely ignored before the 'roid era hit. But it's certainly not valued like it was when it seemed like even average to bad offensive teams were averaging 5 plus runs. He's played the majority of his career in not only Safeco, but Dodger stadium as well. He's hit 20 or more homers in 8 seasons, and 19 in another, so let's not pretend like he's some garbage player offensively. He's going to produce quite a bit in Texas in that lineup, so I don't think you're going to think he's some schlep at the plate after the next few years. I understand you guys may want to discount the value Fangraphs assign to players, and maybe it isn't completely accurate all the time, but it's still a hell of a lot better than some random opinion you guys are pulling out of thin air.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) I totally understand what you're saying. Defense has become the fad, much like OPS in the early 2000's, post steroids. This is fact. Unless you really believe the Mariners gave Franklin Gutierrez 4 years and over 20 million because of his bat. This coming from the guy who praised Gutierrez repeatedly the entire offseason last year. Defense is not a fad. Defense is an integral part of the game. The fact that it is recognized monetarily or not may be a fad at certain times, but that does not make the player less valuable on the field. It means at times, more valuable players are rewarded less monetarily for their defensive skills. Don't confuse the two. This whole Moneyball angle you two are trying to advocate means nothing. No one is saying that there is something wrong with trying to sign undervalued players. What you guys are advocating is ignoring value because it has been ignored at certain times in the past, especially those times when offense was artificially inflated by performance enhancing drugs. The reason defense is even MORE important now is because most of the drugs are out of the game, and so there are more balls in play than there were when the drugs were in the game.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) There's a couple different currents underlying the whole "Moneyball" movement. Part of it has been the idea that advanced stats can provide new information that can help build winning teams...but the other part of it is using these stats to find hidden value. Adrian Beltre is being paid like an MVP because he's an elite defender and an average bat, and he's getting that money entirely because that's what the advanced stats say about him. That's that half of the moneyball story, but it's not the other half. When everyone is using the same stats and paying huge contracts based on them, then trying to sign players based on those stats is a losing game, because you're not finding value. I didn't say a damn thing about Moneyball.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) I can say that was a different Pats team. Not only were they still dealing with Moss's crap, but they were trying to play a different style of game. Green-Ellis and their TE's hadn't started to come of age yet, and their offense hadn't found that short passing game rhythm that it was using to destroy teams later in the season. Can you tell me that the Jets are a better team now than they were only a couple weeks ago? Balta, I just told you I like the Pats here too. I recognize that the Pats are a different team now, but this is the NFL. To pretend as if the Jets are incapable of winning this game is silly. Many people would have said the exact same thing about the Saints-Seahawks game last week. And yes, it does appear that the Jets are a better team now than the team the Bears put 38 points on. Ryan has finally put his ego away and realized he can't blitz elite quarterbacks into submission. I expect them to play the same style of game defensively tomorrow as they did last week against Indianapolis, and that does give them a much better chance. Do I think they will win? Hell no. But are the capable of winning, absolutely.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) Beltre is like the poster boy for the player who shows up in his contract year and takes the rest of the time off. Can I not say basically the same thing about Paul Konerko?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) The question I have to ask is...what happened the last time out? The Jets couldn't slow Brady down at all. But what happened in week 2? I love the Pats in this one as well, but you can't pretend that the Jets aren't capable of winning the game, because they already have won this matchup once this season.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) I know what you're saying and I 1/2 feel the same way...but he also is a poster-boy for the modern stats...which love him, especially on defense. I feel like if he has a season like last year, he's a legitimate, $15 million a year player, but he's had 2 of those seasons in his career. In all the other years, he's been sorta an .800-ish OPS bat with solid defense. In a ballpark like the Cell, maybe that translates to .825-.850ish OPS, so we're talking good, but not the kind of bat that can carry a team, which is what I'm hoping for if I'm spending $18 million a year. For a team that has a lot of resources and also has other major threats in their lineup where they don't need him to be their biggest bat, they'd be in good shape with him. For a team like us though...I just don't think it's a good use of our dollars. He has been an elite defender his entire career. What you're doing is completely ignoring that fact. It's not just "modern stats" that favor his play, but finally the realization, after the steroids era, that defense is half of the game as well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 11:03 AM) They made absolutely no secret about the fact that they absolutely hated that deal in Seattle. They tried to trade him for anything if someone else would take the contract. He'd have been a Twin in 2008 if he hadn't been making so much money. Mariners fans hated his game. That doesn't substantiate your claims one bit. Secondly, what does this have to do with anything? Dunn and Konerko have seen their values rise and fall as well. If anything, Konerko's pattern is almost the same as Beltre's. I'm not sure what this point proves? Are you saying that because Seattle had a difficult time trading Beltre in the past, in a different home ballpark, in a different market, with different data being used to set a player's value, and that, therefore, must mean that he will be untradeable in the future with his new contract, well, you just know better than that. I would love to sit here and argue about things neither of us can prove, but I have to run. I'll be happy to pick it up at another time though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) I know the new defensive metrics are all the rage...but really, we've seen this story before on this exact player. Seattle wanted to trade Beltre basically from the first month of the first season of his last big contract, and they never could, despite him only making $12 mil a season on that deal. How could you possibly be in a position to know what they could and could not do with Adrian Beltre throughout the entire length of his contract with Seattle? And secondly, if he's playing in our ballpark, chances are his offensive numbers are going to be much stronger than they were in Seattle, just as they were in Boston last season.