chw42

We better go into the ASB at least 9 over.

Go Orioles. Can you at least win one in Detroit? Please?

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP One of the best games Danks has ever pitched. Way to save that bullpen! 5 in a row!

If Danks gets through the inning untouched, bring Putz in for the 9th. Can't throw Bobby out there every day.

6 more outs. I want to smell that sweep.

Nice play!

This is bad.

You can cancel the postgame show.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) His ridiculous competitive nature was what fueled Jordan to become what he was. From getting beat up by his brothers to not making his HS team. It fueled his desire to be the best and run over everyone in his way. If he didnt have that, he may have still been a good NBA player, but not what he was. Is it the competitive nature or is it the talent? I'd say the talent. All athletes are competitive. Again, we don't know how better it made Jordan. You can argue all day long about how LeBron has more talent, but doesn't have the competitive fire or something to win a championship. If you compare what Jordan had to what LeBron's had, I think you have your answer for why LeBron hasn't won anything.

MORE RUNS PLZ!

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) So what has happened this year? Just not as many balls out of his zone to get to? You would need much more specific data for that. But from what I can gather, it looks that way. There are some other fielders who have more OOZ plays and I'm pretty sure Gutierrez led in those last year. He's still taking care of balls in his zone. He's 4th in zone rating and has the most attempts out of anyone.

I think it's awesome that I didn't even think about LeBron James for about a page of this thread.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) Absolutely true. But then all offseason I have to hear about how Franklin Gutierrez is the best defensive center fielder ever and now this year he is a distant 5th. So there needs to be some restraint taken. I still think he's the best over the past year and a half at like +35 or something. Nobody's even close to that number.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) If they arent related I dont know what is truth. Intangibles do exist however, but they also influence stats which will be reportable. Michael Jordan's intangibles made him the best player ever, without those, he probably just produces at a high level because of his talent. PLayers can still produce and not have those intangibles. Its those little things that can turn an avg player into a good one or a good one to a great one. What were Jordan's intangibles? Being able to close games out? It's not like he's a s***ty player in normal leverage situations or anything. People remember those moments the most, so they need to identify it as something. Unfortunately, they confuse that with intangibles, when in reality, that's just Jordan being really good. Intangibles such as team leadership have their bearing, they probably do exist. However, we'll never know how much, because it's an intangible. You can say anything about an intangible and it can be true, so there is literally no proof for how much it exists. The entire thought process of an intangible meaning something that we can quantify or even qualify is contradictory. The problem I have with intangibles is that people take them far too seriously and overvalue them.

Wow, the Angels really are sleep walking.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) Ugh, and of course you bring up like the worst example ever. Aren't Jeter's playoff numbers pretty similar to his career numbers? I'm too lazy to look, but my belief was just that he has had so many post season opportunities that he just happens to be successful in those opportunities more than anyone else because of the sheer quantity of them. They're literally the same. Jeter's not clutch, he just hits like he usually does in the playoffs.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) People who think stats tell the entire story of a player dont even need to watch games, that alone is retarded. The problem is, you can only watch so much. In a lot of ways, your eyes are the most powerful weapon for talent evaluation, but in a lot of cases, stats are king. For example, would I rather listen to John Kruk talk about how great Torii Hunter is at fielding or should I just look at UZR and conclude that Hunter's been very mediocre for a while now? I'll take the latter, because John Kruk is most likely the illegitimate father of Paul McAnulty.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 01:56 PM) While I agree with you for the most point, it is quite possible to be a bit too far on the other side of the spectrum. I don't think they don't exist. I actually think there is clutch hitting, it does exist. But no way in hell does it to the extent some people think it does. Derek Jeter's made a living off of intangibles and clutchness. It's ridiculous.

Haha, wow. Ed Farmer thought 300 was a movie about bowling. xD

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) PER is nice advanced stats, but it's not what separates a good player from a bad player. Marrese Speights had a PER of close to 20 in his rookie year, does that mean he is the rookie of the year over Rose? Kobe's PER is always far from Lebron's, why do people argue Kobe over Lebron? You can't compare two players base on their stats and PER. Stats don't measure intangibles. Yes, Deng and Beasley have similar numbers, but 95% people will tell you they will rather have Deng over Beasley. the Magic had a great defensive team over the past two seasons, and the guys like Lewis, Carter, Nelson, Turkolu aren't remotely close to being great defensive players. It was all due to Howard's inside presence. Bosh was surrounded by subpar defensive players, but it's no excuse to finish last in the league in defensive efficiency. If you have watched any of the Raptors game, he is not physical defender, not a good help defender, nor does he block shots. He is not a good defender. Period. OMG I hate intangibles. That along with clutchness have decreased the IQ of sports fans by at least 30-40 points.

Come on Andruw, don't suck.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 01:19 PM) The Sox got Alex Rios for free. Had the Sox given up a bevy of prospects for Alex Rios last year, like the Sox would have to do for Dan Haren this year, people would be ripping the deal to shreds. Sox on the board. Kotsay would be wise to get a hit. That's be the steal of 2010, depending on what we give up. Dan Haren is a beast. He's having a down year, but his peripherals look almost like what they were these previous years. His 3.84 FIP and his 3.46 xFIP aren't too much worse than what they were last year. I think the sabermetric people would love the trade, everybody else will hate it. Just like the Rios trade last year.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 11:54 AM) I'd rather pitch Hudson than Haren, and that's not even counting that we'd have to give up prospects to get Haren. No thanks. Use what little capital we have in the minors to get Dunn on a decent deal if possible, or some other bat, and pitch Hudson. Haren = stud. Hudson = potential middle rotation starter.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 11:12 AM) JoeCool already has that on lock for the year Cold Ice FTW

Beckham for Dunn? Hell no. If Rizzo actually expects that to happen, he is high.