Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel traded to Oakland Athletics for Addison Russell plus

[DewsSox79]

This still makes me chuckle. No facts just beating his chest and proclaiming it. Are you Hawks grandson? If so, :admin:

I take it you cant read. awesome.

 

[DewsSox79]

Never said it was giant. Nice strawman. You said the numbers are similar. But discount the offense of the AL.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

he loves straws.

 

[chibears55]

So a #2 in the NL becomes a #3 in the AL and the AL #3 becomes an NL #2. A difference yes, but not monstrous nor non-existent

I wouldn't automatically assume that for all starters.. there are some pretty good no. 2 and 3 starters that could hold their own in AL despite the DH advantage over a pitcher and there are some AL starters that wouldn't exactly be more successful in NL..

I would also like to add that there are a few AL no.8/9 hitters that are almost as weak as a pitcher hitting and late in games in NL for at least 1 or 2 ABs they face a PH which some are just as good as a DH..
so, I agree with silence.. your talking a micro fraction of a difference especially for a 1-3 starter that are normally solid starters no matter what league their in..

 

[SilenceS]

I take it you cant read. awesome.

I read fine. Your only argument was his ERA and whip last season and ignore every other article and stat people put up. It seems you have been smacked around on this board.

 

[SilenceS]

he loves straws.

I learned how to slope from the Sox board. Just learning from the best.

 

[brett05]

I wouldn't automatically assume that for all starters.. there are some pretty good no. 2 and 3 starters that could hold their own in AL despite the DH advantage over a pitcher and there are some AL starters that wouldn't exactly be more successful in NL..

I would also like to add that there are a few AL no.8/9 hitters that are almost as weak as a pitcher hitting and late in games in NL for at least 1 or 2 ABs they face a PH which some are just as good as a DH..
so, I agree with silence.. your talking a micro fraction of a difference especially for a 1-3 starter that are normally solid starters no matter what league their in..

Are there some? Yes. That's why I said in general the pitchers drop or gain on the switch.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[DewsSox79]

I learned how to slope from the Sox board. Just learning from the best.

good one. very creative and so highly effective. funny how you are the main guy who brings the sox into convos when you cant rebut anyones arguement. misdirection is not your strong suit...hell neither is your baseball IQ. Are you good at something in life?


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[DewsSox79]

I read fine. Your only argument was his ERA and whip last season and ignore every other article and stat people put up. It seems you have been smacked around on this board.

oh yes I must have been smacked around so much that you are the only one debating with zero substance. Atleast dabynsky uses potential "stuff factor" as much as I dont believe in his "stuff factor" he atleast has a debate. As again I also countered that with a full outcome, not specific scenarios as swinging % "tough" pitch etc....the final outcome from all of that specific situations still gives you a pitcher who is a number 3, a pitcher who gives up the hrs and has somewhat of a control problem. When you look at a true ace or number 2 on a major contender and see a 4.50 era and a shit ERA + with a horrible whip he probably isnt an ace or a number 2. Again, give me an ace that has a 4.50 era and a 1.3 whip that is a true 1/2...no matter what xfip and fip say you will be hard pressed to find one with those slash lines. now let me guess, you rebut will be what? sox attendance? you fail my little meatball.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Again, give me an ace that has a 4.50 era and a 1.3 whip that is a true 1/2...no matter what xfip and fip say you will be hard pressed to find one with those slash lines.

Over a season? It's honestly not that hard. CC Sabathia for example last year had a 4.78 ERA and a 1.37 WHIP. In the case of Shark there's simply not enough of a track record to make any definite assertion. He's only thrown 558 IP in his career. Sabathia again as an example had thrown 30 more IP by the time he was 23. Now, I will acknowledge that comparing a 20-22 year old pitcher to a 26-28 year old pitcher is not exactly apples to apples. I'm not even saying Shark definitively is a #1/2. All I'm saying is there's a non-zero chance that he could be one. Not every pitcher matures and is ready before the age of 25.

To use another example, look at Cliff Lee pre-29.

25 - 5.43 ERA 1.50 WHIP
26 - 3.79 ERA 1.22 WHIP
27 - 4.40 ERA 1.41 WHIP
28 - 6.29 ERA 1.52 WHIP

SilenceS is making the case that there are numerous strong indicators for him to have a similar turn. I've made the case that his problem largely revolves around his tendency to give up homers. He's clearly not there yet but the fact that he's got one of the 10 most unhittable pitches is a positive sign. It's entirely possible Shark never puts all the tools together. But, he also could go out and have a similar season to what Scherzer did last year. If you look at what he did from March-June last year you can clearly see he has the ability to string that sort of season together. Whether or not he has the consistency to do it over a full season is another matter.

 

[SilenceS]

oh yes I must have been smacked around so much that you are the only one debating with zero substance. Atleast dabynsky uses potential "stuff factor" as much as I dont believe in his "stuff factor" he atleast has a debate. As again I also countered that with a full outcome, not specific scenarios as swinging % "tough" pitch etc....the final outcome from all of that specific situations still gives you a pitcher who is a number 3, a pitcher who gives up the hrs and has somewhat of a control problem. When you look at a true ace or number 2 on a major contender and see a 4.50 era and a shit ERA + with a horrible whip he probably isnt an ace or a number 2. Again, give me an ace that has a 4.50 era and a 1.3 whip that is a true 1/2...no matter what xfip and fip say you will be hard pressed to find one with those slash lines. now let me guess, you rebut will be what? sox attendance? you fail my little meatball.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

Lol do you even know what you arguing now? The whole argument was yall do not think could every be anything more then he is at present time. We have shown numbers and articles and facts that claim he still has growth. You have changed you argument at least 3 times and yet to provide anything besides his present ERA and whip which has nothing to do with original debate. You look like a whiny little girl thats upset that people wont lie to her and tell her she is pretty. Beckdawg already stated my position. You are the one that isnt picking it up. You look like a total tool right now, but I am sure that is nothing new for you buttercup.

 

[SilenceS]

good one. very creative and so highly effective. funny how you are the main guy who brings the sox into convos when you cant rebut anyones arguement. misdirection is not your strong suit...hell neither is your baseball IQ. Are you good at something in life?


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

Yea, getting your panties in a bunch because you have no clue about the sport you debate. Sox are good, Cubs are bad. Grunt Grunt Grunt! I say so much be true! Grunt Grunt Grunt! Scouts and numbers lie! I am only truth! Grunt Grunt Grunt!

:enough:

 

[DewsSox79]

Yea, getting your panties in a bunch because you have no clue about the sport you debate. Sox are good, Cubs are bad. Grunt Grunt Grunt! I say so much be true! Grunt Grunt Grunt! Scouts and numbers lie! I am only truth! Grunt Grunt Grunt!

:enough:

that is your response? did I not call it? bringing up the sox again? really? You are such a moron...are you by chance an old user named capt obvious by chance? seems similar to the randy wells debate....than again capt obvious atleast used more stats than just the so called "projections".you are incapable of having a debate. Anytime I post anything about the topic you bring up the sox and again using MISDIRECTION. again I will ask for the 100th time...rebut what I state about shark...you rebut..not anyone else. I want to see if you actually have a thought in that what seems to be an empty head. If you cant rebut without sox talk and misdirection you should probably stfu because if anyone looks like a moron it is you.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

that is your response? did I not call it? bringing up the sox again? really? You are such a moron...are you by chance an old user named capt obvious by chance? seems similar to the randy wells debate....than again capt obvious atleast used more stats than just the so called "projections".you are incapable of having a debate. Anytime I post anything about the topic you bring up the sox and again using MISDIRECTION. again I will ask for the 100th time...rebut what I state about shark...you rebut..not anyone else. I want to see if you actually have a thought in that what seems to be an empty head. If you cant rebut without sox talk and misdirection you should probably stfu because if anyone looks like a moron it is you.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

I didnt post articles or stats? News to me. Maybe you should re read this thread. Grunt Grunt Grunt!

 

[SilenceS]

that is your response? did I not call it? bringing up the sox again? really? You are such a moron...are you by chance an old user named capt obvious by chance? seems similar to the randy wells debate....than again capt obvious atleast used more stats than just the so called "projections".you are incapable of having a debate. Anytime I post anything about the topic you bring up the sox and again using MISDIRECTION. again I will ask for the 100th time...rebut what I state about shark...you rebut..not anyone else. I want to see if you actually have a thought in that what seems to be an empty head. If you cant rebut without sox talk and misdirection you should probably stfu because if anyone looks like a moron it is you.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

By the way, was your name ever RCub or Cena cause yall would get along great.

 

[DewsSox79]

Over a season? It's honestly not that hard. CC Sabathia for example last year had a 4.78 ERA and a 1.37 WHIP. In the case of Shark there's simply not enough of a track record to make any definite assertion. He's only thrown 558 IP in his career. Sabathia again as an example had thrown 30 more IP by the time he was 23. Now, I will acknowledge that comparing a 20-22 year old pitcher to a 26-28 year old pitcher is not exactly apples to apples. I'm not even saying Shark definitively is a #1/2. All I'm saying is there's a non-zero chance that he could be one. Not every pitcher matures and is ready before the age of 25.

To use another example, look at Cliff Lee pre-29.

25 - 5.43 ERA 1.50 WHIP
26 - 3.79 ERA 1.22 WHIP
27 - 4.40 ERA 1.41 WHIP
28 - 6.29 ERA 1.52 WHIP

SilenceS is making the case that there are numerous strong indicators for him to have a similar turn. I've made the case that his problem largely revolves around his tendency to give up homers. He's clearly not there yet but the fact that he's got one of the 10 most unhittable pitches is a positive sign. It's entirely possible Shark never puts all the tools together. But, he also could go out and have a similar season to what Scherzer did last year. If you look at what he did from March-June last year you can clearly see he has the ability to string that sort of season together. Whether or not he has the consistency to do it over a full season is another matter.

finally someone with a thought. ok so sure the whole "chance" that he becomes a cc or sherzer is there. but the "chance" doesnt really add value since its not certain and the odds are not in favor of him. his numbers are still a sample size. Again it could happen but I wouldnt talk about it as much because the chances are slim. right now as we sit he is not a 1/2...and i know you arent saying it but im just reiterating that.



Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

finally someone with a thought. ok so sure the whole "chance" that he becomes a cc or sherzer is there. but the "chance" doesnt really add value since its not certain and the odds are not in favor of him. his numbers are still a sample size. Again it could happen but I wouldnt talk about it as much because the chances are slim. right now as we sit he is not a 1/2...and i know you arent saying it but im just reiterating that.



Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

That was never the debate. Re read your debate buttercup.

 

[SilenceS]

Lol now this is getting funny. Buttercup lost what he was debating about.

 

[theberserkfury]

finally someone with a thought. ok so sure the whole "chance" that he becomes a cc or sherzer is there. but the "chance" doesnt really add value since its not certain and the odds are not in favor of him. his numbers are still a sample size. Again it could happen but I wouldnt talk about it as much because the chances are slim. right now as we sit he is not a 1/2...and i know you arent saying it but im just reiterating that.

Any particular reason you're putting the word "chance" in quotation marks like that?

Is anyone saying he's a 1 or a 2 right now? Everyone seems to be in agreement that he's currently no better than a 3... but the reason he has more value than a 3 is because very few baseball people seem to think he's reached his peak... and once again, he may never reach that, but the fact that there's a "chance" (lol) that he could get better DOES add value, despite what you may think.

 

[DewsSox79]

Any particular reason you're putting the word "chance" in quotation marks like that?

Is anyone saying he's a 1 or a 2 right now? Everyone seems to be in agreement that he's currently no better than a 3... but the reason he has more value than a 3 is because very few baseball people seem to think he's reached his peak... and once again, he may never reach that, but the fact that there's a "chance" (lol) that he could get better DOES add value, despite what you may think.

"chance" see beckdawgs post. right at the end there.




Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[DewsSox79]

That was never the debate. Re read your debate buttercup.

did you take the little bus to school? wow. unreal.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk