Again... what are the chances of finishing .500 for the season?
by Screamer on Sep 19, 2009 11:50 PM PDT
Email
Print
A's now need to go 11-3 for the rest of the season to finish @ .500... Is it possible? I asked that question earlier this week and I got a bunch of whiny pathetic posts. But this team is for real! I think they can compete with any team in the majors and next year, their pitching will be a top-5 staff in baseball
The A's have one more game vs Cleveland, 4 @ home vs Texas, 3 @ Angels, 3 @ Seattle, and 3 @ home vs the Angels. LA almost has everything they want clinched, so the last three games can be ours. If we can sweep one series and only lose one game in each of the other three, we've made our goal
If you don't agree with this, gimme an idea of where they will finsh... 80-82?
127 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A bunch of whiny pathetic posts, huh?
They won’t finish .500. Maybe 79-83, 78-84.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
WAAHHHHHH
PATHETIC WAAAAHHHHHH
79-83.
WAAAAAHHHH
"You're just jealous. You wish you had a rally animal..." -CardinalWraith
We were 15 games under .500 at one point
going from there to .500 is a huge surge, 2010 is going to rage
More likely than it was a few days ago, but still pretty unlikely.
To simplify, let’s suppose that the A’s have exactly 50% chance of winning each game from here out. That’s probably about right, since they’ve been playing close to 500 ball for the second half.
With 14 games remaining there are 2^14 (=16,384) possible combinations of win-loss for those 14 games. Of those combinations, (14×13×12)/(3×2×1) = 364 include exactly three losses. So assuming a 50% chance in each game, the probability of the A’s finishing exactly .500 for the season is 364/16384, which is about 2.22%.
But there’s also (14×13)/(2×1) = 91 combinations with only two losses, 14 combinations with only one loss, and 1 combination with no losses. So, again assuming a 50% chance in each game, the probability of the A’s finishing at least .500 for the season is (364+91+14+1)/16384, which is about 2.87%.
(I think I’ve figured those right, but I welcome corrections if I got it wrong.)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I think this is right based upon your assumption
Of course, in such a small sample of games the fact that most of our games are against good teams matters. So I’d say 3% is the high end.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
After today's win, I count
286/8192 = 3.50% chance of exactly 500, or 378/8192 = 4.62% of 500 or better. Same assumptions as before.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
The A's will face Jered Weaver, Lackey, Saunders, and King Felix
starting Friday. That could lower the odds a tad.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Except with the slegnA
if they’re in full, prepping for the playoffs mode and they pull the starters after 6, the A’s could fatten up on their less-than-amazing middle relief.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
And their less-than-amazing short relief
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Update
Hmm. After today’s loss we now need 10 of 12.
So 66/4096 = 1.62% to finish exactly .500.
Or 78/4096 = 1.91% to finish at least .500.
It just got a lot worse.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I think you are being overly optimisitc
How much of this team will be here next year, and how much of them wil perform like their first half numbers than their second half numbers?
I think we’ll be good in 2011, thats the year I’m betting on. 2010, maybe .500, but until they get a lineup of players whom I can see as legitimate every day players who are at least league average, then I’ll be skeptic. Unfortunetly, that means improvements almost all accross the board-if you take Rajai’s production at face value, and he belief that Ellis will hit next year, it means we pretty much need upgrades at 6 position, possibly 5 if you keep Cust and hope he rebounds. You’ll probably be stuck with Pennington at SS, so you will need better production even then. And the slots left, Corner Outfield and Corner Infield, are the production spots, and I doubt we’ll be spending on the FA Market. That means prospects, hoping that Wallace, Carter, Cardenas, Doolittle and Cunningham can come up and help, but the first three are unlikely to be up until mid season at least, and probably goes for Doolittle as well, and we’ve already seen Cunningham.
Don't believe in yourself.
Believe in Me who believes in You.
well, again
it’s been more than two months now of 5.3 runs a game— 3rd best in the league. The lineup is much stronger than you think.
Ordinarily the A’s would have a 3% chance of going 11-3. But with Texas now packing it in and the Angels only worried about staying healthy, I’d say it is more like 10%.
I think they go 9-5 and end up 79-83.
Raj is for real.
Raj has always been a high avg, speed demon. Its taken him a while to learn how to take some walks and to hit big league pitching, but now he has, he’s arrived. The spacious confines of Oakland have really suited him, he actually hits MUCH better in Oakland than on the road, how many kinds of players are there like that in the game? He hits more EBH, he walks more, he even gets CS less in Oakland. I absolutely cannot wait to see what happens in 2010, he’s either going to be released or be getting MVP votes haha
People bring up his age, one thing you are forgetting is about how poorly the Giants are run. That team has absolutely no idea how to bring up a young player, think they’d like that $60MM back they paid for cruddy Rowand and instead have Raj? They did it with Todd Linden who was winning a triple crown at AAA and they brought him up to be a PH. What a horribly run franchise…
Whats awesome is that Raj stole 15 bases last month and is headed for that number again, if he can do that every month he will push 90+ steals in a year, thats wild to think about.
I wouldn't exactly call Raj someone who's always been a high avg player...
…when prior to this season his career avg was .256.
Credit where it’s due in that he’s clearly making the most of consistent playing time and did so after being traded to SF in 2007, but outside of that he was nothing special.
Count me among those who believes he can be and is a quality player with consistent starts, though.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
He was a .305/.375/.408 lifetime hitter in the minors.
The Giants let him have a chance to play everyday in 2007 and he was good. They then decided that they needed to waste money so they signed Rowand instead. Now we have him and after adjusting to the AL/Colesium, Raj is about to really show people what he’s made of.
Those are not good numbers for a major league prospect
They’re really not good numbers for someone who’s been consistently old for the leagues he’s played in.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I think the worry about his age also has to do with his speed
Virtually all players lose footspeed as they enter their 30s. If Raj begins to slow down, his hitting and his defense will begin to slip, even if his hitting skills remain where they are (which isn’t a certainty).
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I'm not worried about his speed at all
As fast as he is, even if he loses a step or two over the next five years or so he’ll still be very fast, and if he’s with the A’s that long it’s because he’s probably doing something right.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
It's a matter of what happens on the margins
I went back and read that long discussion/debate about Raj’s defense on a fanpost from about 4 or 5 days ago, and what occurred to me was that it could matter whether Raj is taking good routes or just outrunning his mistakes, just in terms of projecting his performance. The way it could matter is that good positioning, recognizing where the ball is headed, and taking good routes — that is, playing OF properly — is unlikely to deteriorate. But sheer footspeed will diminish. It’s like a cornerback who covers guys just by being incredibly fast — if he has bad technique, he’ll start getting beat as soon as he loses a step.
If his footspeed drops just a little, he might stop getting infield hits nearly as often, he might not be able to score from 1st on a wild pickoff, he won’t be able to go 1st-to-3rd on singles as well. And remember that he’s still not a great basestealer — he’s prolific, but his SB% is lower this year than it’s been previously, and at just below 80% it’s not like he’s Davey Lopes or Carlos Beltran — a guy who virtually never gets thrown out stealing. So if 5 of those SBs turn into CS’s because he’s losing a step, he’s in the CS% range where he’s not helping the team by running.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
For all these reasons, I would never commit to Raj long term
I think the A’s have a great situation with Raj under contract for two more seasons, when declining speed shouldn’t be an issue. I don’t expect Raj to hit .300 next season, but .280/.350? Very possible, and if so he’s a very solid starting CFer, especially if playing regularly might help improve his defensive routes — he might actually have room to improve defensively over the next two seasons, until he starts losing speed.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Exactly
I have no desire to see the A’s commit to him long term thanks to the rich farm and . But pencilling him as our starting CF in 2010 is going to be really interesting. Like I said, he’s either going to be DFA’d or getting MVP votes.
Nicely put.
It will probably be a couple of years before that’s really noticeable, and he’ll probably be a pretty productive player until then, but he’ll certainly lose quite a bit of his trade value along the way…
With the flukiest combination of talent and luck in MLB history
the A’s will go 14-0 to close the season with another 20 game winning streak.
How’s THAT for optimism?
Cut out the baiting and insults, Screamer
So the point of this fanpost is (a) to repeat your earlier fanpost, contributing no analyis (e.g., likely pitching matchups, slegnA maybe playing out the string, or will they be fighting for homefield/first round matchups), and (b) to whine yourself about reactions to your earlier fanpost?
You’re new here. Hostility and insults to longtimers are a good way to get booted.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 20, 2009 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Hostility to newtimers and mediumtimers, too
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
siegnA doing nothing but avoiding injury
They trail Yanks by 6.5 games for best overall record.
Red Sox are their first round opponent— that is set barring total collapse by Boston, in which case Angels play whoever wins Central and nothing they can do about that.
So their remaining games are essentially meaningless.
Not that anyone cares, but
as much as it irks me for people to say winning doesn’t matter once a team has no chance of making the playoffs, it irks me just as much when they say winning doesn’t matter any more once a team has no chance of not making the playoffs.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
You could argue that teams who stop caring about winning as much
once they clinch are more prone to having an ill-timed letdown in the ALDS.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Home field advantage is a near non-issue in the postseason
Between even teams, the home team wins 54% of the time. The difference between 54% and 46% is roughly the equivalent of starting a single game out of 7 down 1-0.
Not exactly a series-breaker. I mean, it’s better than NOT having it, but it’s certainly not worth sacrificing player health, messing up your ideal rotation, or just about any other sacrifice that a team might have to make to get it.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
The difference in team income, however, is more significant.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I would give my answer to how many games the A's are going to win
but I’m afraid my answer would come off as whiny and pathetic and I don’t want to disappoint someone like screamer.
Considering how bad the team was earlier this year...
…if they finish with 76+/- wins (roughly same as last two years, and doable now), I fear that the second-half surge may be misinterpreted as meaning the team is ok for next year with minimal tweaking. I do see improvement in places, but I am not convinced that I see a solid team that is ready to win more-or-less “as is”.
Too many things going right right now that I don’t think we should count on to continue. As much as I am loving watching Davis right now, is this the REAL Rajai? Just one example.
Funny to note that if anyone had asked me in June if this team could get to even 76 wins I’d have laughed and told them not to bet on it.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
Here is my whiny, pathetic answer..........
If the Angels start resting people, and we stay hot, we are a chance at 81-81.
But most likely we’ll fall short.
If these answers haven’t pleased you, feel free to make a 3rd post about this. Maybe if you ask enough times you might get the answer you are looking for.
Regards,
Daniel777
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
When we lose game 82
Someone needs to create Post #3 about whether we’ll make it to .500 by the end of the season and for people to stop whining about it. Possibly throw in some statistics that show that no team has even played 164 games in the regular season, but we could be the first!
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
That's just it its a surge.
The real trick isn’t finishing .500 now, its finishing over .500 next year. I admit .500 would be nice, but it really doesn’t accomplish anything. We feel better about ourselves, but in the end we are still sitting at home watching the postseason.
The real question is how this team can perform on a whole season. Can Anderson pitch for a full season, can Rajai hit for a full season? The adjustments need to be taken into account too, can Cahill/Mazzaro/Gonzo adjust and have drastically better seasons next year? I don’t think amazing seasons, but when you think of Braden and Outman coming back I think we have a decent staff. However I don’t think that staff is ready to seriously compete.
This is why I am for bringing up Carter/Wallace. I think you need to develop the pitching and the offense at the same time. Carter and Wallace most likely won’t step into the Majors and have Ryan Braun success. So if we want to compete by 2011 they need to get their ML AB’s. Wallace for sure, Carter depending on his spring, but I would still expect him up by the All-Star break.
I'm the genius who said Chris Carter will slug .650 his rookie season.
Posted this elsewhere but...
I have noticed over the years that teams make the transition from being crappy to being a contender fairly quickly, usually a year before it’s expected. I think people are underestimating 2010, partly because of this latest surge, but more because (1) unless there’s regression, a front three of Anderson, Cahill and Braden looks pretty strong, (2) the bullpen looks extremely strong, (3) when you’ve got a strong top three and a strong bullpen, your position players don’t have to hit quite as well as you’d think, i.e. the 2009 Giants. Factoring in minimal regression from the new “big three” and some consistency from position players, I think this is a team with the talent to be a handful of games over .500 -- which means, factoring in luck, a .500 club or a solid pennant contender.
Why do people have this weird idea that Trevor Cahill has pitched acceptably this season?
He’s had like 3 good starts. The rest of the time he’s been a gascan that no one’s found the match for quite yet.
I’d predict an ERA over 5 if he’s a major league starter again next season.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Before spouting off outright nonsense
You might want to look up what actually happened on the field before throwing out some baseless lies because you for some reason dont want the team to ever win again:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=cahiltr01&t=p&year=
He has pitched 12 games where he went over 6 IP and gave up under 3 runs, thats what qualifies as a “quality start”. He’s also only 21 and has a short leash, so I like to add in the games where he went 5+IP and gave up less than 3 runs too, if you add in those TWENTY ONE TIMES he has pitched acceptably.
But yeah, dont let what actually happened on the field get in the way of your hatred.
by PL78 on Sep 20, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
LOL.
I’m tempted to rec this because it’s hilarious, but then it would look like I agree with what you just posted.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 20, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
On a less silly note
Cahill has pitched significantly better in the 2nd half of the season.
1st Half/2nd Half:
K/9: 4.3/5.3
BB/9: 3.8/3.5
HR/9: 1.65/1.03
While it’s fair to say he’s not looking like a frontline starter yet, that’s a pretty clear progression. More strikeouts, less walks and a much lower HR rate. Paul’s prediction that he’ll have an ERA over 5 “if” he’s a starter next season is only marginally less silly than using quality starts to refute that projection.
Cahill's definitely shown improvement as the season's gone on
Especially now that he’s cut back on the homers he’s allowed. He’s definitely not 5+ ERA material the way he’s headed and he’s been about as expected considering the experience he had entering the season combined with his age.
I’m not worried about Cahill’s future but he has definitely been fortunate not to give up more runs in many of his starts.
I do have to laugh at PL78 acting like PT doesn’t want the A’s to win.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
PT, the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive
Overall, Cahill has pitched poorly, even worse than the superficial numbers might suggest. Yet in his last 8-10 starts he has turned some corners, dramatically dropping his HR rate, and showing improvements in some key areas for him such as BBs, ground balls, getting deep into games, and so on.
If he were 36, like Tomko, I’d shrug my shoulders and say “nice run, but let’s look at the track record.” However, he’s 21, which means a far likelier truth is that he’s getting better and about to keep improving.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I fully agree that he's improving
At the beginning of the year he was OMG-cover-your-eyes-I-can’t-believe-this horrible. Now he’s merely bad. If we’re lucky, he might improve to “average” by the end of next season.
I’d much rather see that improvement take place in a location where it does not incidentally interfere with the A’s chances of contention next season, viz, Sacramento.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Except...
….that pitcher improvement at the major league level is usually not incremental. It’s generally sudden and swift. What we’ve seen from Cahill over his last several starts says to me that he’s arriving. His arc of improvement seems pretty constant and we’re starting to see games that look like breakouts.
I think you’re underestimating Cahill at this point. He’s pitching further into games, and he’s inducing the ground balls he needs to induce. I am expecting further improvement, and I’m expecting it to be significant. This isn’t merely wishful thinking. This is rather what often happens as pitchers mature in the big leagues.
Seriously, what's wrong with looking at quality starts?
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 20, 2009 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Because they're a simple stat that doesn't look past a certain amount of innings and runs allowed as a judge of success?
There’s nothing wrong with the stat in and of itself for a quick snapshot of pitchers who are better at lasting deeper into the game than others, but it begins to suffer when people act like someone’s great just because they have X amount of quality starts related to their total starts when, say, 25% of those are really games in which the pitcher was fortunate to somehow even last that long because he allowed so many baserunners.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
At a 65% QS rate, it becomes quite impressive.
You do not see many pitchers do this year-over-year. Agreed, though, it is a quick snapshot but generally a pitcher getting lit up either doesn’t go six or does not surrender three runs or less on a consistant basis.
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 20, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I could see that, yeah
And if someone’s at a 65% rate odds are the majority of those starts aren’t cases where he’s really not having a good game but he manages to labor through six anyway.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
The quality start stat isn't the end-all, be-all of how good a pitcher's performance is
If he gave up 10 hits and walked 3 while striking out 2 and getting out of jams by only allowing 3 runs in 6 innings, it goes into the books as a quality start.
It’s still not a very good one.
And I don’t care if he didn’t allow a run at all. If he can’t get past 5 innings in that case it’s not a good start either because of the burden it places on the bullpen.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
agreed but Cahill's peripherals are looking a lot better
Its really just blowing my mind that people think he wont be a better pitcher next year.
The Quality Start has just slightly more significance as the GWRBI.
That being said, he’s had more than three good starts, but not anywhere near 21 good starts, and his positive progression as the season has wore on is definitely worth noting.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
Just slightly more?
I contend it’s more valuable than a save when measuring the contribution to the game.
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 20, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions
This is true.
But a guy that can earn a quality start two out of every three times out becomes very valuable. Think Mark Buehrle. Unless you do not agree that he’s valuable.
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 20, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 20, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
This post is not relentlessly negative,
and though it comes close I don’t think it really qualifies as a “personal attack” either.
But if the Community Guidelines included one that said, “Don’t be such a dick”, this post would surely get flagged.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Yeah but I'd probably be banned if the CG said that.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
What the hell is your problem?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Well, I have this rash...
Oh, him!
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Certain people were haranguing PL78 over his tone
I merely pointed out that if we’re going to take issue with people’s tones, singling out PL78 hardly seems valid.
Don’t like it? Convince Blez to erase your posting history.
Clearly I do need to revise my comment-flagging policy
since apparently my “I don’t want to be the thought police” position is the Internet equivalent of wearing a T-shirt that says “Flame Me.”
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
It's not your "I don't want to be the thought police" position
It’s your “anyone who disagrees with me is incapable of thought” position.
by Nate on Sep 21, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's not true.
I merely pointed out that if we’re going to take issue with people’s tones, singling out PL78 hardly seems valid.
No, you did more than that. You singled out Paul, clearly implying that you think his tone is also “dickish”.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Who, Paul?
Just to confirm, we are talking about the same PaulThomas who got temporarily banned earlier this year, aren’t we?
I don’t think Paul was being dickish in the comment PL78 was replying to, but as long as you were feeling netcoppy, I don’t consider it out of order to point out that this is someone with a history of dickish posting.
It's funny
Just from reading this, one would think I was the one who was repeatedly making nasty comments on threads with the sole purpose of baiting and enraging other posters
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
PT's not the only one here who's ever been dickish
He has been and will be.
So have I, and I will be again. So will others.
There’s no point in going after him about this, especially to the level you are.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Which level is that, precisely?
Making one reference to it and then having to explain myself to a bevy of self-appointed netcops who decided to make an issue of it?
I’m just curious exactly to what degree you imagine I’m attempting to persecute poor Paul?
I think you know exactly what you're doing with the baiting
So, I’m not going to engage you on it further.
The complaints about “netcops” is weak, especially when you initiated it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Good for you
I’m glad we’ve got you around to tell me what I’m doing, and that you know exactly what it is that I’m doing. It sure saves me the trouble of having to formulate my own motives.
I think if I’d had the certainty how everyone would react to my posts that you credit me with, I might have foreseen the self-righteous responses I’d have received for it and just not have bothered.
How my point about another poster’s attack on someone’s tone is weakened by subsequent attacks on my tone I leave as an exercise to those with greater tolerance for bullshit than me.
[Insert repetitive "when FF and I agree..." comment here]
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
When FF and you agree
you must of course be right because the only time either of you have the capacity for being wrong is when you are in opposition to each other.
I appreciate the effort in pushing the bounds of fallacy.
Well, see, now I've actually caught you in a flat-out lie
Remember this?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I remember it.
I’m not sure where you’re spotting a “flat-out lie” in it, but I remember the comment.
Making one reference to it
You have, in fact, made at least two “references to it”, and that’s only the ones I’ve actually seen.
Your posture of wounded innocence is a complete fiction, and a disingenuous, self-serving fiction at that.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Wow
Even when talking to PaulThomas, I’m never quite prepared to deal with the monstrous level of self-absorbtion on the other side of the proverbial table.
“It” did not mean your ban, you egomaniac. “It”, if you’ll note the previous post, was “a history of dickish posting”.
Oh, now we're in hair-splitting mode, I see
You’ve attempted to pick a fight with me at least twice now by making unnecessary, insulting taunts.
The point of raising this is to demonstrate a. that your credibility is zero when you pretend that this is all just a chance occurrence, and b. that this most recent incident was part of a pattern of behavior and not just a slip of the electronic tongue.
As for the rest of this dreck, it’s getting flagged again. Maybe you figure you’ve already got a strike on this thread, so you can throw as much extra abuse at me as you feel like. And maybe that’s correct, but I don’t give a shit.
I’m through with you. Don’t bother replying, as I will not be returning to this thread.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Completely 100% off-topic, but I gotta ask...
…how does one link to a specific post within a thread?
Generic question that anybody can answer. Thanks.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
I knew it was going to be...
…one of those “DOH! I should have known that!!!” answers. Thanks.
I think I tried everything but that. LOL.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
A little "dickishness" can be a good thing. Just don't be a dick about it.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
If any poster gets temporarily banned,
and then he comes back, he comes back with a clean slate. So if you’re trying to draw conclusions about his behavior and “the odds” that he’d still be here, you should only be looking at posts since the return.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I'll leave the conclusion-drawing to you
You’re much better at it.
My point, despite the flights of fancy you and other posters have chosen to indulge in to seek out ulterior motives, was that if being a dick was a CGV, AN would be measurably smaller.
Did you just say I have a measurably small dick?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yeah, dude, you owe PT an apology
That was uncalled for.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I wouldn't have made anything of it had it been the first time
This is at least the second that I’ve seen.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I've never known you to be a dick.
Talk about it, sometimes … but be one, no.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
True, I'm more of an asshole
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Interesting
Seems this is the extent of your commenting history here:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2009/9/14/1031095/the-case-for-daric-barton#21242227
So, when you asked the question about finishing at .500 earlier in the week, which different username did you do it under?
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I enjoy your photography, but I really
think you’d be a great candidate for the NFL’s front offices – the No Fun League. 90% of your non-photo essay posts are critical of someone “breaking the rules” or “saying something they shouldn’t say.” I crack myself up.
Go A’s.
by 33SwisherSweet on Sep 20, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe I have a problem with trolls who bait, which seems to clearly be the intent of this post
I have no problem pointing it out.
Yeah, I get anal about it sometimes.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Does it really matter?
Its just a conversation topic on a slow Sunday, while the A’s are light years away from contention. What pressing issues is this post masking by its mere presence? Sometimes you take AN way too seriously, its just a blog dude.
"I Will Not Relent, I Am Driven"... Clutch
Bring Back The Bash!!!
by Shippee33 on Sep 20, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
its funny
with the amount of woe-as-us-we’re-not-winning-til-2011-even-if-we-are-winning-now posts on here, id assume about 75% of the posters here are trolls.
Id like to see less concrete opinions, we are playing awesomely well right now and there’s not much to say that it wont continue onto next year. 85-90 wins arent out of the question and if the Angels lose Lackey, Vlad, Figgins & Abreu and dont get Holliday or Bay then we are sittin pretty for 2010.
I absolutely LOVE the fact that Carter+Wallace+Cardenas are going to come up into a winning team. Bodes well for the long term.
From the start, I think you've grossly overestimated the amount of overall negativity here relative to the quality of the team
Last of the Ninth - Photography
you may well be right
but there certainly seems to be a ton more pessimists than optimists posting here right now.
its really depressing, its like 1999-2006 never existed if you read all the negativity, its like people get off on supporting a losing team. oh well, when we are in a division race this time next year I can just bring up all these posts Ive made in a “told you so” manner, the people who revel in misery can get told.
You can, but the whole "I told you so" thing gets old fast
It’s not about scoring points on the internet. If you look more, people are excited about the future of this team but they’re not sure if it’s going to be realized in 2010 at some point or 2011. There are still questions and holes that need to be addressed. They were supposed to be better this year and really weren’t at all until they traded Holliday and Cabrera, then some of the others started playing better. Nobody expected Rajai Davis to do what he’s been doing.
As for the people who are tossing out the early part of the decade, it can’t be ignored but it also can’t be ignored that the club has been pretty bad overall since their ALCS appearance. The offense has been horrible as a whole and the pitching has been up and down. Beane isn’t given a free pass just because he beat the odds, revolutionized the concept of winning on a lower budget while looking for qualities others weren’t paying attention to and had a team that was a championship threat, but he’s not free from criticism because it’s become clear others have caught on to the whole Moneyball concept and Beane’s been a little slow to react in ways. Now he’s rebuilt the minor league system after it was more or less gutted in the early part of the decade so a lot of that promise is back.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
well since the ALCS appearance
2007 we broke records for DL usage. We had a great, contending team that year, no doubt, we just couldnt get everyone on the field.
2008 was the official rebuild, Beane-style. We trade everyone, Barton plays everyday, we stink but its okay because its a young team, etc
This year was firstly the Lew-rebuild style, meaning instead of Hannahan-types, we go get actual name players who can hit so the young stud SPs dont have to worry about pitching without a lead, and try to contend because the div was weak. It didnt work, but now we are at a happy medium. We have the young guys, we have the Beane-projects (Raj) and we are scoring more than ever.
I was kidding about the “told you so”, but its more because I really dont like people going out of their way to think that the absolute worst is going to happen. Good things are happening in Oakland but you couldnt tell when you have to read things like “Cahill is gunna stink next year, Raj isnt for real” etc. Being positive never hurt anyone…
Yeah, but what you have to understand is in the Cahill/Davis cases...
…someone is looking at specific information that goes beneath just what’s on the surface and noticing trends that suggest one thing or another.
I don’t agree with PT in that Cahill’s destined for a bad 2010 but there’s no denying Cahill’s been more fortunate in some cases than he could have been. He’s young and deserves the room to grow and improve, but he needs to harness the curve that was his out pitch and I’m a little concerned about his admission that he can’t really tell what his own arm slot is. The important thing is we can see the ability he has and if he gets the coaching he needs he should be fine.
In Rajai’s case, the fact he’s had a high BABIP is a very valid one in the sense that it’s going to be very hard to duplicate it again. He’s due to drop off a bit but the big question is how much. I think he can at least be a .280-.300 hitter with the kind of speed he has if he maintains a good GB:FB ratio and whenever he gets on base he’ll always be a threat. I also think the real Davis is what we see as a consistent starter, not a part-time defensive replacement with a start once in a while. I have never believed that you get a true sense of a player who only plays once in a while. If he gets a couple months of consistent time and stinks, that’s different.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
rock on, killer of trolls...
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 20, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I saw that too
At first I thought this was the AN equivalent of getting shot down when asking for a cookie by Mom, then going and asking Dad the same question in hopes for a different response…but I guess this kid just has identity issues.
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Sep 20, 2009 10:43 AM PDT reply actions
I'm confused
What’s wrong with this thread?
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
Mainly the whole "I got a bunch of whiny pathetic posts" thing from someone who...
…doesn’t even appear to have posted something here before that has to do with what he’s talking about, so it must have either been removed or come from a different account (which is frowned upon).
It’s baiting.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
He did post before.
It was essentially the same thing as this time. I can’t find it now, so I guess maybe he deleted it.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I don't buy the idea that other teams resting guys makes us the favorite...
Using numbers from above, someone made the argument that if normal games are a 50/50 crapshoot, then somehow we’re favored when other teams rest their main players.
Let’s use the Angels in this example. First, the Angels top team is far superior to the A’s. Therefore, the A’s don’t have a better than 50/50 shot. They’re just not as good as the Angels. Now, let’s say that the Angels rest half or more of their lineup over the last week… that probably tilts everything back to 50/50. In other words, their second string is probably as good as our first string.
I agree with the 2% chance. Yeah, finishing .500 is possible… but I’ll bet anyone a lot of money that it doesn’t happen.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Isn't it the managers job to keep the winning up...
when the last week or so rolls around? You wouldn’t want to start off a post-season with a couple straight losses under your belt.
The As pitching can’t keep up the way it’s been going. Somebody has to get hit around. (The words “can’t” and “has to” indicte reasonable opinion, not logical necessity.) But that’s ok. At this point, I feel like we’re seeing exctly what we need to put together the best club for next year. Pennington, Ellis, Sweeney, they’re all showing some mettle. The SPs are mostly ending in better shape (except surgeries) than when they began, more pitches, better control.
I seem to remember that in the early season we had a middle-reliever or two that were getting just killed. If we’d been playing Gray instead of Casilla, a couple games wouldn’t have slipped away, perhaps. But they did, ok, no problem. That’s what we had to learn.
If I had to make a bet I'd go with A's finishing 78-84
A’s are already on a 12-2 surge. Finishing .500 would require a 10-3 streak, bringing their record over last 27 games of the season to 22-5. It would be amazing to see this team play .814 baseball for a month, but it’s probably not going to happen.
Rough odds A's run the table: 1/8192.
Odds of 10-3 are somewhat better: roughly 1/1024.
Or so.
I think. Yeah, I know I could’ve used other than random odds, but I don’t love you guys enough to go to that trouble, at least not for this thread.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
The 1/1024 is incorrect. See above.
In 13 tests that can be W or L, the number of permutations resulting in 10 wins is (13×12×11)/(3×2×1) or 286 out of 8192.
1 in 1024 is the odds of winning the 10 out of 10 — for instance, if we lose the next three and then need to get the final 10.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Good thing I don't build bridges for a living.
Or igloos, for that matter.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Sep 21, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
With people like Mortensen, Edgar Gonzalez and Eveland pitching...
…what do you think?
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
