November 27, 200421 yr That's funny because in 2003 he played 147 of 162 games at 1B, in 2002 he played 140 games of 143 games played at 1B, in 2001 he played 161 games of 162 played at 1B. I know we have no chance in hell to get him but atleast admit when you're wrong.
November 27, 200421 yr I know we have no chance in hell to get him but atleast admit when you're wrong. 621989[/snapback] Agreed.
November 27, 200421 yr That's funny because in 2003 he played 147 of 162 games at 1B, in 2002 he played 140 games of 143 games played at 1B, in 2001 he played 161 games of 162 played at 1B. I know we have no chance in hell to get him but atleast admit when you're wrong. 621989[/snapback] You're arguing semantics (oh, btw, Ramirez and Ortiz are DHs). Delgado may not be injury-prone in the way Mo Vaughn was, but compared to the Marlins' players he's Ken Griffey Jr. Even if he had the durability of Cal Ripken Jr, that still does make him worth the millions he will make in his mid-30s.
November 27, 200421 yr So basically you are just saying you won't give people over 30 years old contracts? Is that it? Because you're argument of him being injury prone is dead wrong.... and you're argument to him not being injury prone was because he was a DH, which is wrong. So what is it with Delgado, did he kill your dog or something?
November 27, 200421 yr You haven't read my posts, have you? Obviously by your presumption that by pointing out that Delgado may have missed a half-dozen or more games if it weren't for the ability to play DH on those nights he's not at his best means that he was strictly a DH it's safe to assume you have not. Yes, my point was that the Marlins should sign players for their peak years, not during their decline which Delgado will be, if not now according to some of you, than mid-way through his contract. I took you 5 posts to recognize that?
November 27, 200421 yr and my point is that he is not injury prone or in a decline. It took you that long to figure that out?
November 27, 200421 yr In the decline and on the decline are two different things. The former suggests that he is in the middle of the decline, the latter that he is beginning one. The general peak for ballplayers is age 27-31. Not age 34 or 35, well, unless you're Barry Bonds.
November 27, 200421 yr In the decline and on the decline are two different things. The former suggests that he is in the middle of the decline, the latter that he is beginning one. The general peak for ballplayers is age 27-31. Not age 34 or 35, well, unless you're Barry Bonds. 622102[/snapback] Wow, you were already proven wrong, just give it up already.
November 27, 200421 yr Fine, you're right. Delgado's going to challenge the durability of Luiy, Niner, Lowell, Cabrera, Pierre, Encarnacion, LoDuca and Alex and is going to worth every bit of his 2006, 2007 and 2008 contracts. Must have been my "small-market" mind at work.
November 27, 200421 yr Will he challenge there durability? Good question.... but the real question is will they challenge Delgado's durability? Since 2000: Delgado: 151 games/year Conine: 133 games/year Lowell: 147 games/year Castillo: 144 games/year LoDuca: 141 games/year (2001) Encarnacion: 149 games/year
November 27, 200421 yr And since 2002? It's pretty clear you're an amateur statistician, you sure haven't learned to analyze data and project future trends. The data is out there and does not project well for Delgado's future offensive output. Until you're ready to contest that point I'd rather not argue semantics. Thanks. Goodbye.
November 27, 200421 yr LOL - So you're a professional statistician? Get over yourself dude. You have zero credibility. Since 2002 Lowell: 149 games/year Castillo: 149 games LoDuca: 146 games Enc: 147 games Delgado: 144 games Conine: 135 games Holy crap! What a difference! You're a dolt who can't admit he's wrong. Thanks. Goodbye.
November 27, 200421 yr And since 2002? It's pretty clear you're an amateur statistician, you sure haven't learned to analyze data and project future trends. The data is out there and does not project well for Delgado's future offensive output. Until you're ready to contest that point I'd rather not argue semantics. Thanks. Goodbye. 622154[/snapback] Until you can show me the "data that is out there that does not project well for Delgado's future offensive output," than it's pretty clear that YOU are the amateur in this arguement. You need to realize and admit when you're wrong, and even if you don't agree with that analysis, be a little more humble about it. Right now all you're proving to everyone is how much of an idiot you are.
November 27, 200421 yr And since 2002? It's pretty clear you're an amateur statistician, you sure haven't learned to analyze data and project future trends. The data is out there and does not project well for Delgado's future offensive output. Until you're ready to contest that point I'd rather not argue semantics. Thanks. Goodbye. 622154[/snapback] Until you can show me the "data that is out there that does not project well for Delgado's future offensive output," than it's pretty clear that YOU are the amateur in this arguement. You need to realize and admit when you're wrong, and even if you don't agree with that analysis, be a little more humble about it. Right now all you're proving to everyone is how much of an idiot you are. 622203[/snapback] Preety easy to call someone an idiot when you sit on the sidelines until the day after and then call someone an idiot without doing a damn thing.
November 27, 200421 yr Until you can show me the "data that is out there that does not project well for Delgado's future offensive output," than it's pretty clear that YOU are the amateur in this arguement. 622203[/snapback] Thanks for asking the question instead of debating trivial matters in a jackass manner. Look at the careers of any random group of veteran hitters and you'll find that the overwhelming majority raise their performance towards a peak around the age 27-30 and begin to decline shortly after. For example the top 10 batters similar to Delgado through age 32, according to baseball-reference.com, declined in the following manner: Willie McCovey averaged 149 games between 27-32 years of age and never came close to matching his great 1969 and 1970 seasons. Current players Fred McGriff, Jim Thome, Jason Giambi and Jeff Bagwell offer an interesting. McGriff's best seasons came early in his career and remained a steady contributor throughout his career. Jim Thome and Jason Giambi have regressed the past two years, but at 34 it's too soon to draw any conclusions. Ironman Jeff Bagwell has fallen off terribly since turning 32. His OPS dropped over 50 points through age 34 and now at 36 it's close to 200 points under the clip he had between 28-32. Albert Belle and Ralph Kiner were known as durable players until their decline (Kiner's came at 29, about 3 years earlier than Belle) and were out of the league by age 33. Jose Canseco and Mo Vaughn, certainly not the most durable of players, fell off terribly and saw their careers end early for entirely different reasons. And finally Gil Hodges, who was good durable player and hit 40 HRs twice through age 32, posted poor numbers as he wrapped up his career with the Dodgers and his return to NYC with the Mets. So, if we take out Thome, Giambi and the injury-prone, that suggests there's an one (McGriff) out of six chance that Delgado will not fall off over the course of his next contract.
November 28, 200421 yr Its also going to depend on largely Delgado's goals. If he wants more long balls...Baltimore is where he should go. If he wants to join a team that has a better shot at winning he goes to Seattle. Granted both Balimore and Seattle are at about the same places...Seattle with a better farm...both having major holes...but with one small difference. Seattle doesnt have to compete with the Yankees and Red Sox for a playoff spot.
November 28, 200421 yr Until you can show me the "data that is out there that does not project well for Delgado's future offensive output," than it's pretty clear that YOU are the amateur in this arguement. 622203[/snapback] Ya know, rferry has a point about Delgado. He's 32 years old. Anybody who gives Delgado a 5-year deal is probably going to regret it, not because of anything Delgado has done but because of what most 32-year olds have done in the past. Even a 3-year deal is iffy. He should still be a great player in 2005 but sometime in the next 5 years, he'll most likely start to decline. If it's sooner rather than later, then a 5-year deal is going to be very expensive. Unfortunately there's no way to tell when that decline will start - it may start when he's 39, it may start when he's 33. I don't want to be the team taking the chance on it.
November 28, 200421 yr Preety easy to call someone an idiot when you sit on the sidelines until the day after and then call someone an idiot without doing a damn thing. Sorry I read the thread a day late because I didn't have computer access in the middle of nowhere for thanksgiving.
November 28, 200421 yr Next time just say, 'I don't want to give anyone over 30 a contract,' and we could save some time. Then I would just say, 'that's cool i respect your opinion but i disagree,' and then you would say 'Sounds good,' and then we would all live happily ever after.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.