PBMarlin Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Not all of his facts are correct. Particularly the ones related to salary, arbitration and recent signings (Moehler, Harris). However, it is fascinating to see the stats on the unprecedented lack of experience the Marlins will have in 2006. Fish Gutted and Fried?And Then There Were Three 2005-12-15 12:23by Mike Carminati I took a look at the dismemberment of the Marlins (or is it filleting?) a couple of weeks ago and found that the team had cut their payroll by about $25M from $65M to $40M. I also looked at the high turnover on the Red Sox going into their second season after winning the World Series. One of the comments on that post asked how the Marlins would compare if we were to extend the study to a third year. Well, given that the Crazy Marlins have unloaded everything that was not tied?or more to the point every player who was tied down, to a contract?I thought it would be interesting to revisit the floundering fish. As for the team turnover, the Marlins have just three players left from the 2003 championship team: Dontrelle Willis, Miguel Cabrera, and Nate Bump, all of whom were rookies in 2003. Since I wrote the first piece on Florida about three weeks ago they have traded away their starting second baseman for the past seven seasons Luis Castillo (who had been with the team since 1996), their veteran catcher Paul Lo Duca, and their center fielder Juan Pierre. Miguel Cabrera is the only starting position player from this past season who is still with the team. In fact, of the ten players who had more than 134 at-bats for the team in 2005, he's the sole survivor. Willis and Jason Vargas are the only starting pitchers with at least 5 starts for the Marlins in 2005 to still call Florida their home. In the pen there is just one pitcher remaining who made at least 30 appearances in 2005 (Bump). The Marlins have no players remaining from the 15 who made at least $1M in 2005. Their two young stars, Cabrera and Willis, could become trade bait after they go through arbitration and get what I would expect are very large salary increases. From an estimated $65M payroll in 2005, Florida has now pared $60,993,334 through trades and free agent departures. That is unbelievable. Until arbitration John Riedling with his $750 salary is the highest paid Marlin. I wouldn't be surprised if they waived vets Ron Villone ($1,950,000 in 2005 with the M's and Marlins, paid by the M's) and Riedling. That would leave them with no player who made more than $378,500 in 2005 (Willis). The minimum possible team payroll in 2006 would be $8M (i.e., league minimum, $320K, for all 25 players). I estimate that the Marlins 2006 salary (even with Riedling still in the fold and with the three holdovers from 2003 getting salary bumps through arbitration) being about $18M. If the Marlins complete their housekeeping, they could get below $18M. This team has been thoroughly gutted with not so much as an "I say!" from commissioner Bud. And let's make no mistake here: this is an historic housecleaning. This is beyond anything that Connie Mack or Charlie O. Finley ever tried. Here's an update to their team payroll by player: Player 2005 Salary 2006 status 2006 Salary Mike Lowell $7,500,000 Traded to Red Sox Al Leiter $7,000,000 No longer with team Luis Castillo $5,166,667 Traded to Twins Paul Lo Duca $4,666,667 Traded to Mets Juan Encarnacion $4,435,000 Free Agent Carlos Delgado $4,000,000 Traded to Mets Juan Pierre $3,700,000 Traded To Cubs A.J. Burnett $3,650,000 Free Agent Alex Gonzalez $3,400,000 Free Agent Jeff Conine $3,000,000 Free Agent Guillermo Mota $2,600,000 Traded to Red Sox Josh Beckett $2,400,000 Traded to Red Sox Ismael Valdez $1,500,000 Free Agent Todd Jones $1,100,000 Free Agent Jim Mecir $1,100,000 Free Agent Damion Easley $750,000 Free Agent John Riedling $750,000 ? $750,000 Matt Perisho $475,000 No longer with team Lenny Harris $425,000 Free Agent Brian Moehler $400,000 Free Agent Dontrelle Willis $378,500 $5,000,000 Miguel Cabrera $370,000 $5,000,000 Nate Bump $360,000 $500,000 Chris Aguila $316,000 New OF $320,000 Matt Treanor $316,000 New C $320,000 Antonio Alfonseca $300,000 Free Agent, option declined Mike Mordecai $425,000 Free Agent Paul Quantrill $3,000,000 Free Agent Jason Vargas ? SP $320,000 Randy Messenger ? RP $320,000 Ron Villone $1,950,000 ? Valerio de los Santos ? ? $320,000 Scott Olsen ? SP $320,000 Chris Resop ? RP $320,000 Josh Johnson ? SP $320,000 Robert Andino ? New SS? $320,000 Jeremy Hermida ? New OF $320,000 Joe Dillon ? New 2B or UT? $320,000 Josh Willingham ? New C? $320,000 Josh Wilson ? New 2B? $320,000 Ryan Jorgensen ? New C? $320,000 Alfredo Amezaga $0 New 3B? $320,000 Mike Jacobs $0 New 1B or C $320,000 Hanley Ramirez $0 New SS? $320,000 Sergio Mitre $0 $350,000 Total $65,433,834 $ 17,040,000 (Notes: Mordecai is based on 2004. Quantrill's 2005 contract was with the Yankees. Villone's 2005 salary was paid by the Mariners.) Having only three players remaining from a championship team three years later is the lowest total ever, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Marlins got rid of any or all of the three post arbitration. Here are the worst records of player retention for a World Series winner, three years after a championship (Keep in mind that the average for a World Series champ is about 12 players retained three years later and that the highest was 20 retained by the '86 Mets and the '51 Yankees): Yr Team Num Players PCT Yr3 PCT Diff 1918 Boston Red Sox 4 .595 .487 -.108 1974 Oakland Athletics 4 .556 .391 -.164 1941 New York Yankees 5 .656 .539 -.117 1997 Florida Marlins 5 .568 .491 -.077 1944 St. Louis Cardinals 7 .682 .578 -.104 1919 Cincinnati Reds 7 .686 .558 -.127 1914 Boston Braves 7 .614 .471 -.144 1990 Cincinnati Reds 7 .562 .451 -.111 1915 Boston Red Sox 7 .669 .595 -.074 1928 New York Yankees 8 .656 .614 -.041 1913 Philadelphia Athletics 8 .627 .235 -.392 1934 St. Louis Cardinals 8 .621 .526 -.095 1925 Pittsburgh Pirates 8 .621 .559 -.062 1942 St. Louis Cardinals 8 .688 .617 -.071 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks 8 .568 .315 -.253 1940 Cincinnati Reds 8 .654 .565 -.089 1921 New York Giants 8 .614 .608 -.007 The current Marlins are worse than the Charlie O. A's, the Harry Frazee Red Sox who begot a "curse", war-era championship teams?hey, the are even worse than the '97 version of the team reviled for buying a championship and then cutting bait. On average these teams' winning percentage decrease by 120 points, from .626 to .506. I expect the Marlins to be much worse than that. 120 point worse than their 2003 record (91-71, .562) would be about 72 wins. I think that's high. This team could be among the worst ever even if they decide to keep Cabrera and Willis. Consider that the current crew of position players has just 851 games of major-league experience. Miguel Cabrera with two and one half years under his belt is by far the most experienced player. He's the only one who has played in at least 162 games, the equivalent of a major-league season and his career total (405) is nearly half the team total (851). They have just eight players with more than 20 games of major-experience. Do I smell a lineup? Here's the rundown: Player Career G Miguel Cabrera 405 Alfredo Amezaga 127 Chris Aguila 94 Matt Treanor 87 Mike Jacobs 30 Josh Willingham 28 Joe Dillon 27 Jeremy Hermida 23 Robert Andino 17 Josh Wilson 11 Hanley Ramirez 2 Reggie Abercrombie 0 Jason Stokes 0 Eric Reed 0 Dan Uggla 0 Total 851 Baseball has not seen as inexperienced a team as this since foundation of the rival Union Association in 1884. There are 54 teams in baseball history with less than 851 games of experience for its position players. None are from after 1884. On average they have a .396 winning percentage, which translates into a 64-98 record in a 162-game schedule. Here are the least experienced: Player Lg Yr Career G W L PCT Milwaukee Brewers UA 1884 13 8 4 .667 St. Paul Apostles UA 1884 15 2 6 .250 Middletown Mansfields NA 1872 30 5 19 .208 St. Louis Red Stockings NA 1875 36 4 15 .211 Washington Nationals NA 1872 48 0 11 .000 Baltimore Marylands NA 1873 54 0 6 .000 Brooklyn Atlantics NA 1872 74 9 28 .243 Brooklyn Eckfords NA 1872 88 3 26 .103 Altoona Mountain City UA 1884 111 6 19 .240 Washington Nationals AA 1884 133 12 51 .190 All 13 career games for the 1884 Brewers were contributed by catcher Cal Broughton, and all of those came in the previous season. Here are the teams with the least experience for their position players since the inception of the AL and the start of the "modern" era. None are within 1100 games of the Marlins. This includes teams from short-lived third leagues, from the starts of the AL, and during wars, and the '06 Marlins will destroy them all: Player Lg Yr Career G W L PCT Kansas City Packers FL 1914 2049 67 84 .444 Cincinnati Reds NL 1907 2135 66 87 .431 Boston Braves NL 1944 2213 65 89 .422 Boston Doves NL 1910 2226 53 100 .346 St. Louis Terriers FL 1914 2373 62 89 .411 Detroit Tigers AL 1901 2391 74 61 .548 Minnesota Twins AL 1983 2425 70 92 .432 Indianapolis Hoosiers FL 1914 2444 88 65 .575 Cincinnati Reds NL 1909 2455 77 76 .503 Florida Marlins NL 1999 2491 64 98 .395 Milwaukee Brewers AL 1901 2513 48 89 .350 Brooklyn Superbas NL 1905 2533 48 104 .316 St. Louis Browns AL 1948 2555 59 94 .386 Chicago Cubs NL 1923 2608 83 71 .539 St. Louis Cardinals NL 1908 2644 49 105 .318 Boston Red Sox AL 1909 2723 88 63 .583 Philadelphia Athletics AL 1936 2759 53 100 .346 Montreal Expos NL 1993 2783 94 68 .580 Brooklyn Dodgers NL 1912 2824 58 95 .379 St. Louis Cardinals NL 1902 2828 56 78 .418 Total 1322 1708 .436 Looking at just the teams from the last fifty years, it gets worse. Note that the closest team has about 1600 games more of experience or about 200% more: Player Lg Yr Career G W L PCT Minnesota Twins AL 1983 2425 70 92 .432 Florida Marlins NL 1999 2491 64 98 .395 Montreal Expos NL 1993 2783 94 68 .580 San Diego Padres NL 1969 2873 52 110 .321 Kansas City Royals AL 1969 3205 69 93 .426 San Diego Padres NL 1970 3299 63 99 .389 St. Louis Browns AL 1950 3301 58 96 .377 Chicago White Sox AL 1999 3476 75 86 .466 Pittsburgh Pirates NL 1955 3579 60 94 .390 Pittsburgh Pirates NL 1998 3597 69 93 .426 Montreal Expos NL 1998 3660 65 97 .401 Minnesota Twins AL 2000 3734 69 93 .426 Montreal Expos NL 1994 3854 74 40 .649 Kansas City Athletics AL 1962 3879 72 90 .444 Minnesota Twins AL 2001 3930 85 77 .525 Minnesota Twins AL 1982 3974 60 102 .370 Kansas City Athletics AL 1967 4010 62 99 .385 Kansas City Royals AL 1996 4073 75 86 .466 Montreal Expos NL 1996 4098 88 74 .543 Oakland Athletics AL 1979 4160 54 108 .333 Total 1378 1795 .434 What we are witnessing here is something that's never even been conceived before. It's the near total dismantling of a major-league team. Some of the teams on the list above are very inexperienced but that is because of a young, talented players being given a chance. Usually those players get a short trial to prove themselves and a team makes the plunge. That's not the case here. The Marlins were a veteran club that was supposed to compete in 2005. They failed to mount a serious postseason challenge. They did not start dismantling and rebuilding during the season. The team remained essentially intact until the postseason, and then?boom! One has to wonder with the owners being allowed to contract after this season without the players say-so, what the end game is here. Of course, the Marlins are looking for?and apparently not getting?a new stadium. They have also threatened to leave, and may be cutting payroll to became more attractive, at least financially. Whatever the cause, I think we have an opportunity to witness something that will make the '62 Mets and the 2003 Tigers seem like amateurs (or is that professionals?). We're talking neo-Cleveland Spiders here. If this team does not lose 100 games, I will be shocked. If they don't break the Mets' "record" of 120, it'll be a crime. Boy, Joe Girardi is really going to miss his cushy Yankee job, if not his cushy Yankee players, by season's end. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Until arbitration John Riedling with his $750 salary is the highest paid Marlin. OH MY GOD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Baseball has not seen as inexperienced a team as this since foundation of the rival Union Association in 1884. There are 54 teams in baseball history with less than 851 games of experience for its position players. None are from after 1884. Wow. Now, of course I'm sure that figure has to change with Harris and whatever journeyman we inevitably sign for centerfield or leftfield (maybe both), but some of the numbers are staggering. And, for the record, I think we win 75 games next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Baseball has not seen as inexperienced a team as this since foundation of the rival Union Association in 1884. There are 54 teams in baseball history with less than 851 games of experience for its position players. None are from after 1884. Wow. Now, of course I'm sure that figure has to change with Harris and whatever journeyman we inevitably sign for centerfield or leftfield (maybe both), but some of the numbers are staggering. And, for the record, I think we win 75 games next season. Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins2003 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Riedling was cut October 3rd Harris was excluded because Lenny has almost 2000 games under his belt and that would skew his numbers and undermine his flawed thesis. Moehler 180, Villone 493. The point is valid nonetheless. This is going to be a very, very young club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Baseball has not seen as inexperienced a team as this since foundation of the rival Union Association in 1884. There are 54 teams in baseball history with less than 851 games of experience for its position players. None are from after 1884. Wow. Now, of course I'm sure that figure has to change with Harris and whatever journeyman we inevitably sign for centerfield or leftfield (maybe both), but some of the numbers are staggering. And, for the record, I think we win 75 games next season. Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball? Possibly, but we're not inexperienced in the traditional sense. Most of the guys (Hermida as a prime example) are major league ready, some, like Cabrera, Willis, Hermida and possibly Hanley are all-star ready. Until Jayson Stark or someother respected writer who loves useless info like this comes out and says it, I'll just regard this as an interesting read, and nothing more. However, I have heard people say (I guess half seriously, now that I think about it) that if Girardi has this team finish with more than 70 wins, he should get manager of the year honors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBMarlin Posted December 16, 2005 Author Share Posted December 16, 2005 Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball? :lol Those are the types of goals we will have next year? Talk about being underdogs. Any series we win will be a major achievement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball? :lol Those are the types of goals we will have next year? Talk about being underdogs. Any series we win will be a major achievement. We will still be competitive with ATL, that's for sure. We always have been even when we were horrid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball? :lol Those are the types of goals we will have next year? Talk about being underdogs. Any series we win will be a major achievement. We will still be competitive with ATL, that's for sure. We always have been even when we were horrid. Atlanta's owned us. They're one of the three or four teams that we have the worst regular season record against. The D'backs, Pirates and Giants are on that list too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I'm trying to look for head-to-head stats, but can't find any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I'm trying to look for head-to-head stats, but can't find any. It was in the PB Post back in June, same day as the Sheffield rumors and the day after that Encarnacion walk off win against the Braves...if you know how to get a hold of that. It was on the front page of the sports section. (I've got a crazy selective photographic memory...wish I could use it for something more useful than randomly useless info). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 1993: FLA won 5, ATL won 7. 1994: FLA won 4, ATL won 8. 1995: FLA won 3, ATL won 10. 1996: FLA won 7, ATL won 6. 1997: FLA won 8, ATL won 4. 1998: FLA won 5, ATL won 7. 1999: FLA won 4, ATL won 9. 2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6. 2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9. 2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11. 2003: FLA won 10, ATL won 9 2004: FLA won 5, ATL won 14. 2005: FLA won 8, ATL won 10 Like I said, very competitive over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 That's 83-110 lifetime or a .430 winning percentage...not great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 That's 83-110 lifetime or a .430 winning percentage...not great. please note the bolded segments. 9 out of 13 seasons the series was either Marlin wins or decided by 3 games or less (only 1 by 3, the rest 2 or less) If that's not competitive, I don't know what is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 That's 83-110 lifetime or a .430 winning percentage...not great. please note the bolded segments. 9 out of 13 seasons the series was either Marlin wins or decided by 3 games or less (only 1 by 3, the rest 2 or less) If that's not competitive, I don't know what is. Well, for starters, winning more than 4 season series would be competitive. Historically, they've owned us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 That's 83-110 lifetime or a .430 winning percentage...not great. please note the bolded segments. 9 out of 13 seasons the series was either Marlin wins or decided by 3 games or less (only 1 by 3, the rest 2 or less) If that's not competitive, I don't know what is. Well, for starters, winning more than 4 season series would be competitive. Historically, they've owned us. I really can't provide more concrete evidence of our competitiveness with them than I just did :lol If you want to be stubborn, cool. When you play 20 or so games a year and either win or have a 2 game difference in majority of those years, that's competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureGM Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I still say that 58 wins would be pushing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 What is our over/under anyway, or when do they come out with those numbers? 1993: FLA won 5, ATL won 7. 1994: FLA won 4, ATL won 8. 1995: FLA won 3, ATL won 10. 1996: FLA won 7, ATL won 6. 1997: FLA won 8, ATL won 4. 1998: FLA won 5, ATL won 7. 1999: FLA won 4, ATL won 9. 2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6. 2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9. 2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11. 2003: FLA won 10, ATL won 9 2004: FLA won 5, ATL won 14. 2005: FLA won 8, ATL won 10 Like I said, very competitive over the years. And honestly, I was only trying to highlight our relative success even during the rebuilding years after 97. 1998: FLA won 5, ATL won 7. 1999: FLA won 4, ATL won 9. 2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6. 2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9. 2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11. Even when we sucked a whole, we gave them a good tuffle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 That's 83-110 lifetime or a .430 winning percentage...not great. please note the bolded segments. 9 out of 13 seasons the series was either Marlin wins or decided by 3 games or less (only 1 by 3, the rest 2 or less) If that's not competitive, I don't know what is. Well, for starters, winning more than 4 season series would be competitive. Historically, they've owned us. I really can't provide more concrete evidence of our competitiveness with them than I just did :lol If you want to be stubborn, cool. When you play 20 or so games a year and either win or have a 2 game difference in majority of those years, that's competition. Look, if a .430 winning percentage is "competitve" to you, then you're going to have a ball with this season, we're going to be competitve beyond even your wildest dreams. Fact of the matter is, Atlanta has absolutely blown us out in many season series, and over the course of 10 or 18 games, law of averages tend to come into play, we're not talking three game series here, we're talking division play. Perhaps if this were the D'Backs or Giants (two teams we've also historically had problems with during the regular season) then the whole "only two games" argument could come into play, but we're playing them at least 12 times a season for the past decade, yet they've won 23 more games against us than we have against them. We've won substantially less than half of the games played between the two teams. That's not competitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 You're trying to be logical where no such method is necessary. Just look at the 9 season series that we either won or were within 2 (3 for one season) games. That's competitive. By the way, 2004's 14-5 romping didn't help that law of averages that you used. UGH! I'm trying to study for my final. Leave me alone, foul demon of the underworld!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 By the way, 2004's 14-5 romping didn't help that law of averages that you used. Ummm...yes, it did. The fact that in 19 games we got destroyed proves that as sample size increases true nature is more readily observed. I can get more basic: We don't play them well. Therefore, the more times we play them, the more times we lose. Hence 2004's absolute ass whomping from the Braves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 In case anyone wanted a reference to use for future statistical warfare, here is where I got the head-to-head records: http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/head2head.shtml By the way, 2004's 14-5 romping didn't help that law of averages that you used. Ummm...yes, it did. The fact that in 19 games we got destroyed proves that as sample size increases true nature is more readily observed. I can get more basic: We don't play them well. Therefore, the more times we play them, the more times we lose. Hence 2004's absolute ass whomping from the Braves. OH that's just absurd. I'm sorry. The very next season Florida won 8 of 20., and the season before 10 of 19. That was a fluke. Without 2004, 79-96 (a much more agreeable .451) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 OH that's just absurd. I'm sorry. The very next season Florida won 8 of 20., and the season before 10 of 19. That was a fluke. 1995 and 1999 say differently. Notice a pattern? 3 blowouts in the season series...all favoring the same team. Crazy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 And then I suppose you can't really count our first two years, as they were basically building teams against established teams. I don't buy your reasoning. Ok I'll get statistical on yer ass. Last 6 seasons: 2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6. 2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9. 2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11. 2003: FLA won 10, ATL won 9 2004: FLA won 5, ATL won 14. 2005: FLA won 8, ATL won 10 We have won 2 series, lost 3 and tied 1. COMPETITIVE, MUCH? Pattern my Jewban ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Without 2004, 79-96 (a much more agreeable .451) Well, that's not fair. To make it fair, you'd have to take out our largest win discrepancy (1997) turning the season series to 71-92, or a .435 winning percentage. And then I suppose you can't really count our first two years, as they were basically building teams against established teams. I don't buy your reasoning. Ok I'll get statistical on yer ass. Last 6 seasons: 2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6. 2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9. 2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11. 2003: FLA won 10, ATL won 9 2004: FLA won 5, ATL won 14. 2005: FLA won 8, ATL won 10 We have won 2 series, lost 3 and tied 1. COMPETITIVE, MUCH? Pattern my Jewban ass. Even in your fudging statistics, you have us 47-59 for an astounding .443 winning percentage. I'm still not seeing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.