Ok ok obviously not for our team. But check this out.

 

He's always been known for his glove. But he never stuck with a team because he couldn't hit the ball. Until he came to the Marlins, that is. So now that he's better offensively, just where does he rank now in addition to his glove?

 

So WARP is an awesome stat in concept but it's also stupid because BP uses an absolute horrible defensive stat in FRAA

 

So here's wins added using LWZR (Not as good as something like plus/minus, but it's normally around what plus/minus says, and it atleast assigns a run value) from last year stats (Career stats for Amezaga defensively, since he's been in CF the past couple years).

 

LWZR avereaged over 1250 IP played defensively, and 650 PA offensively, so the stats are over the same time period.

 

#  Name				 Wins	  RC	LWZR
01 Troy Tulowitzki	 10.60   92.45   13.56
02 Hanley Ramirez	  10.36  117.85  -14.26
03 Jimmy Rollins	   10.34  104.43   -1.05
04 Jose Reyes		  10.17   89.22   12.51
05 Miguel Tejada		9.67   86.87	8.72
06 Carlos Guillen	   9.63   99.05   -2.79
07 Edgar Renteria	   9.00   99.36   -9.40
08 Yunel Escobar		8.92   93.38   -4.18
09 Orlando Cabrera	  8.78   81.60	6.25
10 Khalil Greene		8.77   77.92	9.73
11 Alex Gonzalez		8.70   83.14	3.82
12 Alfredo Amezaga	  8.62   66.74   19.47
13 Jason Bartlett	   8.38   74.12	9.72
14 Ryan Theriot		 8.11   68.59   12.51
15 Michael Young		8.08   86.42   -5.58
16 Derek Jeter		  8.00   97.41  -17.40
17 Omar Visquel		 7.86   54.26   24.34
18 Rafael Furcal		7.71   68.74	8.34
19 John McDonald		7.71   55.24   21.90
20 Jack Wilson		  7.67   82.62   -5.92
21 Jhonny Peralta	   7.57   83.38   -7.66
22 David Eckstein	   7.40   79.24   -5.22
23 Bobby Crosby		 7.30   53.88   19.11
24 JJ Hardy			 7.11   81.5   -10.44
25 Marco Scrutaro	   6.93   68.60	0.68
26 Julio Lugo		   6.85   66.03	2.42
27 Yuniesky Betancourt  6.76   72.09   -4.53
28 Juan Uribe		   6.69   62.34	4.51
29 Brendan Harris	   6.41   84.64  -20.53
30 Tony Pena Jr.		6.29   57.00	5.90
31 Adam Everett		 6.25   46.82   15.64
32 Mark Loretta		 5.94   71.23  -11.83
33 Stephen Drew		 5.78   66.16   -8.35
34 Felipe Lopez		 4.90   62.97  -13.92
35 Josh Wilson		  3.78   56.61  -18.79
36 Cesar Izturis		1.58   19.29   -3.48

Amezaga ranks 12th....hell of alot higher than a lot of other starters haha...

 

2nd defensively only to Omar Visquel.

 

Doubt he has much trade value due to the fact that this is mostly based off assumptions, but if I was another team I'd really look at grabbing him haha...he's not really old (30), cheap, and still has 3 years left of team control, and by that time he'd start declining. The Mets supposedly expressed interest at the Winter Meetings, but obviously not going to take over Jose haha.

 

There's also, for us, the whole moving Hanley to third thing. And while it'd be better than Castillo or Cantu, I think Hanley+Dallas would be best (In the Majors so far, Dallas has been good defensively haha, but also have the back issues). Plus I'd really want Hanley to have another year at short, he was no where near as bad in 2006.

 

Also how about Jason Bartlett...everybody always talks about only Matt Garza in return for Delmon young, but they also swapped SS, getting a two win better player. their defense is going to improve a lot next year simply because of the difference betwween Bartlett and Harris

Amezaga> Jeter :cool

If he played full-time he would get a lot more PAs vs lefties than what he has gotten the past two seasons and his OPS would take a significant hit.

not really. the rate in which he faced lefties is the same as it would be if he had more playing time.

In '07 his split was was 388 / 60 (6.5 to 1).

 

Cabrera's was 530 / 150 (3.5 to 1).

 

With Miguel's split, his OPS would have declined about .017 points. Not as much as I thought but still it's some especially when you're talikgn about a guy in .600s.

Hanley more than makes up for his defense with his bat. You DO NOT move him from shortstop at this point. He provides the team too much value hitting that well from a "defensive-first" position. There's plenty more center-fielders and third-basemen who can hit and defend than there are shortstops. Maybe they're not making themselves known in our system right now but they will certainly be available when we're ready to take the next step.

Can this be extrapolated to 2B?

Amezaga really doesn't have much time spent at 2b (241.1 inn) and his ZR (the base of LWZR) is really middle of the pack (.816). If he had a larger sample size I'm sure it would be higher, which could be exploited, but I'm also not one that likes assign random numbers based purely off of assumptions.

 

Or do you just want to see how the 2B's compare to one-another, and not a "move amezaga to 2nd" thing?

Amezaga really doesn't have much time spent at 2b (241.1 inn) and his ZR (the base of LWZR) is really middle of the pack (.816). If he had a larger sample size I'm sure it would be higher, which could be exploited, but I'm also not one that likes assign random numbers based purely off of assumptions.

 

Or do you just want to see how the 2B's compare to one-another, and not a "move amezaga to 2nd" thing?

I don't think it's a stretch to assume he would be a 'dominating' defensive presence despite the lower number of innings/attempts on his 2nd base resume. He can do it, and it is an easier position to field. The guy can simply play defense, and a lot of Marlins fans don't understand this since he's been a trooper in CF for 2 years now. I'm interested in seeing where Uggla and Castillo fall on the list, and if a rational argument can be made that Amezaga can rival either as a starter just based on his defensive prowess. We can isolate the offense and then give Amezaga a top 3, top 5, and top 10 defensive rank, and see if there is some level where he can overcome Uggla's slugging, or Castillo's combo of moderate slugging/above average D. I don't expect a 2B defense compared to a SS will have such a dramatic effect on win shares, but I'm curious.

 

And a side note. If Hanley becomes a neutral defensive presence. Good lord.

LWZR actually rates 2b defense not very far behind SS defense. But again it also isn't the perfect stat. I really wish Dewan would have made plus/minus into a run stat...he's said he has had plans to do that, but that's been quite awhile now haha.

 

If uggla plays defense like he did in 2007 (-13 runs), he's at +7.42 wins (using 2007 RC).

 

If he plays defense like he did in 2006 (+1 run), he's a +8.85 wins

 

Castillo's defense is actually not very good haha...jsut based off LWZR, he's a -8 runs...but Dewan has noted that his above average ability to turn the double play basically puts him at +0 runs, so at that, using his 2006 RC, he's at +6.24 wins.

 

If Amezaga plays defense as he has at 2b (roughly top 10, +5 runs), he's at +7.20 wins. top 5 (+11 runs) +7.80 wins. Top 3 (+18 runs) +8.53 wins.

 

So basically

 

1) Dan Uggla (2006)

2) Amezaga (Top 3)

3) Amezaga (Top 5)

4) Uggla (2007)

5) Amezaga (Top 10)

6) Jose Castillo

So basically

 

1) Dan Uggla (2006)

2) Amezaga (Top 3)

3) Amezaga (Top 5)

4) Uggla (2007)

5) Amezaga (Top 10)

6) Jose Castillo

Makes me want to play him at 2B right now.

I'd definitely be on that bandwagon.

 

Trade Uggla before he declines more (which I think chances are in favor of) and before he gets a sh*t load in arbitration considering his power numbers (Plus I'm not that big of a fan of Danny's game, I've stated enough of how I perfer a OBP guy over a SLG guy. Man I can't wait until Coghlan is ready). Use Amezaga at second which is around push but improves pitching staff numbers for possible trades, plus either bolsters his trade value for when Coghlan is ready or (if he reverts back to bad bat w/ the additional playing time) put him back in a role of 200-300 PAs and have a good bench player.

Maybe you didn't see this spring how not ready for primetime Coghlan is. He's at least a year away under the best circumstances and from what we saw recently probably two which takes him into 2010 before he's major league ready.

Oh I agree, that's why I said I can't wait for him to be ready.

 

But his game is the kind of game I love most.

 

I just hope he can field haha.

 

I wish the defensive stat analysis would do minor leagues haha.

Maybe you didn't see this spring how not ready for primetime Coghlan is. He's at least a year away under the best circumstances and from what we saw recently probably two which takes him into 2010 before he's major league ready.

So you play Amezaga and Andino (who I'm hopeful builds on last years progression) at 2B next year, get players for Uggla, and avoid the $3.5-4 mil arbitration hit. You can read the stats. If Dan isn't hitting mountains of XBH and playing neutral D, it's a push with Amezaga. This is pretty compelling to go with the little guy as soon as a positive trade for Uggla presents itself. I have no problem with Coghlan in the minors for 2 more.

Lou, you can use all the arbitrary stat stuff you want but in the end it's meaningless. Baseball stats are like studying the universe, there's never any answers, only each time a new one is invented all you wind up with is more questions.

 

I read an article yesterday in National Geographic that I thought about posting here because it was so powerful it moved me and I wanted to share it, and especially the part I've excerpted below. The subject is cognitive learning in animals. I wish for one day I could write as well as its author, I really hope people put aside a half hour to read the article in its entirety I promise it is life-changing, well at least perception changing.

 

See if you can grok the analogy to stat vs experiential baseball analysis:

 

 

"Charles Darwin, who attempted to explain how human intelligence developed, extended his theory of evolution to the human brain: Like the rest of our physiology, intelligence must have evolved from simpler organisms, since all animals face the same general challenges of life. They need to find mates, food, and a path through the woods, sea, or sky?tasks that Darwin argued require problem-solving and categorizing abilities. Indeed, Darwin went so far as to suggest that earthworms are cognitive beings because, based on his close observations, they have to make judgments about the kinds of leafy matter they use to block their tunnels. He hadn't expected to find thinking invertebrates and remarked that the hint of earthworm intelligence "has surprised me more than anything else in regard to worms."

 

To Darwin, the earthworm discovery demonstrated that degrees of intelligence could be found throughout the animal kingdom. But the Darwinian approach to animal intelligence was cast aside in the early 20th century, when researchers decided that field observations were simply "anecdotes," usually tainted by anthropomorphism. In an effort to be more rigorous, many embraced behaviorism, which regarded animals as little more than machines, and focused their studies on the laboratory white rat?since one "machine" would behave like any other.

 

But if animals are simply machines, how can the appearance of human intelligence be explained? Without Darwin's evolutionary perspective, the greater cognitive skills of people did not make sense biologically. Slowly the pendulum has swung away from the animal-as-machine model and back toward Darwin. A whole range of animal studies now suggest that the roots of cognition are deep, widespread, and highly malleable. "

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/...a-morell-text/4

 

I've come to understand that for you winning ballgames just gets in the way of your belief system built around these number sets. When you suggest you can replace Uggla, his 31 homeruns and fifty doubles after losing Cabrera's bat with a combination of Andino and Amezaga, and still win games, which is why the sport is played in the first place, it makes me respect statistical analysis less than I did yesterday, and slowly up until this one, you had been winning me over to at least being more open to your way of thinking.

 

Ballplayers work their whole lives to be ballplayers because they love winning ballgames. Everything they do is about is about winning, not their XBH or playing neutral D. You can't tell a ballplayer go out there and lose a couple hundred times over the next two years and it doesn't matter because three years from now wow, these stats say we're going to have a helluva season when the guy we really want playing your position comes up and takes your job. People aren't machines and as scientists have found this out treating them as such leads to false conclusions. As the article correctly points out the whole scientific world is moving away from where baseball statisticians are leading their flock, and sooner or later they will too when they realize that just because they can't quantify desire and will and the drive to succeed, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

My favorite of course is "there's no such thing as clutch" which has to be one of the dumbest, most misguided pieces of cockeyed logic ever invented. It's funny that every ballplayer in every sport believes in it, it's the statisticians who can't empirically formulate it that deny its existence. What statisticians don't now how to calculate is competing, simultaneous "clutch" events - one on the offense, the other defensive. And because they can't create the formula that can pre-determine which side wins out, in effect whose will is greater, they deny its existence completely and ridicule it every chance they get. They are the "world is flat" crowd, convinced "if it were anything but" we'd all fall off.

 

From the time you start playing baseball in t-ball to Ted Williams' last at bat homerun, every teammate knows there is one (or of you're lucky two) guys on every team that are the go to guys, the guys who you know are coming to the plate in the ninth inning understanding exactly what it is they have to do, or conversely the kid who is not going to be intimidated by the batters he has to face or the ballplayer who "knows", no matter what no one is driving a ball over my head. That's why you see some guy climbing a wall, digging his cleats in, elevating himself high enough to fulfill his promise to himself that "no one hits a ball over my head today". I've seen it in Little League and beer leagues, scores wrote about it when Williams finished his career that to a man his teammates, hell everyone there and I am lucky enough to say I was among them (at one time literally millions claimed to have been in Fenway that day and the place was half empty. but in those days half empty epitomized every Red Sox game) knew what he was going to do. His teammates to a player said it best, "of course he was going out with a homerun, he's Ted Williams".

 

You can pile all the Alfredo Amezagas and Robert Andinos as high as you want (and everyone here knows I really like both guys) you still aren't going to replace what you get from Dan Uggla when it comes to winning ball games, if you care about winning ballgames.

 

I really hope people read the whole article. Parrots who "think". Dogs who can recognize three dimensional items from two dimensional black and white pictures, lemurs who push their noses against computer screens to teach themselves new systems, it's fascinating sh*t that makes you realize watching a lab rat run through a maze really doesn't tell you anything about the rat at all because it isn't that they do it, it's the why and how they do it that's important.

 

 

(and since I brought up the greatest ballplayer that ever lived here's his obituary of sort and courtesy of You Tube, his last homerun : The Ted Williams story

 

His last homerun

Arbitrary? You are talking about heart, and clutch, and "your feelings," while ignoring statistical numbers, and you start your latest trainwreck questioning my 'arbitrary-ness' when I'm looking data. Data, as in a scientific analysis. Unbelievable. There are so many problems with this, I am practically speechless.

 

SO Uggla is the - "Ballplayers work their whole lives to be ballplayers because they love winning ballgames" - but Amezaga is not. Sorry AA, 03 doesn't think you are a gamer and that Uggla wants to win more. I guess that means you aren't a ball player. The Detroit Tigers can't lose 200+ games over two years - "You can't tell a ballplayer go out there and lose a couple hundred times over the next two years and it doesn't matter because three years from now wow, these stats say we're going to have a helluva season" - and then holy smokes become a playoff contender when Granderson, Verlander, and Zumaya blossom? If it's ridiculous analogy day, up until whenever, the entire world knew the world was flat. Everyone until Darwin knew there was no evolution and everyone came from God. Hell, Mike Huckabee and the school board of the fine state of Kansas still knows that. YET, when we relate this to baseball - My favorite of course is "there's no such thing as clutch" which has to be one of the dumbest, most misguided pieces of cockeyed logic ever invented. It's funny that every ballplayer in every sport believes in it - since every baseball players KNOW this, it therefore MUST be true. This is horrible. Because baseball players think something, doesn't make it true (true as in quantifiable). Show me RISP over a period of time and argue late performances, not this arbitrary clutch saying. Show me something, rather than a heroic dinger and then forgetting a guy whiffs in the 9th his previous 5 attempts. The problem with clutch is, the one time a player does something awesome (SEE DAVID EFFING ECKSTEIN OR SCOTT PODSEDINK or MARK LEMKE), they get the CLUTCH typecast and forever are the man when these players are practically horrible. David Tyree is clutch now! Great. There are random awesome moments in sports that just happen. The hell baseball will ever devolve back into old scouts intuition versus the wealth of accurate statistical data available. This is why you judge teams over 162 teams, and not a crapshoot playoffs where a few hot bats bring you to victory. Baseball is awesome for it's randomness, but it's also highly predictable. It's the reason I kill vegas every year on over/unders. I'm so annoyed I can't even stay on topic!

 

What's great about baseball, is it is overwhelmingly an individual sport. You can't do this in basketball, where Jason Kidd makes you better. You can't do this in football, where Chris Chambers can't catch a football down here and then is great in San Diego. You can't do this in hockey, for "insert team hockey moment here as I don't watch the sport." But in baseball. It's you versus pitcher. Groundball versus you. We're talking an incredibly limited amount of "plays" where another person effects your performance. Hitting with runners on base? Sure. Your # 3 hitter has more opportunities, but you can still quantify and judge him against your # 7 hitter when he has runners in the same slots. Doesn't matter who hits the line drive, just matters if you catch it. Baseball can overwhelmingly be explained performance wise from individual players. I'm sorry if a statistical approach ruins the fan in you, but it is what it is. I view baseball as a front office type. Not as a dude with a beer and a hot dog who uses his gut in evaluation.

Just like those early 20th century scientists who thought they had all the right answers eventually they were discredited. You make exactly the same mistake they did. You treat all players the same. All have the same skills, all have the same desire, all have the same coordination, all have the same abilities.

 

You quoted me out of context. I said you can't expect players to perform if the message is we don't care about losing now and you shouldn't either because when we start getting better we're replacing you. That's much different than how you twisted my words.

 

But it appears that is your core belief. All players are merely pawns to be used and abused and cast aside when the stats say its time for wonderboy to turn the franchise around. And why will wonderboy turn the team around? Because the stats say he will. I suppose it's easy for you to ignore a person's drive to succeed or do their personal best because someone hasn't come up with a formula to quantify it but if you have ever (and I seriously doubt you have) played an organized sport you have to know losing sucks and being told no one cares if you win or lose sucks even more. But you expect players to act as if they are lab rats.

 

Your comparison of Dan Uggla and Alfredo Amezaga was I guess you grasping at straws so weak is your argument. I don't know how to respond except to say there is a talent component you're ignoring, willfully or by mistake I don't know. It isn't that one wants it more than the other, it's how their individual contributions furthers the desire of the "team" to win.

 

And why you keep dragging out your favorite straw men for your fallicois argument David Eckstein and Scott Posednick, I guess because it gives you the opportunity to belittle them once again even when you know that's not what I'm talking about. I really liked the Mike Huckabee thing too it really showed to what depths you are willing to go to make your flatulent arguments. I mean really.

 

As for the word clutch I carefully picked Ted Williams a prime example, a guy who built a career out of not only being clutch on the ballfield but clutch when it came to protecting his fellow pilots in not one but two wars. I carefully stayed away from the one play career highlight type of thing by centering my comments on one of the greatest ballplayers that ever lived. There is world of difference between the clutch play and a player who is clutch but you obviously need to lump them all together to make your hocus pocus seem reasonable. I have to assume you didn't bother to read Williams obit or the laundry list of accomplishments he has during his careers in and out of the sport. Those are the facts you should be focusing on not these ever more complex isolated instance game deconstruction stats with which you're in love with.

 

Tell me do they keep you warm at night?

 

It's the nuances you miss. Not all clutch plays happen close and late, they aren't all exclusively on the offensive side of the ledger either. It doesn't matter if you've just hit your eighth game winning ninth inning homerun of the season that RISP doesn't apply unless someone was on base.

 

Now you need a new stat that supersedes RISP because it's not always applicable. Damn the luck. :banghead

 

And baseball is an individual sport? Wow. There you go. Until now I never realized how little you respect the idea of collaboration and team effort. Baseball is a game where the sum of the parts is often outweighed by the whole. You've never quite gotten that.

 

I'll leave you with one thought. You believe in baseball it is you versus the pitcher. In reality in that moment it's you, your manager and your third base coach versus the pitcher and eight over guys. They are called teammates, you may not be familiar with the phrase, from the catcher calling the pitches to the position players fielding their positions. Ask Anibal Sanchez if he threw a no-hitter all by himself. But you can't see that and I doubt you ever will. Here's an excerpt from one news story about the game. "Those teammates helped Sanchez with some nifty glove work. Left fielder Josh Willingham made a diving catch, and shortstop Hanley Ramirez ranged left for a grounder and whirled to make the throw from behind second base. Dan Uggla, Mike Jacobs and Ramirez combined on a rare 4-3-6 double play to end the eighth inning." And who can forget the play that ended it in the ninth? Teamwork my friend. Teamwork. Baseball is and always been been a colloborative effort, THAT is what makes the game so beautiful.

You're Horrific. Everything is out of context! Always! I think you're stupidity speaks for itself.

That is after all your core belief. All players are merely pawns to be used and abused and cast aside when the stats say its time for wonderboy to turn the franchise around. And why will wonderboy turn the team around? because the stats say he will.

From a front office perspective, YES. It is better to get rid of a player 1 year to early than 1 year to late. This has been proven in EVERY sport countless times. You don't hold onto players when you can move them to fix other holes, when you have a pipeline of players (Amezaga, Castillo, Andino, Coghlan) that can rival then in production on the spot right now, and bring realistic hope for greater production in the future. Especially when their value is excellent on the 'market' and trading the piece helps you in other areas.

 

But listen don't let me keep you from living in your dream world with your phony formulas and your 100 game losing seasons because some cock-eyed looked at in a vacuum formula tells you Alfred Amezaga will bring as much production to this team as Dan Uggla.

 

I have to keep this basic for you so your head won't explode, but they have equal OBP abilities. They are a push at making outs, so right there we have a huge component of a player's batting ability EQUAL. The only difference is a .480-.340 slugging, which is 86 TB over the course of the year. Since they make outs at the same pace, these 86 TB are additional bases (meaning 2nd, 3rd, and home) for Uggla. It's hard to quantify a TB-RUNS (or wins) level, that's why we use EQA, WARP, VORP, and others, but this basically represents a solid 30+ range of additional offensive runs scored for Uggla for obvious base to base and instant runs reasons. This is an impressive offensive advantage.

 

So then you look at NNY's data. Amezaga, at the 3rd-5th-10th run levels is saving 5-18 runs a year in the field because of his defense. Then we look at Uggla's data. Uggla is a 0 to -12. So pretty much here, let's average those numbers together and give Amezaga a fun +12 and Uggla a -6. Wow! Amezaga has shaved off 18 runs from Uggla.

 

So in sum, and this is what me and NNY think, when Uggla's offense and extraordinary XBH rate decline because of his horrid contact rates, and Amezaga keeps doing his normal high .600 OPS and excellent defense, we're talking Uggla as being worth around 12 runs to the team more than versus Amezaga now, and where does this number go with an offensive decline OR him maintaining his 2007 defensive rate. Most importantly here, Uggla is going to be cost $3.5-4 next year, Amezaga maybe $1. If the difference in runs is going to be negligible, this team spending an additiona $2.5 million to save a dozen runs is idiotic, especially when Uggla can be turned into a strong 2-3 player prospect package because he hits dingers.

 

This, is not arbitrary. This is a realistic approach at quantifying what the hell you have in the field. This is better than your gut. This is better than your intuition. You see Uggla making up for a gaff in the field when he hits a 2 run bomb in the 8th to make a game 4-3 and gives the Marlins a chance those last 2 innings. While I see it as, Amezaga would have nailed the played and the game has been 2-1 all along. THAT is the kind of production you don't see in the scorecard, and why you are so vehemently opposed to the new wave of analysis.

 

With your irrelevant comparisons and your obsession with proving you were right about Dan Uggla when the whole world knows you were 100% wrong you have to drag your old David Eckstein and Scott Posednick stalking horses out because it gives you the opportunity to belittle them once again even when you know that's not what I'm talking about. I really liked the Mike Hucabee thing it really showed to what depths you are willing to go to make your flatulent arguments.

LOL YOU QUOTED A DARWIN PIECE and then when I make a joke out of your shenanigans, we go to the depths of flatulent arguments. Who are you? How has natural selection not picked you off yet? "zing"

 

And baseball is an individual sport?

 

You can quantify it that way. Batter vs Pitcher. Fielder vs Fielding opportunity. Break it down to the simplest measure of measurement

I'll leave you with one thought. You believe in baseball it is you versus the pitcher. In reality in that moment it's you versus the pitcher and eight over guys, they are called teammates, you may not be familiar with the phrase, from the catcher calling the pitches to the position players fielding their positions. Ask Anibal Sanchez if he threw a no-hitter all by himself. But you can't see that and I doubt you ever will. Here's an excerpt from one news story about the game. "Those teammates helped Sanchez with some nifty glove work. Left fielder Josh Willingham made a diving catch, and shortstop Hanley Ramirez ranged left for a grounder and whirled to make the throw from behind second base. Dan Uggla, Mike Jacobs and Ramirez combined on a rare 4-3-6 double play to end the eighth inning." And who can forget the play that ended it in the ninth? Teamwork my friend. Teamwork.

 

So is Anibal Sanchez better than Roger Clemens since his teammates produced a no hitter for him? You are missing the entire scope of why you do a statistical analysis. That game, was a single performance. Willingham made the catch of his life. Anibal was throwing bullets. From that game alone you'd think those players are extraordinary. But that doesn't take into the whole of who a player is. As I said last post, awesome moments happen in sports. There is nothing you can do to predict them. Scott Podsedink will hit a HR in the playoffs when he hasn't hit one all year to win a game. David Tyree catches a football on his head, after his QB was almost sacked, against an undefeated team. It happens, It's awesome. It's why they play the games. But to look at players on rather singular individual performances, and not the greater sum of what they can and cannot do, is simply fan-dome and is a horrible way to judge a player and a team. Like I said, you can go to the stadium and eat your hot dog and drink the beer and enjoy the game. I look at things from a front office perspective and what we can do to maximize our talent. This reminds me a quote of Jeff Ireland (new Dolphins GM, I believe that's his name). He said something to the likes of, he can't watch a football game for pure enjoyment as he is always scouting players to see how he would use them to build his team. You can just chalk me up to this category. Sorry if this is cold and inhumane to you, but this game can be explained by using statistical analysis.

shenanigans

 

 

I swear to God I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says shenanignas

Hey Frava, what's the name of the resteraunt you like with all the goofy sh*t on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?

You mean Shenanigans? You guys are talking about Shenanigans right?

OOOOOOOOOOO

Off topic to rferry:

 

Why do you say in your sig that Welker is a traitor when he got traded? What would you have done differently than him? Retire from the NFL because you got traded from the Dolphins?