MLB 2025 Season

Cliffy6745

imalive wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

Okay can we get back to baseball?

It's norm's fault :shh:

polaris_x wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Yu! Yu! Yu!

kid is the real deal ...

money well spent.....as opposed to albert's deal :shock:

I think he's gonna be real good. He's going to have to get through the leauge a couple times before it's for sure, but signs are pointing to him being really really good. God damn, Yankees. Should have listened to me.

Wobbie

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I think he's gonna be real good. He's going to have to get through the leauge a couple times before it's for sure, but signs are pointing to him being really really good. God damn, Yankees. Should have listened to me.

yeah, second time thru could be telling.

and, hell yes, the yanks should be listening to cliffy just like the giants should be listening to me (release huff).

Cliffy6745

imalive wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I think he's gonna be real good. He's going to have to get through the leauge a couple times before it's for sure, but signs are pointing to him being really really good. God damn, Yankees. Should have listened to me.

yeah, second time thru could be telling.

and, hell yes, the yanks should be listening to cliffy just like the giants should be listening to me (release huff).

It's a shame all we do is post these recommendations on a Pearl Jam message board, rather than getting paid millions for them.

norm

the los angeles dodgers are no longer owned by frank mcccourt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SVRDhand13

imalive wrote:

money well spent.....as opposed to albert's deal :shock:

0 home runs in April. Ouch!!! :fp:

catefrances

norm wrote:

the los angeles dodgers are no longer owned by frank mcccourt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the guy that wrote angelas ashes owned the dodgers??? :shock:

Wobbie

norm wrote:

the los angeles dodgers are no longer owned by frank mcccourt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he's lurking....looking for an opportunity to get back in.

SVRDhand13 wrote:

imalive wrote:

money well spent.....as opposed to albert's deal :shock:

0 home runs in April. Ouch!!! :fp:

angel pagan has FOUR :shock:

norm

imalive wrote:

norm wrote:

the los angeles dodgers are no longer owned by frank mcccourt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he's lurking....looking for an opportunity to get back in.

considering he now owns or co- owns all the property around the stadium i don't think we'll ever be rid of him

Wobbie

norm wrote:

imalive wrote:

norm wrote:

the los angeles dodgers are no longer owned by frank mcccourt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he's lurking....looking for an opportunity to get back in.

considering he now owns or co- owns all the property around the stadium i don't think we'll ever be rid of him

like a cockroach

find or make a jpg

perfectlefts14

norm wrote:

the los angeles dodgers are no longer owned by frank mcccourt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's about time! How long before parking costs more than a ticket to the game?

SVRDhand13

SI Power Rankings get even worse: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/b ... =hp_t12_a4

Royals at #9 and Detroit at #30.

The Fixer

SVRDhand13 wrote:

SI Power Rankings get even worse: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/b ... =hp_t12_a4

Royals at #9 and Detroit at #30.

these things are created strictly for reactionary purposes. reactions = readership

bottom line...they're pointless

SVRDhand13

The Fixer wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

SI Power Rankings get even worse: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/b ... =hp_t12_a4

Royals at #9 and Detroit at #30.

these things are created strictly for reactionary purposes. reactions = readership

bottom line...they're pointless

I agree, but I have never seen them be this over the top before.

Monster Rain

SVRDhand13 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

SI Power Rankings get even worse: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/b ... =hp_t12_a4

Royals at #9 and Detroit at #30.

these things are created strictly for reactionary purposes. reactions = readership

bottom line...they're pointless

I agree, but I have never seen them be this over the top before.

I don't know what's going on at si.com lately but their baseball coverage this season seems to be taking a turn towards becoming SABR-centric to the point of absurdity. Not only are the rankings becoming completely ridiculous, there's an article by Cliff Corcoran about Matt Kemp's April performance that mentions a stat I've never seen before called GPA (Gross Production Average). He tries to explain why this stat is better that OPS but fails. He says it gives OBP its "proper weight" by multiplying it by 1.8 before adding it to SLG and then converting it into a percentage like batting average. However, he doesn't explain why multiplying OBP by 1.8 gives it its "proper weight," how someone came up with 1.8 as the magic number to use, or how that is then converted into GPA since the formula (OBP X 1.8) + SLG doesn't equal the numbers he gives for GPA. I figured out that he divides that total by 4, but I don't see a reason for it and he doesn't even tell you that he does that let alone say why.

Wobbie

Monster Rain wrote:

I don't know what's going on at si.com lately but their baseball coverage this season seems to be taking a turn towards becoming SABR-centric to the point of absurdity. Not only are the rankings becoming completely ridiculous, there's an article by Cliff Corcoran about Matt Kemp's April performance that mentions a stat I've never seen before called GPA (Gross Production Average). He tries to explain why this stat is better that OPS but fails. He says it gives OBP its "proper weight" by multiplying it by 1.8 before adding it to SLG and then converting it into a percentage like batting average. However, he doesn't explain why multiplying OBP by 1.8 gives it its "proper weight," how someone came up with 1.8 as the magic number to use, or how that is then converted into GPA since the formula (OBP X 1.8) + SLG doesn't equal the numbers he gives for GPA. I figured out that he divides that total by 4, but I don't see a reason for it and he doesn't even tell you that he does that let alone say why.

I prefer to judge baseball with my eyes.....rather than with a slide rule :wtf:

SVRDhand13

Monster Rain wrote:

I don't know what's going on at si.com lately but their baseball coverage this season seems to be taking a turn towards becoming SABR-centric to the point of absurdity. Not only are the rankings becoming completely ridiculous, there's an article by Cliff Corcoran about Matt Kemp's April performance that mentions a stat I've never seen before called GPA (Gross Production Average). He tries to explain why this stat is better that OPS but fails. He says it gives OBP its "proper weight" by multiplying it by 1.8 before adding it to SLG and then converting it into a percentage like batting average. However, he doesn't explain why multiplying OBP by 1.8 gives it its "proper weight," how someone came up with 1.8 as the magic number to use, or how that is then converted into GPA since the formula (OBP X 1.8) + SLG doesn't equal the numbers he gives for GPA. I figured out that he divides that total by 4, but I don't see a reason for it and he doesn't even tell you that he does that let alone say why.

:? My head is spinning.

At least when ESPN made up their QBR, they explained it.

Cliffy6745

SVRDhand13 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I don't know what's going on at si.com lately but their baseball coverage this season seems to be taking a turn towards becoming SABR-centric to the point of absurdity. Not only are the rankings becoming completely ridiculous, there's an article by Cliff Corcoran about Matt Kemp's April performance that mentions a stat I've never seen before called GPA (Gross Production Average). He tries to explain why this stat is better that OPS but fails. He says it gives OBP its "proper weight" by multiplying it by 1.8 before adding it to SLG and then converting it into a percentage like batting average. However, he doesn't explain why multiplying OBP by 1.8 gives it its "proper weight," how someone came up with 1.8 as the magic number to use, or how that is then converted into GPA since the formula (OBP X 1.8) + SLG doesn't equal the numbers he gives for GPA. I figured out that he divides that total by 4, but I don't see a reason for it and he doesn't even tell you that he does that let alone say why.

:? My head is spinning.

At least when ESPN made up their QBR, they explained it.

That's strange. I haven't read Cliff Corcoran since he left Bronx Banter, but I always liked his writing a lot. Been a couple years though. Losing Joe Poz has to hurt SI.

81

imalive wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I don't know what's going on at si.com lately but their baseball coverage this season seems to be taking a turn towards becoming SABR-centric to the point of absurdity. Not only are the rankings becoming completely ridiculous, there's an article by Cliff Corcoran about Matt Kemp's April performance that mentions a stat I've never seen before called GPA (Gross Production Average). He tries to explain why this stat is better that OPS but fails. He says it gives OBP its "proper weight" by multiplying it by 1.8 before adding it to SLG and then converting it into a percentage like batting average. However, he doesn't explain why multiplying OBP by 1.8 gives it its "proper weight," how someone came up with 1.8 as the magic number to use, or how that is then converted into GPA since the formula (OBP X 1.8) + SLG doesn't equal the numbers he gives for GPA. I figured out that he divides that total by 4, but I don't see a reason for it and he doesn't even tell you that he does that let alone say why.

I prefer to judge baseball with my eyes.....rather than with a slide rule :wtf:

no kidding.... :fp:

if i want stats, just give me the basic box score stats....i shouldn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure things out.

it's best to just watch the game and avoid reading about it.

DS1119

imalive wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I don't know what's going on at si.com lately but their baseball coverage this season seems to be taking a turn towards becoming SABR-centric to the point of absurdity. Not only are the rankings becoming completely ridiculous, there's an article by Cliff Corcoran about Matt Kemp's April performance that mentions a stat I've never seen before called GPA (Gross Production Average). He tries to explain why this stat is better that OPS but fails. He says it gives OBP its "proper weight" by multiplying it by 1.8 before adding it to SLG and then converting it into a percentage like batting average. However, he doesn't explain why multiplying OBP by 1.8 gives it its "proper weight," how someone came up with 1.8 as the magic number to use, or how that is then converted into GPA since the formula (OBP X 1.8) + SLG doesn't equal the numbers he gives for GPA. I figured out that he divides that total by 4, but I don't see a reason for it and he doesn't even tell you that he does that let alone say why.

I prefer to judge baseball with my eyes.....rather than with a slide rule :wtf:

I agree. I always used to say that during the heyday of the Jeter, Garciaparra, ARod debates over who was the best SS. ARod and Nomar were putting up monster stats and all Jeter was doing was winning rings. I'll take the rings.

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

imalive wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I don't know what's going on at si.com lately but their baseball coverage this season seems to be taking a turn towards becoming SABR-centric to the point of absurdity. Not only are the rankings becoming completely ridiculous, there's an article by Cliff Corcoran about Matt Kemp's April performance that mentions a stat I've never seen before called GPA (Gross Production Average). He tries to explain why this stat is better that OPS but fails. He says it gives OBP its "proper weight" by multiplying it by 1.8 before adding it to SLG and then converting it into a percentage like batting average. However, he doesn't explain why multiplying OBP by 1.8 gives it its "proper weight," how someone came up with 1.8 as the magic number to use, or how that is then converted into GPA since the formula (OBP X 1.8) + SLG doesn't equal the numbers he gives for GPA. I figured out that he divides that total by 4, but I don't see a reason for it and he doesn't even tell you that he does that let alone say why.

I prefer to judge baseball with my eyes.....rather than with a slide rule :wtf:

I agree. I always used to say that during the heyday of the Jeter, Garciaparra, ARod debates over who was the best SS. ARod and Nomar were putting up monster stats and all Jeter was doing was winning rings. I'll take the rings.

I love Jeter, but either of those players would have won rigns with those Yankees teams.