The Chicago Cubs better than the NY Yankees?

[slothinator]

1. The "stars" comment - the way you phrased it, and in the context you used it, came across as "you have to have stars to win championships". That's nonsense. Granted every team that wins a title has a player that that falls into the elite category, but the history of sports is littered with "superstar teams" that failed to win a title. I'll concede that we are arguing from different ends of the same topic on that one.

2. If you feel that you have sufficiently argued your point and are tired of trying to convince someone they are wrong / you are right...I can't hold that against you. I've been there.

3. I missed your point about separating Quentin and Jackson from Young in your comparison. However, I don't see how Upton fits into this discussion because he hasn't even played a major league game yet. I also don't see how a roster full of above average players wins 88-90 games while the hypothetical team of stars is good for 95 wins. 2 teams with such disproportionate levels of talent would be separated by a wider margin. Closer to 15 games I would think.

4. While you may not believe that the D-Backs prospects current performances are indicative of their future performance, you stated otherwise at the beginning. Hence the "confusion" on my part at you contradicting your own statement. I did, however, miss the part where you were separating the group of prospects into different levels of expectation. Perhaps your contradictory statements were in reference to those prospects; I'll chalk it up to pronoun troubles.

5. Now you are doing it too. I never said that you had to be a "sabermetric elitist" to use sabermetrics. I found it rather amusing that you use that blanket statement to insult the general population of this forum, then fall back on the same metrics that they use.

6. I'll willingly admit that my original post was very condescending of your opinion. Largely because I thought you were contradicting yourself. After your explanation, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from and what you intended your message to be.

Lastly - "Slightly above average" was not your choice of words, it was someone else's. You said "above average", and there is a difference between the two.

So let me see if I understand you now. You think the current core of the D-Backs roster is solid, but you question if any of the current talent is of sufficient level to be considered elite or superstar level. Sort of like the mid to late 80's Reds; a perrenial 2nd place team.

[Reup Gang]

well, i respect the fact that we have now taken off the dunce caps and can actually debate.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The "stars" comment - the way you phrased it, and in the context you used it, came across as "you have to have stars to win championships". That's nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

i suppose i can understand how one can interpret it that way, though you don't have to laughably scoff at it as if that's the only way it could be interpreted or, more accurately, was exactly what i meant.

essentially most championship-quality teams -- in baseball i'm talking 92+ win teams, roughly, not 80-win cardinal teams that lucksack a title, though they lucksacked a title through two stars -- have stars at various positions, not simply an entire roster of conor jacksons. this is primarily because the easiest and most effective way to become a championship contender is findind HOMEGROWN stars, since it's much easier on both marginal wnis and availability to have to pay market value or scrounge around for underrated players who have the potential to turn into solid major league regulars, but there are very few stars out there on the FA market or underrated players with the potential to turn into major league stars. you have to create them yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Granted every team that wins a title has a player that that falls into the elite category, but the history of sports is littered with "superstar teams" that failed to win a title. I'll concede that we are arguing from different ends of the same topic on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

many playoff systems in sports aren't designed to have the best team win the championship but merely field a WINNER, so it's trivially unfair to go by that. hence what i mean are championship-caliber teams. stars give their teams a much easier chance to field a consistent above-average playoff team year after year; any idiot GM with barry bonds is getting into the playoffs most seasons.

[qupte]3. I missed your point about separating Quentin and Jackson from Young in your comparison. However, I don't see how Upton fits into this discussion because he hasn't even played a major league game yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

because he's so young, destroying double-a at said young age, and enough scouts say he has once-in-a-generation tools that are now translating to the diamond to make me believe that it would be foolish to say upton doesn't have a great chance to be a star player. his genes help, too.

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't see how a roster full of above average players wins 88-90 games while the hypothetical team of stars is good for 95 wins. 2 teams with such disproportionate levels of talent would be separated by a wider margin. Closer to 15 games I would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never mentioned a hypothetical team of stars because that is obviously completely unfeasible and not worth a hypothetical.

[ QUOTE ]
4. While you may not believe that the D-Backs prospects current performances are indicative of their future performance, you stated otherwise at the beginning. Hence the "confusion" on my part at you contradicting your own statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

i said "guys like quentin and jackson seem to basically be solid, above average regs." the word "seem" gives me my margin of error that implies it's obviously not a set cause; it's also unreasonable to expect me to word out every single post in such minute detail so no one can ever misinterpret me; i assume semi-intelligent posters to have a modicum of common sense and to not immediately jump to the worst conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
5. Now you are doing it too. I never said that you had to be a "sabermetric elitist" to use sabermetrics. I found it rather amusing that you use that blanket statement to insult the general population of this forum, then fall back on the same metrics that they use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said you said you had to be a sabermetric elitist to use sabermetrics. (see, i can play this game too.) i was combating fire with fire. (i told you my post was a pissing contest.) obviously you know that the fact that i use sabermetric stats to help me evaluate players doesn't mean in the slightest that i can't criticize other people who use sabermetric stats as well, but simply project their opinion in the form of a jackass. it's totally irrelevant and you know that.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly - "Slightly above average" was not your choice of words, it was someone else's. You said "above average", and there is a difference between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

without properly attributing the quote to someone else, it is natural for me to assume you were giving me "credit" for that statement since your whole post was a total dissection of my argument.

[ QUOTE ]
So let me see if I understand you now. You think the current core of the D-Backs roster is solid, but you question if any of the current talent is of sufficient level to be considered elite or superstar level. Sort of like the mid to late 80's Reds; a perrenial 2nd place team.

[/ QUOTE ]

basically the thought entering the season was that the d-backs were loaded with a ton of amazing prospects, more than a couple of which would be star level, and they would start ascending to that level beginnign this year. but due to their performance, or lack of performance, this season, we should be forced to reanalyze whether that was a proper assumption, and when you do that and put more of their numbers in context and in a new light, there is a probability we overrated the d-backs' future prospects by (and i'm throwing out a number out of my ass just to give you an idea), say, 10%. it's easy to forget that the entire d-backs' system are massive hitting parks, including the major league level, which likely contributed to the oversized expectations that, with the benefit of hindsight, we are in a better position to see.

and, though it was unstated (i figured it was a bit much to cram all into one post and that people would be able to partially figure it out), an 88-90 consistent team in absolute terms would be hurt by the pads / dodgers, who seem to be capable of maintaining that same sort of level for the next couple of years as well.

[EvanJC]

[ QUOTE ]
now that they have jason KENDALL they are elite

[/ QUOTE ]

you're enjoying this far too much

[kyleb]

oh yes

[slothinator]

Reup,

I also thought that the D-Backs would be better talent wise (their record belies their current performance). I think too many people over estimated how good some of these guys were going to be-myself among them.

You mentioned Quentin, and it has been apparent for some time that Jackson is going to be a right handed Mark Grace at best-not the HR stud he was hyped to be. Drew's AA and AAA numbers weren't otherworldly, and Young's K and BA numbers in the minors don't foretell of great things to come. So while these four may not be the future all-stars that they were hyped to be, they could definitely form the core of a good team.

Obviously, that lineup is going to need those one or two upper level hitters that can produce offensively if this is going to be a playoff team as opposed to a team that just contends. Upton may prove to be such a player, and he has looked great so far. Most likely, that "one great player" is going to come from outside of the organization.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
now that they have jason KENDALL they are elite

[/ QUOTE ]

I've changed Chicago teams after this trade. Kendall wins, period.

[Pudge714]

I have a feeling that reading Reups posts will make my borderline retarded. So I haven't tried, but consider that "stars" are usually made because of championships for better or worse.

[Quinn Warren]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I suppose I should have clarified. The Chicago Cubs are one of the top 5 teams in baseball RIGHT NOW. Looking at their run differential, they aren't that far back overall, either.

I do believe they will win 95+ games. I am drunk, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...the Cardinals looked like the best team today if you want to play fun with restricting sample sizes

what odds do you want on 95+ wins?

I'll give you 5 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

Still offering? I'll take it.