|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 1, 2013 11:17:51 GMT -5
So you're saying we should continue to be the police of the world? How is this financially feasible when this country is economically broke? We have too many problems of our own to get involved in a civil war over there. And you know what will happen when Assad is deposed? The government that takes his place will be just as bad and despite our aid will still hate us. The people that we are helping will hate us even more, because any military strike guarantees the loss of women and children. And even if we didn't kill a single innocent by some miracle, the govt and terrorists will doctor up photos to "prove" what we did. We can't win over there, we need to let it alone. Nukes are a different problem though. We can't stand idly by and watch them get developed, but at this point that's not what's happening over there.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 12:15:50 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 1, 2013 12:15:50 GMT -5
It's good to see you taking the Republican stance on this topic and going against the administration you voted for, Mark. Do you think Obama mislead you? Would you have voted differently now?
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 1, 2013 13:43:27 GMT -5
No, Obama hasn't done enough wrong for me to change my vote. This is one issue we disagree on. As for the Republican stance, do they really have one? It seems to me the Republicans just oppose everything the President does. Let's not forget that it was the Republicans talking tough about North Korea and Iran during the campaign, not Obama. If Obama had come out against military action, I have no doubt they would be demanding a full scale war.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 14:12:49 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 1, 2013 14:12:49 GMT -5
It's what's happening in Iran, and in North Korea, and in Pakistan. and it's all conncected to what's happenng in Syria.This is a problem that's eventually going to have to be dealt with. The perception of the US and especially Obama as weak is only going to exacerbate the problem and embolden other countries to go against us. I think Obama's problem is that his job goes against his ideology and conscience. Obama thinks America is too powerful and that the world would be better served if we were just another country. Therefore he has trouble using America's military might and exerting our authority. He also seems to have alot of trouble thinking of Muslims as the enemy. He so wants to think we can negotiate with these people and make them our friends. He tries so hard to do this that he sacrifices America's values and principles to mollify the Muslims. Barack seems to think that if he wants it to be so, it is so. Unfortunately, our enemies view him as a weak, cowardly joke who's words mean nothing. I said I agreed with you on the "world's policeman" thing. We can no longer afford to do that, and there are just too many fires to put out. But it's also hard to go back on your word to your allies, or threats you've made to your enemies, and still maintain credibility. I also agree with you that dealing with these people is a no win situation. It would be nice if we could just build the XL pipeline, become less dependent on foreign oil, and tell the mideast that they're on their own, but we can't do that. There will come a time when they go after us, as they have done and attempted to do many times before, so we have to keep the situation over there tamped down. I think it would be smarter if we realized that these guys are our enemies, and that this is a situation that is probably going to be never-ending. There's no negotiating with them, no solving the problem by diplomatic means, no trying to make these people happy, or make them our friends. It's just not going to happen. Time is coming, and soon, where we're going to have to take some kind of drastic military action to defend our homeland, and I don't believe Obama has the stomach or the spine for it. What's more, he's surrounded himself with incompetent academics who have no real idea about how things work or how to get things done. They all hate the military, and are naive enough to think you can negotiate with Muslim extremists.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 14:32:15 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 1, 2013 14:32:15 GMT -5
Rx- No, Obama hasn't done enough wrong for me to change my vote.
Boagie- Do you like the gas prices, unemployment rate, being involved in multiple wars? These were the main talking points against Bush and now they're WORSE under Obama. And here you are accusing others for just following the party lines. I find it laughable.
It's quite clear that the prominent Democrats are for bombing Syria. Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi and Reed have expressed their approval of striking asap. So where is the opposition? Boehner and McConnell warned against it. Rand Paul has been 100% against it. McCain of course is for it as is King. So there are some republicans for it as I'm sure there are some Democrats against it, but the main opposition to going in now without considering it is led mainly by the prominent Republicans, while the prominent Democrats are in full support of Obama even if it contridicts what they said the day before ( like in Kerry's case.) So Yea, I would say your opinion is more in line with the prominent Republicans.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 14:49:54 GMT -5
Post by dk on Sept 1, 2013 14:49:54 GMT -5
It's what's happening in Iran, and in North Korea, and in Pakistan. and it's all conncected to what's happenng in Syria.This is a problem that's eventually going to have to be dealt with. The perception of the US and especially Obama as weak is only going to exacerbate the problem and embolden other countries to go against us. I think Obama's problem is that his job goes against his ideology and conscience. Obama thinks America is too powerful and that the world would be better served if we were just another country. Therefore he has trouble using America's military might and exerting our authority. He also seems to have alot of trouble thinking of Muslims as the enemy. He so wants to think we can negotiate with these people and make them our friends. He tries so hard to do this that he sacrifices America's values and principles to mollify the Muslims. Barack seems to think that if he wants it to be so, it is so. Unfortunately, our enemies view him as a weak, cowardly joke who's words mean nothing. I said I agreed with you on the "world's policeman" thing. We can no longer afford to do that, and there are just too many fires to put out. But it's also hard to go back on your word to your allies, or threats you've made to your enemies, and still maintain credibility. I also agree with you that dealing with these people is a no win situation. It would be nice if we could just build the XL pipeline, become less dependent on foreign oil, and tell the mideast that they're on their own, but we can't do that. There will come a time when they go after us, as they have done and attempted to do many times before, so we have to keep the situation over there tamped down. I think it would be smarter if we realized that these guys are our enemies, and that this is a situation that is probably going to be never-ending. There's no negotiating with them, no solving the problem by diplomatic means, no trying to make these people happy, or make them our friends. It's just not going to happen. Time is coming, and soon, where we're going to have to take some kind of drastic military action to defend our homeland, and I don't believe Obama has the stomach or the spine for it. What's more, he's surrounded himself with incompetent academics who have no real idea about how things work or how to get things done. They all hate the military, and are naive enough to think you can negotiate with Muslim extremists. dk your words echo the pathetic ramblings of the tea party wing nuts who smear the heck of the President no matter what he does...when they bombed Libya, they hollered "no boots on the ground" and then cried when they couldn't protect all our citizens in that country.Now they want to invade a larger, better armed country ....the pipe line is for Canadian oil to be exported out of our country...just pollute our water...we now export more oil than we import...just who is going to invade us, give us a heads up as you seem to be all knowing...better start taxing the rich so we can arm up...and restart the draft so we have plenty of troops....
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 1, 2013 18:06:53 GMT -5
Muslims aren't the enemy, they are our friends, Allen. Terrorism is the enemy, not Muslims. All the Muslims I know, (and I know a lot) are just like us and they love our country. All religions have nutty extremists among them, and I'll admit the Muslims have more than others. Bombing them will just make more of them enemies, and justifiably so. As for Boagie, you of course know that all those problems you mentioned started when Bush was President, and Obama has improved virtually all the numbers, although not as quickly as his supporters would have hoped. However, the lack of progress is mostly due to the lack of cooperation coming from the Republican Party. If I were a Republican, instead of blocking everything he tries to do, if I really thought this guy's policies were so bad, I would happily pass them, and then when it fails it would be an easy path to the White House in four years. However the Republicans are so afraid that Obama will fix everything ensuring a Democratic presidency for the next decade at least, they fight him on everything. Too bad they're fooling nobody and heading down a dangerous path to destruction. Democrats will be running this country for a long time.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 18:22:01 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 1, 2013 18:22:01 GMT -5
It's quite clear that the prominent Democrats are for bombing Syria. Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi and Reed have expressed their approval of striking asap. So where is the opposition? Boehner and McConnell warned against it. Rand Paul has been 100% against it. McCain of course is for it as is King. So there are some republicans for it as I'm sure there are some Democrats against it, but the main opposition to going in now without considering it is led mainly by the prominent Republicans, while the prominent Democrats are in full support of Obama even if it contridicts what they said the day before ( like in Kerry's case.) So Yea, I would say your opinion is more in line with the prominent Republicans.
Allen- I don't think the split on this thing is going to be along party lines. There are people who will vote yes. There are people that will vote no because they don't want us involved in another war, and there are people who will vote no because they think that what Obama is planning isn't enough. I think that's kind of where I fall. After all, what's Obama's plan going to accomplish? He's going to hit a few spots, nothing important is going to be damaged, no one responsible is going to be harmed. People drop bombs on that country every day. They may not even notice. It seems like he's doing this just so he can say he did something. Besides that, he's already told them what he's going to do. Now, if he just surprised everyone and did a suprise strike like tonight, and actually struck something or someone of consequence, I think that would go a long way towards restoring his (and the US's) credibility and reputation.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 18:47:02 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 1, 2013 18:47:02 GMT -5
Muslims aren't the enemy, they are our friends, Allen. Terrorism is the enemy, not Muslims. Allen- The people who bombed the WTC in 93, then flew planes into it on 9/11,they were muslims, no? Osama? Muslim, no? The guy who shot up Fort Hood, Muslim, no? Boston Marathon guys. Muslims, no? Etc. etc. etc. I'm sure you know alot of Muslims who you think are nice, but how many do you ever hear speak out against the ones that are terrorists? How many do you see aiding America's fight against terrorism? I'm sure many know of terrorists who are hiding out and waiting for a chance to attack, or know of mosques where terrorism is advocated, how many speak up? As for Boagie, you of course know that all those problems you mentioned started when Bush was President, and Obama has improved virtually all the numbers, although not as quickly as his supporters would have hoped. Allen- Not sure exactly what you're speaking of here. What numbers are those? However, the lack of progress is mostly due to the lack of cooperation coming from the Republican Party. If I were a Republican, instead of blocking everything he tries to do, if I really thought this guy's policies were so bad, I would happily pass them, and then when it fails it would be an easy path to the White House in four years. Allen- Really? That wouldn't be honestly doing your job, would it? It's kind of childish besides. You should vote how you feel. If you think the policy is good for your constituency, vote yes. if not, vote no. Obama's gone after this term anyway. ever the Republicans are so afraid that Obama will fix everything ensuring a Democratic presidency for the next decade at least, they fight him on everything. Too bad they're fooling nobody and heading down a dangerous path to destruction. Democrats will be running this country for a long time. Allen- You're probably right. Liberal Dems don't really seem to put alot of stock in honesty and integrity. It really doesn't seem to matter much to them. They re-elected Obama after all the crap he pulled to get Obamacare passed, and all the lies he told about what was in it and how it would work. They re-elected him after he had broken almost every campaign promise he had made, and told the vilest lies about Romney in an excessively dirty campaign that anyone with any scruples or integrity would have been ashamed of. Now they have Hillary coming up who was a sorry excuse for Secretary of State. Alot of what's going on now in the Mideast is due to her lack of attention to her job. She ran a dept. that was short on integrity and long on waste and unethical behavior by her subordinates. Then she lied about Benghazi, and lied to the faces of the families involved. She'll probably be elected in a landslide. God help us all.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 19:12:03 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 1, 2013 19:12:03 GMT -5
No, Obama hasn't done enough wrong for me to change my vote.
Allen- Seriously?! My God, what would he have to do, shoot your family? What has he done right?
This is one issue we disagree on. As for the Republican stance, do they really have one? It seems to me the Republicans just oppose everything the President does. Let's not forget that it was the Republicans talking tough about North Korea and Iran during the campaign, not Obama.
Allen- During his campaign, Obama never talked about what he had done or what he would do. All he did was badmouth Romney. I agree with you that the Repubs really don't have their stuff together right now. I think that they just can't believe the country was stupid enough to re-elect Barack, and they can't figure out what to do to combat that stupidity.
If Obama had come out against military action, I have no doubt they would be demanding a full scale war.
Allen- Obama's flipped on this thing about five times.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 20:19:02 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 1, 2013 20:19:02 GMT -5
As for Boagie, you of course know that all those problems you mentioned started when Bush was President, and Obama has improved virtually all the numbers, although not as quickly as his supporters would have hoped.
Boagie- Not as quickly? How about not at all? The average gas price was $1.68 per gallon when Obama took office. I don't need to tell you its significantly higher.
We've been involved in MORE wars under Obama. 3 times MORE soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Obama and no end still in sight. We helped the Rebels in Libya defeat Gaddafi hoping for Democratic leadership to take over. All the hopes were dashed when we saw their brand of justice...beating Gaddafi in the street and shooting him in the head. We are not nation building, we're upending leaders and allowing terrorists to take over.
Obama set a record for a president for the most months with the unemoyment rate being over 7.5%. Under Bush the HIGHEST was 7.3. The only reason its dropped in the last year is because people have been out of work so long their unemployment has run out. Businesses are still not hiring because of the stranglehold obamacare has put on American businesses.
You may be right that Bush's economic policies started the problem, but Obama was elected to FIX IT!! Not to continue down the same road. If Obama was a CEO who was hired to save a company, the company would have gone under by now. Obama is out looking for wars while his economic policies are making a mess a larger mess. Bush wasn't looking for wars, the war came to us.
The thing that scares me the most, isn't Obama, or WMDs...the biggest threat to this nation is people that believe Obama is doing a good job are allowed to continue to vote, and can pass their "intellect" onto their children who will vote in the future.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 21:05:21 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Sept 1, 2013 21:05:21 GMT -5
dk...Allen, you have to be dimwitted or a liar if you don't know that the biggest reason we have any problem with jobs, etc. is because the Right is so full of greed they say no to anything Obama proposes...
Dood - Ive heard Obamapologists spew this ridiculous crap for 5 years now. Umm, here's a thought...why not do what REAL leaders do and actually try to work WITH the political opposition instead of telling them to get to the back of the bus? Clinton did it (after dems got bitch slapped in the '94 midterms) and he actually enhanced his credibility and the economy by using the Republican contract ideas (he, of course, took credit for it all himself, but at least he did do it). Bush worked with liberals in Congress too, signing many of their proposals into law. But whoops...that's what caused the big huge debt increase and the recession.
~Dood
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 23:29:53 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 1, 2013 23:29:53 GMT -5
Exactly what has Obama proposed that has worked, or had any chance of working? He's sent two budget5s to the hill. I don't believe either got a vote, Democrat or Republican. His signature legislation, Obamacare, is by all accounts an unbridled disaster. His foreign policy? Well, he doesn't really have one. His hires have all been pretty much a disaster. An AG who's perjuror, a secretary of state who lies to Congress and then lies to the families of dead Americans killed under her watch, Timothey Geithner for crissakes. Five years in and he's still blaming others because his policies are making things worse. Sad.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 2, 2013 12:08:45 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 2, 2013 12:08:45 GMT -5
Allen - Rog, trying to make your point by making denegrating statements about the person you're arguing with only points to the weakness of your argument. Rog -- To me, there is a significant difference between denigrating someone's statements and denigrating the individual. You know I think a lot of you as a person, but sometimes your statements seem to ignore logic -- such as when you said Jonathan Sanchez had a "poor" season in 2009. If he had endured a bad season, his ERA would almost certainly have shown it, which it clearly didn't. It was average, just as I said he was. His won-loss record was poor, but I have shown on many occasions that his poor record wasn't due to poor pitching, but to poor run support. And then there was the time when you said there was no such thing as a two-game game. While this is a very simple concept, the 1965 season provides a clear example of how it works. The Giants finished two games behind the Dodgers. Had they won one more game against any team except the Dodgers, they would still have lost the pennant. But had that one more win come at the Dodgers' expense, the Giants would have had their second playoff series with the Dodgers in four seasons. Clearly a win over any other team was the normal one-game game. But a win over the Dodgers was worth two wins over any other team. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=3#14456#ixzz2dkuMV6mn
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 2, 2013 12:10:39 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 2, 2013 12:10:39 GMT -5
I don't think I'm looking at things conservatively when I say there have been a liberal number of political posts here of late.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 2, 2013 14:10:16 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 2, 2013 14:10:16 GMT -5
Ok, getting back to topic. This year has seen Chad Gaudin and to a lesser extent, Yusmeiro Petit excel in a starting role. Does anyone see these two as being in the rotation next season? Shouldn't they be at least be given a serious shot?
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 2, 2013 14:14:14 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 2, 2013 14:14:14 GMT -5
And then there was the time when you said there was no such thing as a two-game game. While this is a very simple concept, the 1965 season provides a clear example of how it works. The Giants finished two games behind the Dodgers. Had they won one more game against any team except the Dodgers, they would still have lost the pennant. But had that one more win come at the Dodgers' expense, the Giants would have had their second playoff series with the Dodgers in four seasons. Allen- No they wouldn't. They still would have lost the pennant by one game. If you're two games behind a team, and you beat that team, you're still one game behind them. Clearly a win over any other team was the normal one-game game. But a win over the Dodgers was worth two wins over any other team. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=3#14456#ixzz2dkuMV6mn[/quote]
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Goudin
Sept 2, 2013 14:17:31 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Sept 2, 2013 14:17:31 GMT -5
I wouldnt mind seeing both on the staff next year. My preference would be for Petit to start because I just don't trust Chad to be a full time starter for a full season. He's mostly been a bullpen guy in his career and he has mostly excelled at that. He was very good as a starter for us for a limited time period...but seemed to wear down. I don't know if Petit would be any good as a reliever, but we KNOW Gaudin has been good in that role.
~Dood
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 2, 2013 14:21:11 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 2, 2013 14:21:11 GMT -5
He contracted carpal tunnel. He didn't wear down.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 2, 2013 14:28:26 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 2, 2013 14:28:26 GMT -5
Other than his final outing, which was affected by the carpal tunnel, Chad gave up one or zero earned runs in seven of his last eight outings.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 3, 2013 10:41:27 GMT -5
Was it ever determined if Gaudin's carpal tunnel was caused by throwing too many pitches or grabbing too many boobs? Seriously though, as well as Gaudin or Petit have pitched, counting on either as a rotation starter next year is dangerous if you consider yourself a contender. I'd like to start 2014 with five solid starters ready to go. I even have doubts about Vogelsong, but I'd pick up his option at 6.5 million and have him as my number five. I'd attempt to re-sign Timmy, as I've said before, and add one solid number four starter to that, hopefully to a shorter deal, because some damn good arms are coming up the system.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 12:56:05 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 3, 2013 12:56:05 GMT -5
Seriously though, as well as Gaudin or Petit have pitched, counting on either as a rotation starter next year is dangerous if you consider yourself a contender.
Allen- As opposed to say, counting on Zito or Lincecum this year?
I'd like to start 2014 with five solid starters ready to go.
Allen- So would every other team. Unfortunately, that's not always possible, as we've found out this season, and last for that matter. I don't think you would call Timmy's 2012 performance solid.
I even have doubts about Vogelsong, but I'd pick up his option at 6.5 million and have him as my number five.
Allen- Vogey's seemed to find himself over his last few starts. If he is brought back, (and I have little doubt that he will be), he would be higher than #5, especially if Tim is also re-signed.
I'd attempt to re-sign Timmy, as I've said before
Allen- I thought you said you wanted five solid starters. Are you contemplating Timmy in the pen?
, and add one solid number four starter to that, hopefully to a shorter deal, because some damn good arms are coming up the system.
Allen- I'm sure you know the minors better than I. Besides Crick, who else is coming up?
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 13:18:16 GMT -5
Post by dk on Sept 3, 2013 13:18:16 GMT -5
Seriously though, as well as Gaudin or Petit have pitched, counting on either as a rotation starter next year is dangerous if you consider yourself a contender. Allen- As opposed to say, counting on Zito or Lincecum this year? I'd like to start 2014 with five solid starters ready to go. Allen- So would every other team. Unfortunately, that's not always possible, as we've found out this season, and last for that matter. I don't think you would call Timmy's 2012 performance solid. I even have doubts about Vogelsong, but I'd pick up his option at 6.5 million and have him as my number five. Allen- Vogey's seemed to find himself over his last few starts. If he is brought back, (and I have little doubt that he will be), he would be higher than #5, especially if Tim is also re-signed. I'd attempt to re-sign Timmy, as I've said before Allen- I thought you said you wanted five solid starters. Are you contemplating Timmy in the pen? , and add one solid number four starter to that, hopefully to a shorter deal, because some damn good arms are coming up the system. Allen- I'm sure you know the minors better than I. Besides Crick, who else is coming up? dk..Crick pitched all of 14 games, about 65 innings in Class A ball...basically he was a 5 inning pitcher....he is high in potential, but not yet ready....
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 3, 2013 15:47:24 GMT -5
Crick pitched 7 innings in his last start, giving up 0 runs on 2 hits, striking out 11 and walking none. The reason he was a 5 inning pitcher because he tended to walk too many, plus the Giants babied him as he has the best arm in the system. Crick had a 1.57 ERA with 95 strikeouts in 69 innings. That's beyond dominant. The first of the group to arrive will be Edwin Escobar, who started the year at San Jose and then was promoted to Richmond where he was even better. (2.89 at SJ, 2.67 at Richmond) Escobar struck out 146 in 128 innings. Third up will be Clayton Blackburn, who struck out 138 in 133 innings with an ERA a little higher at 3.65, but he started slowly and his ERA over his last ten starts was 2.40. All three are just 20 years old! There's others too, like Kendry Flores, (2.73 ERA) 137 K in 141 innings, Joann Gregorio who had a late season slump due to injury but struck out 84 in 69 innings. Adalberto Mejia, the youngest of the group, (JUST turned 20) 3.31 ERA 89 K in 87 innings, Ty Blach, who led the league in ERA with 2.90 at San Jose ( Crick didn't qualify) and struck out 117 in 130 innings. Finally, you have Chris Stratton who was a number one pick, and struck out 123 in 132 innings with a 3.27 ERA. It's too much to start listing the rookie leagues too, but suffice it to say that we had kids who were second and third in the league in ERA there. That's a lot of arms. There's bullpen arms coming too, but I'll save that for another time!
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 16:20:04 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Sept 3, 2013 16:20:04 GMT -5
Of course as you have been telling us for months now, Single A stats mean nothing until they are repeated in AA and AAA
~Dood
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 16:38:49 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 3, 2013 16:38:49 GMT -5
Ok, getting back to topic. This year has seen Chad Gaudin and to a lesser extent, Yusmeiro Petit excel in a starting role. Does anyone see these two as being in the rotation next season? Shouldn't they be at least be given a serious shot?
--boly says---
Allen, I, for one, think they merit a look in ST. Petit has had a smaller sampling, but as Kruk and Kuip and others have said, teams have been waiting for him to gain command for some time.
They like his stuff.
As to Gaudin... Yeah, he did well, but he has a history of, well, not...
Then again, Vogey 'got it' late.
I'd give them both a long, long look for the # 5 spot next year.
boly
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 17:02:31 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 3, 2013 17:02:31 GMT -5
Depending on his recovery from carpal tunnel, I would give Chad the fifth starter job until he proves he can't do it. CT can be a tricky thing.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 17:06:30 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 3, 2013 17:06:30 GMT -5
Of course as you have been telling us for months now, Single A stats mean nothing until they are repeated in AA and AAA Allen- C'mon Randy. Say Crick gets to Fresno, and does poorly. Say he has a losing record and his ERA is in the fives. Do you still promote him to the bigs?
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 17:54:05 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 3, 2013 17:54:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 18:00:30 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 3, 2013 18:00:30 GMT -5
Rog -- And then there was the time when you said there was no such thing as a two-game game. While this is a very simple concept, the 1965 season provides a clear example of how it works. The Giants finished two games behind the Dodgers. Had they won one more game against any team except the Dodgers, they would still have lost the pennant. But had that one more win come at the Dodgers' expense, the Giants would have had their second playoff series with the Dodgers in four seasons. Allen- No they wouldn't. They still would have lost the pennant by one game. If you're two games behind a team, and you beat that team, you're still one game behind them. Rog -- What you say about the Giants winning a new game over the Dodgers is fully correct. They would then be a game behind the Dodgers (as opposed to being three games out if they lost). But the statement was that had the Giants' extra win COME -- past tense -- over the Dodgers, the two teams would have tied. And that, my dear Allen, is why a game against one's competitor is a two-game game. In my example, the Giants would have been tied instead of losing out by two games. In your example, the Giants would still have lost by a game, BUT WOULD HAVE LOST THREE GAMES HAD THEY LOST THE ADDED GAME. In both cases, the difference between winning over one's competitor and losing to them is two games. (That's EITHER no games behind compared to 2 GB, OR 1 GB compared to 3 GB. I realize it seems an oxymoron for there to be a two-game game, but when it is between the two teams in the comparison, it is indeed the case. Ler's suppose the Giants play the Dodgers to open the season. If the Giants win the game, they are one game ahead; if they lose it, they are one game behind. If that isn't a two-game swing, I have no clue what is. The last I looked, 1 - (-1) = 2. You are perhaps referring to the next math? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=4#ixzz2dsCB7Cia
|
|