Red Mosquito

Nelly is very streaky. Somebody will still overpay for him.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Kaius wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Kaius wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Kaius wrote:And stopped STL from taking 4 out of 10.

No, had they won in 2013 it would have been 3 in 10 for them.

04-06-11-13
I'm counting both times they lost to the Sox.
That's within 10 seasons.

Hence, fuck the Red Sox.

Cardinals fans are adorable.

I'll show you adorable.

Who's a good baseball fan?! You're a good baseball fan!

Legit spit my Diet Coke out hahahaha

I have a lot of friends who are Cardinal friends. They are all over Nebraska. Some are fine but some make me want to pull what hair I have left off. Very full of themselves.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Kaius wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote: Easy to say when you've won the World Series twice the last 8 years haha.

Fucking Red Sox.

Thrice in the last 10.

Four in the last 96!

Congrats on this guy getting his number retired yesterday!

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Kaius wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote: Easy to say when you've won the World Series twice the last 8 years haha.

Fucking Red Sox.

Thrice in the last 10.

Four in the last 96!

As a Ranger fan if I have to wait another 24 years for a ring so be it. As long as they get ONE in my lifetime.

Look up Hisashi Iwakuma's stats. Just do it.

Bammer wrote:Look up Hisashi Iwakuma's stats. Just do it.

He's very good at throwing baseballs.

philpritchard wrote:

Bammer wrote:Look up Hisashi Iwakuma's stats. Just do it.

He's very good at throwing baseballs.

I've noticed he's much better at throwing baseballs than covering first base.

So, uh, Giancarlo Stanton.

4/5 wrote:So, uh, Giancarlo Stanton.

He's really gonna make the MVP voters think long and hard about their informal "Have to make the playoffs" policy.

Haha just kidding, MVP voters don't think!

philpritchard wrote:

4/5 wrote:So, uh, Giancarlo Stanton.

He's really gonna make the MVP voters think long and hard about their informal "Have to make the playoffs" policy.

Haha just kidding, MVP voters don't think!

Miggy will still probably win the AL MVP this year, because that's what they do.

I'm not really that opposed to the MVP needing to be on a good team thing.

My friends and I have been working on this project where we have gone back like the last 20 years and look at MVP and Cy Young winners and see if the right guy won. The 2003 season was baffling to me in the AL. As great as ARod was in 2003 the Rangers were sooooo bad. You can really make a case for Delgado, Posada or even Nomar that year.

Bammer wrote:I am pulling for the Cards on the chance they will have a home playoff game on 10/2 and I will see about scalping a ticket since I have never been to Busch stadium.

By the way anyone have a guess on what the "get in the door" price for that would be? My team hasn't been to the playoffs for a really long time.

My guess is less than $500.

numbers wrote:I'm not really that opposed to the MVP needing to be on a good team thing.

It's an individual award, not a team award. If the issue is that a player on a losing team can't have the same "Value" as a player on a winning team, then we should automatically discount players whose team wins the division by a huge margin, right? If the team would have made the playoffs without them, they can't have been that valuable.

I read an article last year that I can't find right now with the basic premise that if we're going to only include players on winning teams we should only look at their stats in games the team won. Any value they provided in losses didn't matter because of the end result, so it shouldn't count.

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:I'm not really that opposed to the MVP needing to be on a good team thing.

It's an individual award, not a team award. If the issue is that a player on a losing team can't have the same "Value" as a player on a winning team, then we should automatically discount players whose team wins the division by a huge margin, right? If the team would have made the playoffs without them, they can't have been that valuable.

I read an article last year that I can't find right now with the basic premise that if we're going to only include players on winning teams we should only look at their stats in games the team won. Any value they provided in losses didn't matter because of the end result, so it shouldn't count.

I'm just curious what you think of the Heisman? Does it lose some luster if it goes to a guy on a 5-7 team?

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:I'm not really that opposed to the MVP needing to be on a good team thing.

It's an individual award, not a team award. If the issue is that a player on a losing team can't have the same "Value" as a player on a winning team, then we should automatically discount players whose team wins the division by a huge margin, right? If the team would have made the playoffs without them, they can't have been that valuable.

I read an article last year that I can't find right now with the basic premise that if we're going to only include players on winning teams we should only look at their stats in games the team won. Any value they provided in losses didn't matter because of the end result, so it shouldn't count.

I'm just curious what you think of the Heisman? Does it lose some luster if it goes to a guy on a 5-7 team?

I know nothing about football in general and I couldn't imagine caring less about college football.

4/5 wrote:So, uh, Giancarlo Stanton.

"Mike"?

philpritchard wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:I'm not really that opposed to the MVP needing to be on a good team thing.

It's an individual award, not a team award. If the issue is that a player on a losing team can't have the same "Value" as a player on a winning team, then we should automatically discount players whose team wins the division by a huge margin, right? If the team would have made the playoffs without them, they can't have been that valuable.

I read an article last year that I can't find right now with the basic premise that if we're going to only include players on winning teams we should only look at their stats in games the team won. Any value they provided in losses didn't matter because of the end result, so it shouldn't count.

I'm just curious what you think of the Heisman? Does it lose some luster if it goes to a guy on a 5-7 team?

I know nothing about football in general and I couldn't imagine caring less about college football.

I understand that but if a guy has great stats and his teams lose 100 games and a similar guy has stats almost as goods but his team wins 95 games? Got to go with the guy who's playing meaningful games.

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:I'm not really that opposed to the MVP needing to be on a good team thing.

It's an individual award, not a team award. If the issue is that a player on a losing team can't have the same "Value" as a player on a winning team, then we should automatically discount players whose team wins the division by a huge margin, right? If the team would have made the playoffs without them, they can't have been that valuable.

I read an article last year that I can't find right now with the basic premise that if we're going to only include players on winning teams we should only look at their stats in games the team won. Any value they provided in losses didn't matter because of the end result, so it shouldn't count.

I'm just curious what you think of the Heisman? Does it lose some luster if it goes to a guy on a 5-7 team?

I know nothing about football in general and I couldn't imagine caring less about college football.

I understand that but if a guy has great stats and his teams lose 100 games and a similar guy has stats almost as goods but his team wins 95 games? Got to go with the guy who's playing meaningful games.

Why? Again, it's an individual award. Why should quality of teammates factor into it?

I dont have a problem with giving the award to someone from a bad team if they were far and away better than everyone else, but if it comes down to two guys that are pretty close and one of them is on a good team and one is on a bad team, I couldnt imagine giving it to the guy on the bad team just because his stats are a little bit better.