Putz - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Injuries & Player Updates

Putz

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Putz

Postby jackie hayes » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:44 pm

wildbill wrote:
jackie hayes wrote:Let me start with your claim that I'm "putting words in your mouth." You said, "he might get 15 to at the most 20 saves if he stayed healthy too". Do you know the meaning of "at the most"? You did not say he'd "probably" get fewer than 20 saves, you did not say you "don't expect" him to get 20 saves or more, you did not say it was "a longshot" that he got 20 saves or more. You said, "at the most 20 saves". How about you actually look at what you wrote before you claim you're being misrepresented?

Once again you're trying to distort the facts of the situation by selectively leaving out a lot of the facts. You said, "You claimed that it was not even imaginable that Morrow would get more than 20 saves going forward." You are addressing only 1 of my posts with that statement while conviently ignoring all my other posts. I'm sure the reason you did that was because if you factor in my other posts you'd have no choice but to admit you are wrong for making such a claim. The alternative to you selectively rewriting history is that you failed to read my other posts, including those before the post you're selectively addressing, and are reposnding without first finding out all the facts of what I said. If you look at my posts collectively there's no reasonable way to conclude the meaning of what I said is what you say it is. I had used the word "probably" in a post prior to the post giving numbers and factoring in the context of that prior post the logical conclusion is that when I said at most 20 I was giving my best guess within the context of "probably." So yes you are putting words in my mouth.

jackie hayes wrote:Second, on the statistics, I actually know statistics very well, thank you

You certainly haven't said much to demonstrate that. You honestly think 40% is not enough of a sample size to produce any probablities? Wow, I'm stuned. So all the predictions experts are making for the rest of the season, for all sorts of things, are meaningless? I suppose you think there's still a good possiblity Seattle could still face Washington in the world series this year?

jackie hayes wrote:But cut out this personal insult crap..........you're just stupid

Funny how you want to b1tch about something then go and do it yourself. Furthermore you're accusing me of something I didn't even do, while doing it yourself. I went back and quickly scanned my posts replying to you and all I noticed that I said that could remotely be considered personal was you lacked an understanting of statistics. You weren't saying anything to suggest otherwise and it's hardly anything like calling your mama fat or anything remotely close to that, which is what a normal person thinks of as a personal attack. BTW, the only "evidence" you've supplied are based on significantly smaller sample sizes (20 something games) then I've used.

Holy crap -- that is all such a load of bs. I'm only going to respond to the last part. The "you're just stupid" is OBVIOUSLY not directed at you. I'm stunned that you would even try such a hack job on my quote to convince people that I said anything even remotely close to that.

Anyone reading this, read my actual posts to see what I said, not this laughable copy/paste garbage. bill, I don't deal with out-and-out liars. I'm done with you.
jackie hayes
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

Cafeholic
Posts: 2069
(Past Year: 70)
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Putz

Postby jackie hayes » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:51 pm

BALCO All-Stars wrote:So, now that this thread has deteriorated into a SV vs W thread I want to steer it back to the original idea and that is Putz and the Seattle closer situation, I read somewhere that the Seattle mgr was quoted saying a CBS with Batista...thoughts?

CBS = CBC? What's the S?

If Seattle goes with a true CBC, I may hold onto Morrow until Putz comes back strong or someone establishes himself as the clear choice. Even though Putz got a good diagnosis, I want to see him throw like the Putz of 2007 before I'm convinced. Nerve irritation can linger/recur, so he's not out of the woods yet.
jackie hayes
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

Cafeholic
Posts: 2069
(Past Year: 70)
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Putz

Postby wildbill » Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:45 pm

jackie hayes wrote:Anyone reading this, read my actual posts to see what I said, not this laughable copy/paste garbage. bill, I don't deal with out-and-out liars. I'm done with you.

I did go back and take a closer look at what you said. I did misread it, you didn't call me stupid in that statement. My bad. What threw me was that I missed seeing that you were once again putting words in my mouth by saying I called you stupid. Obviously that's not true, but falsely attributing that to me makes you sound better because it makes you look like a victim. That's a classic defense mechanism that people use when they can't figure out a way to win a debate when facts aren't on their side...trying to play the poor me emotion card to gain sympathy for their point of view. I basically said you appear to lack an understanding of statistics, which is not the same as calling you stupid. You could have plenty of knowledge on other subjects. Saying someone doesn't know much about a particular subject is in not calling them stupid. No one knows everything about everything.

jackie hayes wrote:Holy crap -- that is all such a load of bs.
Once again, my mistake, you've only now resorted to personal attacks.

Here is where you last put words in my mouth:
"based on one claim ('60-some games is enough to make any prediction..........."

I never used the word prediction, or (since I'm not going back to look) at least not in the context you give it in that statement, I also haven't implied 60+ games is enough for anything beyond this instance. You just keep making this stuff up because you've realized you're wrong and refuse to admit it. Prediction is more final and has more of a tone of certainty. Furthermore I'm only saying that 60 some games, when it represents 40% of the total data, is more then enough to calculate reasonable probabilities in this particular case. The words I actually used were "probable" and "probability." Probability implies a degree of uncertainty, while giving a guess as to the most likely outcome. That you can't distinguish the difference from what you're claiming I said and what I actually said further demonstrations your lack of understanding of statistics and probabilities. That you explain it all away as "BS" without providing any intelligent argument as to why is yet further proof of this. No I don't know if you're stupid. I just don't think you're knowledgeable on this subject. I also think that you still haven't made a counter argument that consisted of more then just new ways of saying I don't know what I'm talking about without intelligently explaining, with evidence, why you think I'm wrong. How many ways are you going to say I'm wrong without providing anything, other then significantly smaller subsets of date, to back up such claims?

I've talked to a couple other people that deal with statistics and probabilities and games played this season to date and the information, wins, saves, team offense, etc associated with those games are the primary data with which to calculate probabilities for the rest of the season. You're essentially claiming that's not correct, yet provide no evidence as to why. What data would you use? Last years games? 2004 data? Past years data, due to offseason changes in personel isn't anywhere near as relevant as current year data. All you've done is claim I'm wrong, falsely claim I called you stupid, and thrown some words from a dictionary around. That's no way to win a debate.
wildbill
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 838
Joined: 7 Jun 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Putz

Postby Kuji » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:05 am

Psst, guys, go make a thread in the Baseball Threads about this, we need some info on JJ, kk?
Kuji
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 761
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Putz

Postby jackie hayes » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:15 am

Kuji wrote:Psst, guys, go make a thread in the Baseball Threads about this, we need some info on JJ, kk?

Like I said, I'm done, I don't deal with people who do ludicrous, self-serving cut-and-paste jobs. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
jackie hayes
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

Cafeholic
Posts: 2069
(Past Year: 70)
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Putz

Postby PavanoAllstars » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:51 am

sounds like the mariners are going to be very conservative with his recovery and rehab this time... they more or less conceded they rushed him back last time... here's to hoping he comes back 100% next time so he doesn't ruin our stats...
For every Brett Myers there's a Nate McLouth...
PavanoAllstars
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1033
Joined: 20 May 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Putz

Postby wildbill » Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:24 pm

jackie hayes wrote:
Kuji wrote:Psst, guys, go make a thread in the Baseball Threads about this, we need some info on JJ, kk?

Like I said, I'm done, I don't deal with people who do ludicrous, self-serving cut-and-paste jobs. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

how do you get through life without dealing with yourself?
wildbill
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 838
Joined: 7 Jun 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Putz

Postby thatguy27 » Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:33 pm

wildbill wrote:
jackie hayes wrote:Anyone reading this, read my actual posts to see what I said, not this laughable copy/paste garbage. bill, I don't deal with out-and-out liars. I'm done with you.

I did go back and take a closer look at what you said. I did misread it, you didn't call me stupid in that statement. My bad. What threw me was that I missed seeing that you were once again putting words in my mouth by saying I called you stupid. Obviously that's not true, but falsely attributing that to me makes you sound better because it makes you look like a victim. That's a classic defense mechanism that people use when they can't figure out a way to win a debate when facts aren't on their side...trying to play the poor me emotion card to gain sympathy for their point of view. I basically said you appear to lack an understanding of statistics, which is not the same as calling you stupid. You could have plenty of knowledge on other subjects. Saying someone doesn't know much about a particular subject is in not calling them stupid. No one knows everything about everything.

jackie hayes wrote:Holy crap -- that is all such a load of bs.
Once again, my mistake, you've only now resorted to personal attacks.

Here is where you last put words in my mouth:
"based on one claim ('60-some games is enough to make any prediction..........."

I never used the word prediction, or (since I'm not going back to look) at least not in the context you give it in that statement, I also haven't implied 60+ games is enough for anything beyond this instance. You just keep making this stuff up because you've realized you're wrong and refuse to admit it. Prediction is more final and has more of a tone of certainty. Furthermore I'm only saying that 60 some games, when it represents 40% of the total data, is more then enough to calculate reasonable probabilities in this particular case. The words I actually used were "probable" and "probability." Probability implies a degree of uncertainty, while giving a guess as to the most likely outcome. That you can't distinguish the difference from what you're claiming I said and what I actually said further demonstrations your lack of understanding of statistics and probabilities. That you explain it all away as "BS" without providing any intelligent argument as to why is yet further proof of this. No I don't know if you're stupid. I just don't think you're knowledgeable on this subject. I also think that you still haven't made a counter argument that consisted of more then just new ways of saying I don't know what I'm talking about without intelligently explaining, with evidence, why you think I'm wrong. How many ways are you going to say I'm wrong without providing anything, other then significantly smaller subsets of date, to back up such claims?

I've talked to a couple other people that deal with statistics and probabilities and games played this season to date and the information, wins, saves, team offense, etc associated with those games are the primary data with which to calculate probabilities for the rest of the season. You're essentially claiming that's not correct, yet provide no evidence as to why. What data would you use? Last years games? 2004 data? Past years data, due to offseason changes in personel isn't anywhere near as relevant as current year data. All you've done is claim I'm wrong, falsely claim I called you stupid, and thrown some words from a dictionary around. That's no way to win a debate.


I hate to break it to you but judging from the few posts in this thread it is abundantly clear that jackie hayes' knowledge of prob and stats is far greater than yours.
thatguy27
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 777
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Colorado

Re: Putz

Postby wildbill » Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:58 pm

thatguy27 wrote:I hate to break it to you but judging from the few posts in this thread it is abundantly clear that jackie hayes' knowledge of prob and stats is far greater than yours.

Considering all he did was throw out a few words and no meaningful data, while repeatidly twisting around what I said to serve his own purposes, and you've said nothing to prove you have any qualifications for commenting you seem to just be a member of the peanut gallery that won't let this thread go away. I was perfectly willing to let it die and wouldn't have bothered to respond if not for some actual new stuff from ESPN. I saw this earlier, but wasn't going to be the one to stir things up again so congrats on that.

Anyway, since you decided to raise this topic from the dead, here's a quote from the fantasy baseball chat on ESPN today from one of their experts:
Dan (Philadelphia, PA): Who gets more saves for the M's..Putz or Morrow?

AJ Mass: I still say Putz... mainly because those wins are few and far between and Morrow won't have a heck of a lot of chances to build up that total while Putz is hurt.

Maybe you should go yell at them too since they're basically saying the same things I am. Sounds a lot like they're not expecting a lot of save chances in Seattle. I guess the experts are wrong too? Maybe you and Jackie should go take their jobs.
wildbill
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 838
Joined: 7 Jun 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Putz

Postby PavanoAllstars » Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:14 pm

is there an expected time table for JJ's return? I'm considering dropping him given the uncertainties of the injury and the lack of save opps in seatle if and when he comes back
For every Brett Myers there's a Nate McLouth...
PavanoAllstars
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1033
Joined: 20 May 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Injuries & Player Updates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Sep. 19
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

LA Dodgers at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Boston at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Toronto at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Chi White Sox at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
NY Mets at Atlanta
(7:35 pm)
Cleveland at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Detroit at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Seattle at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Arizona at Colorado
(8:10 pm)
Cincinnati at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Philadelphia at Oakland
(9:35 pm)
Texas at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact