SportsAndLady;1455514 wrote:So was I. Butthurt coa obviously wasn't though.

terry has a history of being a slight troll. Guess because he's all christian though and played golf with justin once he should get away it.:rolleyes:

Just reminding him that every team makes bone head trades.

lhslep134;1455511 wrote:LOL

Explain why Santana is so much better. This should be fantastic.

se-alum;1455519 wrote:Explain why Santana is so much better. This should be fantastic.

Can't wait for the Ihslep smack down, but I already know you're going to either: Igore the advanced stats (which you kind of already have)/not understand them or make an idiotic sarcastic remark about his 57 games this season.

Commander of Awesome;1455520 wrote:Can't wait for the Ihslep smack down, but I already know you're going to either: Igore the advanced stats (which you kind of already have)/not understand them or make an idiotic sarcastic remark about his 57 games this season.

Or maybe I'll try to be funny by bringing up something totally irrelevant to what I was trying to make fun of??

Commander of Awesome;1455516 wrote:terry has a history of being a slight troll. Guess because he's all christian though and played golf with justin once he should get away it.:rolleyes:

Just reminding him that every team makes bone head trades.

Hey, I played golf with Justin twice.

And I was just referring to Reds fans taking their guy and Indians fans taking their guy then both sides defending it to their death. Had nothing to do with trades and no idea how that was any kind of trolling.

se-alum;1455525 wrote:Or maybe I'll try to be funny by bringing up something totally irrelevant to what I was trying to make fun of??

Like adding your little spiel about carrying 2 catchers?

Commander of Awesome;1455532 wrote:Like adding your little spiel about carrying 2 catchers?

Yea that or maybe bringing up random trades.

se-alum;1455536 wrote:Yea that or maybe bringing up random trades.

Swing and a miss.

I'll take Gomes over all of them.

Commander of Awesome;1455539 wrote:Swing and a miss.

Neg'd for lack of originality.

Commander of Awesome;1455520 wrote:Can't wait for the Ihslep smack down, but I already know you're going to either: Igore the advanced stats (which you kind of already have)/not understand them or make an idiotic sarcastic remark about his 57 games this season.

You're a fucking dick dude. Nowhere in Terry's response was he even slightly trolling.

SportsAndLady;1455547 wrote:You're a fucking dick dude.

What a mean thing to say.

se-alum;1455519 wrote:Explain why Santana is so much better. This should be fantastic.

Why do you need me to repeat myself? Since you asked, I'll recap with bullet points to simplify:

1. AZ wanted Hanigan for defense.

2. Hanigan is better than Santana on defense

3. Gomes is at the very least as good (if not better) on defense, and the advanced metrics can be found in my earlier post.

4. Gomes is better offensively than Hanigan by a long shot this year (yes, smaller sample size, but it's June already)

5. In a vacuum, you take the player who comes out on top in the zero sum game. (ie Santana's worth on offense over Hanigan > Hanigan's worth on defense over Santana). The proof is right here: Santana 11.8 batting vs. Hanigan -6.9 (difference of 18.7)....Hanigan defense (fielding + positional) 4.2 vs. Santana -2.4 (difference of 6.6).

6. WAR...Santana 1.7 Hanigan 0.0

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2396&position=C
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4952&position=C


Explanations for what the various numbers mean can be found on the Fangraph site, I'm not going to summarize for you.

Now please, stop with this stupid f*cking nonsense about Hanigan.

lhslep134;1455561 wrote:Why do you need me to repeat myself? Since you asked, I'll recap with bullet points to simplify:

1. AZ wanted Hanigan for defense.

2. Hanigan is better than Santana on defense

3. Gomes is at the very least as good (if not better) on defense, and the advanced metrics can be found in my earlier post.

4. Gomes is better offensively than Hanigan by a long shot this year (yes, smaller sample size, but it's June already)

5. In a vacuum, you take the player who comes out on top in the zero sum game. (ie Santana's worth on offense over Hanigan > Hanigan's worth on defense over Santana). The proof is right here: Santana 11.8 batting vs. Hanigan -6.9 (difference of 18.7)....Hanigan defense (fielding + positional) 4.2 vs. Santana -2.4 (difference of 6.6).

6. WAR...Santana 1.7 Hanigan 0.0

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2396&position=C
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4952&position=C


Explanations for what the various numbers mean can be found on the Fangraph site, I'm not going to summarize for you.

Now please, stop with this stupid f*cking nonsense about Hanigan.

Gotcha. Catcher argument is over.

Also, Zach McAllister would be the only Indians starter in the rotation.

se-alum;1455564 wrote:Gotcha. Catcher argument is over.

Also, Zach McAllister would be the only Indians starter in the rotation.

Yup, proven wrong once again. Not even humble to admit your fail.

se-alum;1455564 wrote:Gotcha. Catcher argument is over.

Also, Zach McAllister would be the only Indians starter in the rotation.

LOL

se-alum;1455564 wrote:Gotcha. Catcher argument is over.

Also, Zach McAllister would be the only Indians starter in the rotation.

Only over Bronson I'm guessing?

I'm just wondering if lep flexed in the mirror And blew a kiss to himself after posting his fancy saber matrics.

se-alum;1455564 wrote:Gotcha. Catcher argument is over.

Also, Zach McAllister would be the only Indians starter in the rotation.

LOL at being butthurt because you were worked.

like_that;1455572 wrote:LOL at being butthurt because you were worked.

I watch hanigan play, so he is obviously better /SE

Terry_Tate;1455568 wrote:Only over Bronson I'm guessing?

Nope, just Bailey. Cueto, Latos, Leake, and Arroyo all have better numbers than any of the Indians starters.

Commander of Awesome;1455565 wrote:Yup, proven wrong once again. Not even humble to admit your fail.

I conceded the catcher argument. Let me try this....butthurt comprehensionlolfail.

se-alum;1455576 wrote:Nope, just Bailey. Cueto, Latos, Leake, and Arroyo all have better numbers than any of the Indians starters.

Have them play in the AL where there isn't a free out every 9th batter and see if they have better numbers. LOL, keep on being butt hurt though.

se-alum;1455576 wrote:Nope, just Bailey. Cueto, Latos, Leake, and Arroyo all have better numbers than any of the Indians starters.

But are the saber metrics there to support your argument!?!?!?!!?

like_that;1455579 wrote:Have them play in the AL where there isn't a free out every 9th batter and see if they have better numbers. LOL, keep on being butt hurt though.

I would grasp for straws too if I got pwned that hard.