Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Each player is a year older, has a different talent level, etc.
Not one of them will have the same season they had a year ago.
That supports my argument, not yours. It is a reliance on good fortune rather than a plan of any sort.
To wit:
"If we add a couple of players who are likely (not certainly) to increase us from 64 wins to 70 or 71 wins, then all we need to have happen to win 90 games is for everyone else to have better years than they had last season. If all that happens, we might contend for a wild card slot."
A plan would be....let's try and unload the older guys we have with the expensive contracts and use what we get in exchange to try and restock our farm system which we have depleted while acquiring the veterans. We can hang onto any promising young guys and when the farm system begins producing useful ML players, then we can add some established talent which comes with a higher price tag. After that we should be in a position to contend for several seasons.
Or something else innovative, it doesn't have to be what I described above. Simply hoping that things which went poorly last season, turn around in 2018, is a reliance on fortune. And it is possible that everything could go right and the Giants do wind up contending.
But is that probable?
What the Giants are doing is about attendance, not winning.
That supports my argument, not yours. It is a reliance on good fortune rather than a plan of any sort.
To wit:
"If we add a couple of players who are likely (not certainly) to increase us from 64 wins to 70 or 71 wins,
Your insistence that this team's baseline is 64 wins because last year's team won 64 games is faulty.
Quote:
Or something else innovative, it doesn't have to be what I described above. Simply hoping that things which went poorly last season, turn around in 2018, is a reliance on fortune.
Saying that because last year's team performed poorly, that this team will perform poorly is poor reasoning.
Saying that because last year's team performed poorly, that this team will perform poorly is poor reasoning.
Once again you assign me a position not taken by me. I wrote that the 2017 team won 64 games and will need to find another 25 wins to have a shot at the wild card. If the newly acquired players add five to seven wins, then there are still another 18-20 wins that need to come from somewhere else. Hoping that the players which failed to provide those wins in 2017, will now provide them in 2018, is not a plan. It is wishful thinking.
Nowhere did I write they are certain to fail to provide those wins. Everything could go right. It is the reliance on everything having to go right that forms my objection here.
It's the position you take when you say such as this
Quote:
Nowhere did I write they are certain to fail to provide those wins. Everything could go right. It is the reliance on everything having to go right that forms my objection here.
Why do you say everything has to go right?
The projections are the median projections, not the rose colored glasses projections.
And this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Once again you assign me a position not taken by me. I wrote that the 2017 team won 64 games and will need to find another 25 wins to have a shot at the wild card.
The 2017 team won't find anymore wins. That season is over
The 2018 team needs to find about 90 wins. That has zero to do with the 2017 team's 64 wins
And this
Quote:
If the newly acquired players add five to seven wins, then there are still another 18-20 wins that need to come from somewhere else. Hoping that the players which failed to provide those wins in 2017, will now provide them in 2018, is not a plan. It is wishful thinking.
Last year's players are not this year's players.
What they did last year is not this year's baseline.
It's the position you take when you say such as this
Why do you say everything has to go right?
The projections are the median projections, not the rose colored glasses projections.
And this
The 2017 team won't find anymore wins. That season is over
The 2018 team needs to find about 90 wins. That has zero to do with the 2017 team's 64 wins
And this
Last year's players are not this year's players.
What they did last year is not this year's baseline.
You are now making what amounts to a semantic argument, the sort employed by attorneys when it is necessary to try and put the best possible spin on being backed into a corner. Shall we sustain some protracted back and forth where I am constantly pointing out that I either didn't say, or obviously didn't mean the distorted interpretation you are applying, and you keep applying the distorted interpretations? Perhaps we pretend that anyone else is reading all this and really put our egos on the line and keep on with the absurdities rather than surrender a loss of board ferocity?
You are now making what amounts to a semantic argument, the sort employed by attorneys when it is necessary to try and put the best possible spin on being backed into a corner. Shall we sustain some protracted back and forth where I am constantly pointing out that I either didn't say, or obviously didn't mean the distorted interpretation you are applying, and you keep applying the distorted interpretations? Perhaps we pretend that anyone else is reading all this and really put our egos on the line and keep on with the absurdities rather than surrender a loss of board ferocity?
To attempt to continue the analogy, you're now the defendant claiming "I didn't mean what I said in the recordings you have of me"?
What did you mean then, when presented with the median projections, you responded with "the reliance on everything having to go right"?
To attempt to continue the analogy, you're now the defendant claiming "I didn't mean what I said in the recordings you have of me"?
Geez, even the above is a distortion of what I wrote.
I stand by what I wrote.....it is your incorrect interpretation which forms my objection.
You have struck me as a bright person with a tendency to sink into useless squabbles rather than owning up to a mistake. This is another example. You are making an absurd effort to mask the fact that you goofed when you wrote that the team will be "totally different" next season. Obviously it will not be, no matter how many semantic handsprings you turn.
You should drop back ten yards and punt...and spend a little time thinking about just what you are doing here. Right now you are working hard to alienate the one person on this board who sides with you on the value of advanced metric analysis. Nice job.
Geez, even the above is a distortion of what I wrote.
I stand by what I wrote.....it is your incorrect interpretation which forms my objection.
You have struck me as a bright person with a tendency to sink into useless squabbles rather than owning up to a mistake. This is another example. You are making an absurd effort to mask the fact that you goofed when you wrote that the team will be "totally different" next season. Obviously it will not be, no matter how many semantic handsprings you turn.
You should drop back ten yards and punt...and spend a little time thinking about just what you are doing here. Right now you are working hard to alienate the one person on this board who sides with you on the value of advanced metric analysis. Nice job.
Which do you think is more representative of the 2018 team?
The projections for 2018 which have them at more than 81 wins?
Or last year's 64 wins?
Given your answer to that question, why do you refer to last year's 64 wins?
Which do you think is more representative of the 2017 Giants? Fangraphs projected 84 wins, or the team's actual 64 wins?
You didn't answer my question
Why would you suppose I would answer yours?
I'll ask another.
Is it your implication that Fangraph's projections systematically overrate the Giants?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
