jimmer

I'll get excited about Rosario's offense when he maintains and OBP over .300 (ended up with a .289 OBP even with a well above average.332 BABIP, though admittedly not as high as John Ryan Murphy's BABIP) ;-)

Dilfer was like the text book definition of nothing special at the QB spot. Not bad (due to minimizing mistakes), but not good. Certainly not the guy you tell to win the game for you. Anyway, this is off topic, so I should stop.

I get your point but *cough* Trent Dilfer *cough* ;-)

I think it's funny that people point to Murphy's OPS without taking into account his BABIP or his home/away splits.

immediately. just like he was this year :-)

Well, the fact that Murphy isn't balding yet is certainly a good sign :-)

here's hoping they are right.

and I did make it clear that 'Now, to be fair, there are some fine moderators on here for sure and this site is mostly better for it' and I pointed out Chi as one of the good ones (she's actually the best I've come across on any site).

I must have missed the part where you actually answered if there is bias. You answered why you think I got slammed by the moderator. I never actually asked why. I knew why it was deleted. I never said it shouldn't be. You didn't answer whether or not there is bias or whether or not the other ones deserved any kind of punishment at all. Those are the questions I wanted answers to. Thanks anyway, especially for the parting personal jabs which I suppose were also friendly cause you're a friendly person? I feel the same way, if you are interested.

Be hard to take a jab at both posters when only one had posted when I made my post :-) And at the time there were few posts on the thread. If the moderator read mine and deleted it and gave a warning, he read the others too and decided they were fine. And I'm not making a mountain out of a mole hill. This kind of bias moderation happens all the time here. This is just the first time I brought it up AND this is the forum to do it according to the moderators, right? It's a legitimate question/concern, cause bias moderation affects a good chunk of people. This is a site that has approved and had moderators/owners participate in multiple threads that were made to slam 'negative people' (negative people being people critical of the FO). At least one still exists.Certainly asking the TD community if there is bias is up for discussion.

Batter BABIP is also very much susceptible to regression. Great hitters can maintain a higher one than normal. Faster player may have an extra touch due to speed, but a .357 BABIP is unlikely to be maintained. 'For hitters, we use BABIP as a sanity test of sorts that tells us if their overall batting line is sustainable or not. Virtually no hitter is capable of producing a BABIP of .380 or higher on a regular basis and anything in the .230 range is also very atypical for a major league hitter. In other words, BABIP allows us to see if a hitter seems to be getting a boost from poor defense or good luck or getting docked for facing good defenses and having bad luck. A hitter has control over how often they put the ball in play and how hard they hit the ball, but due to the unpredictable nature of luck and defense, their BABIP may not be a perfect reflection of their performance to date and it is easier to observe this fluctuation when looking at BABIP compared to wOBA, OBP, or SLG for example.' http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/babip/

I didn't mention your name at all. And I didn't say only personal attacks should get deleted so no conflict at all. All three posts have the same sarcastic tone which I pointed out (and which is what the warning from the moderator was about), but only one doesn't take personal shots at fellow posters and that one is the only that one gets deleted AND gets a warning point for the author while the other two get nothing. The one that gets deleted is not pro-Ryan and doesn't take any shots at fellow posters. Question still hasn't been answered though. Did bias cause one post to get deleted and get a warning to it's writer while the others were left standing with no warning at all since all seemed to fall under the reasoning for the warning given? All have the same tone overall and the warning didn't say, 'bashing the FO is unprofessional' as the reason the warning point was given. The warning I quoted clearly applied to the other two posts as well. And no, nothing but a quote was sent with the warning. No thoughtful anything. Just here is the warning and the quote I posted. That's it. And no response to my responding PM either. And, BTW, I wouldn't call any of this friendly advice, but at least it's not overly unfriendly. I guess that, like most everything is up to interpretation. At least some kind of response came.

I don't think he ever stated he wanted the players the Twins traded for to bust, just that there are some Twins that go to other teams he wants to see do well.

A Dave Cameron story was linked about this earlier. Here's one from Jeff Sullivan focusing on Hicks. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/three-keys-to-understanding-aaron-hicks/

Root Beer Floats are even better when you use Coney Island Hard Root Beer, which tastes just like A&W root beer, but is 5.8 alcohol (and Gluten free for those who have such issues).

These aren't aggressive moves. It's nice that Ryan won the bid for Park, sure, but he hasn't been signed yet. Trading Hermann and trading for Murphy are hardly aggressive moves. Quantity of moves doesn't equate to aggressiveness. He's been the busiest it seems, though.

Posters who aren't moderators don't have the same abilities as posters who are also moderators. So it's not an equal comparison. We don't think moderators, considering their position (and their ability to suspend and ban posters), should rise above that in their moderating duties? Can't moderate with clear bias can they? How does that encourage real debate when anything that slams the FO or certain players gets put under a microscope (by some moderators) while, at the same time, allowing much more leniency to people who defend the FO and certain players (again by certain moderators)? Chi is very unbiased in her moderation IMO.

Nice post, thank you for the info.

In one thread a poster wrote: 'Other than trading Span and Revere...and helping them lose lots of games so they pick earlier, how has the GM re-stocked the farm? Sano, Kepler, Polanco, Rosario, Gibson, Hicks, all were in the system before he came back, right?' Let's look at three responses: #1 'Again, since Ryan played an extremely instrumental part in building the 60-person staff that's been involved with very aspect of the success of every one of the players you mentioned, you're absolutely right, Mr. Sixel. Ryan hasn't done a thing except help them lose lots of games so they pick earlier' #2 Right, I forgot we don't give him credit for drafts and international signings b/c it's either something every GM would've done or it's something GMs shouldn't get credit for, depending on how you're feeling on the particular player. I'm honestly baffled by your constant negativity, Mike.......' #3 '"Just trust Ryan. All the moves he makes, and doesn't make, are the right moves. And every great prospect we have was a result of moves Ryan made. That is why our farm system (including Sano who graduated) is so good. All Ryan. Trust in Ryan!"' Now, all are sarcastic for sure. But the difference is, the first two are in defense of Ryan AND they ALSO take shots at a specific poster while doing so.. The other doesn't support Ryan but it also takes no specific shot at any poster. The one that didn't support Ryan and didn't take a personal shot at anyone not only got deleted/hidden, but got the writer an official warning. The other two weren't even deleted, much less either getting a warning. It's my belief all three were sarcastic yet only two were personal as well (which makes them worse). If the one that got deleted (#3) fell under 'Trolling, Flame-baiting, Thread-jacking' to the point of deserving a warning, certainly the other two do as well. So why were post #1 and #2 allowed to stand while the other was not only removed but worth a warning to the poster? Could it be because the first two defended Ryan? Now, to be fair, there are some fine moderators on here for sure and this site is mostly better for it, but some go too far in their attempt to curb certain points of view and I believe this is certainly a fine example of that. Posted per suggestion from another poster in another thread earlier today.

Not too many GMs are going to agree Cueto isn't a front of the line starter. I'd be surprised if there was even one.

That article was almost 2 years ago. What does BA, BP, Scouting News, Fangraphs (like from Kiley before he left), Keith Law, etc. say recently? I am not trying to be difficult, but I haven't seen him on any of the most reputable scouting reports recently. Love to see where I missed it (which certainly can happen).

With the abundance of young stud (and potential stud) position players the Cubs have, I think they would jump at that trade. I would hope we would laugh.

Like I said, I didn't see anything in your post that said one way or another in regards to that sentence I quoted. In any event, I appreciate the clarification

can you link these lists, please? I ask because usually when a person is a top 100 MLB prospect by a major prospect site, it's listed on their BR page.

Except your post didn't mention anything about one way or another being silly or disingenuous. 'I think it is a bit silly and perhaps disingenuous to attempt to criticize the deal at this point' It was specific to the attempt to criticize point of view. Are you saying it's equally silly and disingenuous to think this is a good trade too? Just looking for clarification.