Options
Ryan Howard..
Ahmanfan
Posts: 4,353 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
just swung at a pitch that didn't even reach home plate before bouncing! hah.
edit 1 minute later to add: K
John
edit 1 minute later to add: K
John
Collecting
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
0
Comments
JS
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
<< <i>What was Howard complaining about on that strikeout looking? Right down the pipe..
John >>
you're right - probably just frustration
Sincerely,
5 hitter
<< <i>
<< <i>What was Howard complaining about on that strikeout looking? Right down the pipe..
John >>
you're right - probably just frustration >>
Obviously Ryan was simply expecting a non-strike ball in that situation, and wasn't focusing...that's good scouting by Tampa Bay...but Howard won't make that mistake again...i don't think?
<< <i>Didn't need Ryan tonight
Sincerely,
5 hitter >>
Yes - Ryan will be there when we need him, like he always is.
<< <i>Ryan will be there when we need him, like he always is. >>
Unless, of course, there is a lefty on the mound, in which case the Phillies should pinch hit Jamie Moyer or the bat boy for Howard.
Three times now, when I wasn't watching a hockey game, I've had the WS on with Howard at the plate facing a lefty; each time I turned to my wife and said "Mr. MVP is about to strike out and look like an idiot doing it" - each time I have been right. In a WS where I have no rooting interest, Howard is providing most of my entertainment, at the plate and in the field. To be fair, I understand that Howard has also hit some ground ball outs against lefties, but I have missed those particular MVP at bats.
Shane
Without him they are not in the playoffs.
With or without Pujols the Cards are sitting home in October.
Steve
But without Howard on the Phillies, I would not be laughing nearly as often during this Series so I guess this worked out fine for everybody.
There's just no reasonable argument that Howard is not the worst fielder of modern times, and as every team figures out just how godawful he is batting against lefties you'll see his numbers look more and more like Kingman's every year. The record for Ks in a season will fall, and fall hard, next year. Teams don't really even need to make a "pitching change"; they could move their righty pitcher to first, have their lefty first baseman strike Howard out, and then switch back for the real hitters. It's funny, because it really would work. It's especially funny, because even Phillies fans know it would work, too, although they are probably not ready to admit it publicly.
I can confidently say that with Pujols instead of Howard, the Phillies would have a much better chance to win the World Series this year, may have won one already, and would have a much greater chance to win one in the next five years.
Winpitcher, by your logic, I guess without Joe Blanton(who was 4-0), the Phillies would not be in the playoffs either. Joe Blanton, MVP?
Howard may be the worst defensive player in MLB. Even if he actually was an elite hitter, he still would be far behind many players.
Winpitcher, who on earth could have replaced Pujols and vaulted them into the playoffs? Are you kidding?
"Do you think Ryan Howard will even hit his weight this year?"
"Only if he loses weight"
No need to replace him as he played in all 162 games.
As for Pujols I was speaking strictly in what HAD happened not what could or should happen
as you like to do.
Bottom line without Howard the Phillies sit at home like your team.
Steve
You said that without Howard, they would not be in the playoffs.
What do you think would happen if he weren't there? Would first base be empty? I speak in logic, and logically speaking, without Howard, it would depend on who would be playing in his stead if you want your statement to make any sense. Only a complete fool would think that a team would be WORSE off with Pujols there instead of Howard, LOL!!
So how could you say that bottom line, Howard's team would be sitting home without him?
Also, according to your logic, without Joe Blanton, they would also be sitting home without HIM. Without Scott Eyre, they would have been forced to play a tie breaker.
What you are saying is that "the fact is Howard's team is in the playoffs, and Pujols's is not." While that is indeed a fact...just as much as it is a fact that my balls itch sometimes....neither one of those facts do ANYTHING to show the value or merit of either Howard or Pujols.
As for you saying, "what I like to do."
I like to use logic and knowledge...backed up with the BEST evidence around...and come to a conclusion. Thank you very much. All that points to any team being better off with Pujols, isntead of Howard. See the balls itching for your use of "facts."
P.S. Trying to talk "smack" with the my team comment won't do any good. I really don't care if 'my team' gets knocked out, because I don't have a team, and neither do you. I only care about whether it costs me money or not. When they lose, I move on, ho-hum.
Steve, you like simple straight facts, so what do you make of this one....
2008 Phillies winning percentage in games that Ryan Howard did not start .750
2008 Phillies winning percentage in games that Ryan Howard did start .563
????
Because he is on that team and Pujols is not, that is how I can make that statement.
I prefer to deal in reality not what ifs like you seem to do.
As for the Blanton comment I have no idea where that is coming from as I made no such statement.
Oh I know, it is more of your hypotheticals <sp>
Bottom line, and without all your extra BS if without Howard the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Spin away with all your what ifs.
Who cares (I don't) what Pujols, or whatever replacement player you want to choose would do in Howards stead.
Again, please stop with the 'well if you say his' then this is your logic nonsense.
Steve
No! I never said any such thing. I think you need to stop adding in your beliefs to what people say.
My comment was simple, without Howard the Phillies are not in the playoffs this year. Or did you forget what he did in September?
I don't care, nor do I want to think about what if he was replaced, he wasn't.
Do you understand now?
Steve
What you are saying is that "the fact is Howard's team is in the playoffs, and Pujols's is not." While that is indeed a fact..
Bingo!!
You finally got my point.
Steve
If you are saying it to mean that it means that it is a determination on the better player, then that is akin to recognizing the fact that my balls sometimes itch. Neither one of those matter to determine such. So if you are saying it for that reason, then again, it has no basis, so why even state it, unless you like to used flawed evaluation methods without any valid basis.
So clarify right now, which of those two is it? Are you stating it on the same level as stating that today is Saturday, or are you stating it on the level as if it means some sort of determination of the players worth?
No double speak(as you do often), clarify now.
The Blanton comment is in relation to his w/l record(a myth many embrace, cough, cough), that without him being 4-0, the Phillies would also not be in the playoffs(that is based on your logic).
What do you make of the fact that Howard's team had a higher winning percentage in the games when he didn't start? You like simple facts, don't you?
PS, did you forget that Joe Blanton had three wins in September?? ROFL. Get it yet??
ANY team doesn't make the playoffs if they leave first base empty. ANY team doesn't make the playoffs if they leave any position empty. They also don't make the playoffs if they don't wear gloves or don't use bats, but I hope we're not arguing that a piece of wood is the MVP.
But unless you want to be in the position of making that very argument, you have to consider how the Phillies would have done without Howard BUT with some other random first baseman in the lineup. If you ignore the hypothetical replacement player, then you are left with a ridiculous argument.
Alternatively, you can fall back on the other argument that makes no sense - that Howard's team is in the playoffs and Pujols' isn't. But that argument obviously applies to EVERY Phillie and EVERY player on EVERY team that didn't make the playoffs. So, in some extremely trivial sense, it makes the case that Howard is more valuable than Pujols, but only in exactly the same sense that it argues that every player on every playoff team was more valuable than every player on every non-playoff team. Is it the case that the 100 players on the four NL playoff teams are the 100 most valuable players, and that the best player on a non-playoff team can be no higher than 101? Unless you answer "yes" to that, then the fact that Howard is on a playoff team and Pujols is not is completely irrelevent.
Winpitcher needs to clarify what he is saying, but I doubt he will because he lives in the double talk. If the double talk only confuses me, than maybe I am wrong, but it has confused Dallas(and he is much smarter than Winpitcher and myself combined), so I believe that there is a lot of double talk or ambiguous comments from his camp.
Either he is saying that Howard/Pujols statement in the same terms as if he was saying that today is Saturday, or
He is saying it as if it implies some sort of criteria in player evaluation.
Winpitcher claims that he is simply saying it as a fact, but then he puts those Ryan Howard September comments up there that shows that he is also saying it as some sort of player evaluative method(as compared to Pujols).
Either way, his goose is cooked.
Either it is a boring unthoughtprovoking statement that means as much as stating that today is Saturday(so why bother write it), or he believes that Joe Blanton is better than Jake Peavy because Joe Blanton's three September wins and 4-0 record with the Phillies is the difference between making the playoffs or not making them.
If he claims that Howard's September is the key to being a more preferrable player than Pujols, then he has to give the same credit to Blanton over Peavy.
My guess is that he won't claim either, and continue the ambiguity.
Oh, and Winpitcher still has to answer the question of the FACT that the Phillies had a higher winning percentage when Howard was NOT starting.
Without the September that Howard had the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Better?
Steve
Howard Played in EVERY game so the games he did not start or play at first base is meaningless and to be more on point
I never said they won because of his fielding abilities.
Steve
I most certaintly DID have point you MISSED it though. Perhaps if you did not bogart your way in and disect my every word we would not be here.
MY POINT:
Shane said he could not wait to revive the Howard MVP thread in November.
I SIMPLY said that without Howard the Phillies would not be in the Playoffs AND with Pujols the
Cards are still sitting home this October.
I guess for you I should have been more clear and said:
Without the September that Howard had In my opinion the Phillies don't make the Playoffs.
Steve
2008 Phillies winning percentage in games that Ryan Howard did start .563
Typical Hoopster twist. Seeing that the Phillies overall winning pct was .568 Howard DID NOT start
in what 4 games? Are you kidding me? So what, they went 3 and 1 without him starting!! You basing what
on 4 games Hoop? That they were so much better when he did not start? Are you saying that they would have won 120
games without him?
If anyone else tried that BS on you, you would have pounded away on the sample size, now in your lame attempt at trying to prove
God knows what you bring that nonsense up.
lol
Thanks for the good laugh.
Steve
No, it was relevant in regards to the post I was commenting on, somehow that flew right over your head.
Steve
With or without Howard the Cardinals are also sitting home in October so that gets us nowhere.
You don't know that, that is speculation on your part and NOTHING more.
Steve
Steve
<< <i>Ok I'll clarify for the ones that need it.
Without the September that Howard had the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Better?
Steve >>
Well, OK. But to quote a wise man - You don't know that, that is speculation on your part and NOTHING more. But it has always been central to the Howard backers arguments that THEIR speculation is worth more than OUR speculation.
And because Howard has one good month he's the MVP over Utley who had five? I know that on some level you have to know that makes no sense whatsoever.
Without the April that Utley had the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Without the May that Utley had the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Without the June that Utley had the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Without the July that Utley had the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Without the August that Utley had the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Without the September that Howard had the Phillies do not make the playoffs.
Therefore Howard is the MVP? Seriously?
Adding to the illogic of this argument is that if Howard had not sucked on an almost metaphysical scale for the first 4+ months of the season, then his September heroics would have been completely unnecessary. At the break, Howard was much closer to the worst first baseman in the league than he was to the best. MUCH closer.
Call it speculation if it's the only thing that keeps your argument alive, but if Pujols had been the Phillies first baseman for April through August, I could have played first base the rest of the way and the Phillies would still have won. My mother could have played first base in September and the Phillies would still have won. The only "speculation" needed here is the speculation that Pujols would have hit as well as a Phillie as he did as a Cardinal. Had he done that, th Phillies would have gone into September with a magic number of less than 10, maybe less than 5. Pujols was that good, Howard was that bad.
Yes, he had a good September, and without that good September the Phillies don't make the playoffs. But that was true of several other Phillies in Spetember, and true of virtually every Phillie in some month or months. The fact that Howard's September was one of 100 reasons that the Phillies made the playoffs doesn't get us anywhere different than the fact that Utley's July got them to the playoffs gets us.
There is no logical argument for Howard to win the MVP, only emotion, speculation and fact avoidance.
I am stating a fact, the Phillies had a better winning percentage when Howard did not start. Either you recognize that all facts need clarification and context, or you accept just looking at simple facts as if they are the answer...like you did when stating the fact that Howard is in, and the Cards are out with Pujols. Your fact is also meaningless without context and understanding of WHY.
WHich is it my friend. You have painted yourself into a corner. Don't get all wriled up when I play the silly 'fact' game on you. You didn't like that did you. That is why I said that, to show how just saying something is a fact is a poor method.
2)So, your stance is now, "without the Septbember Howard had, the Phillies would not be in the playoffs." Dallas has already shown the foolishness in that logic, I will not add on.
But, if that is your stance, why compare that to Pujols, if that is simply what you are saying? That strongly implies that Howard is the reason the Phillies are in, and Pujols is the reason the Cardinals are not. If you are simply saying your statement, then Pujols should not even be mentioned there.
***Again, is your Howard/Pujols statement meant in terms as if you are simply stating the time of day by saying it, or is it meant as some sort of player evaluative comment. That is the clarification I want, as you are still dancing around and doing your typical double talk.***
Using your logic, without Joe Blanton's 4-0 record, no playoffs for the Phillies. Since you like basic facts, he was 4-0, and the Phillies were three games ahead of the playoffs. So, with Joe Blanton, the Phillies are in the playoffs, and with Jake Peavy the Padres are sitting home. Hmmmm. Holy cripe, you had better get on the phone with San DIego's GM and tell them to dump Peavy for Blanton, because with Peavy the Padres are not in the playoffs, and with Blanton, the Phillies are!
<< <i>Holy cripe, you had better get on the phone with San DIego's GM and tell them to dump Peavy for Blanton, because with Peavy the Padres are not in the playoffs, and with Blanton, the Phillies are! >>
Can you imagine if the Cardinals traded Pujols for Howard how many more players, pitchers and draft picks the Phillies would have to throw in? Unless the Phillies included Utley, it could seriously take 7 or 8 more players to complete that trade. Blanton for Peavy is not one iota less absurd than Howard for Pujols. After all, it is nothing more than speculation that the Phillies would have made the playoffs with Peavy, and nothing more than speculaiton that the Padres would still have missed the playoffs with Blanton. But since we're not allowed to use facts, I guess that's all we have.
According to Winpitcher, we are allowed to use facts, but we cannot put them into context. However, that only applies to us. If I use a fact on him, he cries about it and cites the context.
I tested him with the Phillies W% without Howard starting, and merely stated a fact...something he does often, and does it so it has the underlying tone that he is trying to say something, but then hides behind his 'just stating the fact' statement.
What happened? He all of a sudden didn't like that fact, and complained about somebody just stating a fact, and ignoring the context. He finally understood that there is more to just stating a fact, and that context and understanding of why is important.
One cannot have it both ways. Typical sports fan.
JS
<< <i>Prince Fielder was just spotted at Little Caesars and he was going wild!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JS >>
That's nice. That'll be whatever team he plays for next season's problem.
<< <i>
<< <i>Prince Fielder was just spotted at Little Caesars and he was going wild!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JS >>
That's nice. That'll be whatever team he plays for next season's problem. >>
go luck breaking .500 next year!
<< <i>go luck breaking .500 next year! >>
I'd offer to put some action on that, but the odds of you paying your debt when you lose are about as good as the Buccaneers' chances of winning the Super Bowl.
Actually, they have a better shot than that.
JS
<< <i>yeah ask Beef about making bets...better you all hide under the bed!
JS >>
Isn't that where you've been the last couple days?
You can't keep the MVP down forever.
<< <i>
My comment was simple, without Howard the Phillies are not in the playoffs this year. Or did you forget what he did in September?
I don't care, nor do I want to think about what if he was replaced, he wasn't.
Steve >>
Why are you afraid of a little healthy debate here? If we just say which teams are in, what is the point of that. Obviously Howard was a big part in getting them to the playoffs.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
lol you are thick, Ive already said at least 2 times why. I was replying to Shane!
I was not replying to you or the other guy that seems hell bent to spend his Saturday disecting my every word for context etc.
I made a simple statement that was based on fact. The Phillies with HOWARD are in the Cards with Pujols are out.
I am flattered that you and him spend all this time debating with me.
Lost in all this was the FACT that I said that the MVP votes were tallied before the playoffs began.
For context I was replying to SHANE and his post above mine at the time.
lol I really, really am flattered Skip that you would make all that effort, I really am.
Have a great day, I'll await you 500 word essay on what you think I meant.
Steve
According to Winpitcher, we are allowed to use facts, but we cannot put them into context. However, that only applies to us. If I use a fact on him, he cries about it and cites the context.
I tested him with the Phillies W% without Howard starting, and merely stated a fact...something he does often, and does it so it has the underlying tone that he is trying to say something, but then hides behind his 'just stating the fact' statement.
What happened? He all of a sudden didn't like that fact, and complained about somebody just stating a fact, and ignoring the context. He finally understood that there is more to just stating a fact, and that context and understanding of why is important.
One cannot have it both ways. Typical sports fan.
lol sure ya did Hoopster. Sure ya did.
Steve
lol I said all that? lol
hehe
I don't think I did, but if you say so............
Steve
lol for a guy that tries to impress everyone on how smart he is, lost in all this is the simple fact that I was replying
to a specific post. I have now explained myself at least 3 times, will it finally sink in?
lol
Steve
So basically what you wrote is what I said from the beginning. It is about as interesting and in depth as stating that today is Sunday. If you are proud of that, go ahead. Nothing like stating the obvious. Hey, the Phillies are playing the Rays. You may as well just say that then.
However,
You typically play that silly fact game when your stance is shown to be foolish, misguided, or simply not valid. This time you got caught FINALLY realizing that just stating a simple fact is not anymore important to the issue than stating the fact that my balls sometimes itch...UNTIL IT IS PUT INTO CONTEXT WITH KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING.
This still stands.....
1) Winpitcher, You like facts, but now when I give you one, you get all wriled up, and all of a sudden recognize that stating simple facts without proper context is a flawed procedure!!!!
I am stating a fact, the Phillies had a better winning percentage when Howard did not start. Either you recognize that all facts need clarification and context, or you accept just looking at simple facts as if they are the answer...like you did when stating the fact that Howard is in, and the Cards are out with Pujols. Your fact is also meaningless without context and understanding of WHY.
WHich is it my friend. You have painted yourself into a corner. Don't get all wriled up when I play the silly 'fact' game on you. You didn't like that did you. That is why I said that, to show how just saying something is a fact is a poor method.
Yes, indeed you did answer exactly the way I wanted you to. Maybe from this point on you can be more consistent with your methods. You may claim otherwise, but I painted you into the classic corner. The 'sure ya did' comment I will leave to the intelligent readers on this board that know my methods and what I count as valid. Surely using a four game sample size would go completely against the grain on my methods.