GD

http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/2015/07/09/post-moratorium-toronto-raptors-salary-cap-update/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RaptorsRepublic+%28Raptors+Republic%29 http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/xraps-cap2.png.pagespeed.ic.FVURTFc3jy.png

it's pretty f***ing hilarious, though

I think his command is slightly worse and random variance has done most of the damage aside from that.

Words used in that paragraph. "[...] play Goins. [...] it makes a certain amount of sense for both teams."

We'd need other pieces, at least. Kemp is an awful player with tens of millions remaining, at least Reyes gives you SOME performance.

Maybe Rollins and Crawford

I don't think he's looked as good as last year. Still a good pitcher, though. Looks a little off but I certainly don't see reason to send him down. Not saying specifically you, but I think people on the board overreact cause they don't follow enough other teams. Players go through slumps, this isn't immune to the Jays. It happens to everyone.

http://i.imgur.com/kqZ7WL3.gif

I don't think it is. It cripples our salary for the years beyond Reyes' contract. If you take out the rest of the pieces besides Reyes that we'd be giving up it gets a little better. Maybe include Renfroe too.

P/PA probably isn't a skill. I don't know, I haven't done any research into it, but that's what North told me when I was debating its inclusion in xBB%

It might be, it might not be. BABIP, in this sample size, is random. That's what we're all getting at here. Is link a better word? A correlation is like a link, a relationship, a trend, a pattern.

There is no reason to take on Matt Kemp's salary. none.

sorry I was contacting the police about North following me

It's too bad, it's not worth it.

"Kemp is still good and we really need Ross The Rogers Centre will fix him, he'll see more fastballs in our lineup" -Northof49 on -0.8 fWAR Matt Kemp

What? I'm not talking about your grammar at all. Luck and randomness are two different things. You didn't even acknowledge my post that provided every bit of evidence that directly stated the opposite of your points. I can promise you I take no issue with your English. I take issue with your points.

OH GOD PLEASE NO c

It's not luck. It's randomness.

Wasn't criticizing your English

quoted for irony

You keep posting this. You have no idea what it means or why it doesn't help. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/tool-basically-every-pitching-stat-correlation/ LD% year 0 to BABIP% year 0, minimum 180 IP (rough stabilization rate) has an r^2 of .0738 which is statistically insignificant. This means that there is no yearly correlation to LD% and BABIP%. LD% year 0 to LD% year 1, same filters has an r^2 of .0379, which is statistically insignificant. This means that there is no year-to-year correlation for LD%. BABIP% year 0 to year 1, same filter, has an r^2 of .0422, which is statistically insignificant. This means that there is no year-to-year correlation for BABIP. Data. Statistically insignificant. No correlation. Got it? Hutch's LD% has nothing to do with his BABIP. Hutch's BABIP has nothing to do with Hutch's LD%. Hutch's LD% has nothing to do with Hutch. Hutch's BABIP has nothing to do with Hutch. Not nothing, actually. That'd be inaccurate. Just mostly nothing, because you're looking at a tiny sample size that's irrelevant for the statistics you're looking at/misusing. You are looking at random variance within a small sample size.

Mods

you're simply not very good at this.

there's always women's softball? maybe he can join North's league

Basically a three way: Hurl gets one leg of Alex Gordon Dinger gets EE and Heston I get Shields<333333333333 and Holliday