[ Brian, I dont want to fight. I just want to ring Jenkins' neck. ] That is certainly something we can agree on! [ But I am completely befuddled why someone can not look at the lineups and say 'oh, my, we are not the outshown'. I am befuddled, why a number of people will want to show how I am wrong and the Brewers are bad (or worse than Atlanta). ] In this case, i'm sure it was prompted by you specifically singling out 3B as a big misatch on Hall vs. Marte. I suppose that would be like making a Luis Rivas vs. Rickie Weeks comparison in the same manner, if Weeks had a handful of at-bats during a previous call-up and struggled. [ And, Brian, you now play the stathead game as well. If I compare MLB stats to MLB stats, you say 'oh, but Joe Blow delved into AAA stats to counter your argument'. ] Not really. It would depend on the sample size. If i'm comparing 249 at-bats to 35 at-bats, it's not apples-to-apples so I would look at the rest of that player's season one level down, especially for a prospect of Marte's stature. No, you can't compare AAA to MLB at-bats directly, but they can supplement your case. It would be dishonest to look at Marte's .600 OPS and think that's all he's going to be, just as it would be dishonest to think Marte would just be punishing the ball at this levle. But either case is a valid argument, and it's an ad hominem attack to call someone a stathead, equate him to a teenager, and then just write off the argument. [ C'mon, Brian are you the teacher here and the pupils are trying to get good marks from you and you say 'good boy, Joe Blow, well done' and 'bad HOFFY'. Be careful Brian your outstanding job on this site does not go to your head. It would be shame for people to think the 'boys are back'. ] The 'boys' have never left, and are always where they have been. I think it's more the case that you've mellowed out. I really don't WANT to be the teacher, as my predictions don't always turn out that well... and people take me to task all the time, and i've conceded many an argument. It's not about that. It's about the argument that a statheads' point of view is somewhat invalid.... just like if you had "joe old-school coach" who often dismisses the idea of stats, but has a decent track record of judging players by how they carry themselves and by watching the play on the field and someone told him he was an idiot. Both extremes have logical valid arguments, and those need to be debated, not the methodology. [ Onto the game, I sure hope these guys can steel themselves, but they sure are showing their old tendancies. ] God hates the Milwaukee Brewers.