And, as you might (or likely don't) recall, last year we did statistical analyses that showed that a #1 pitcher is only very slightly more likely to face opposing team's #1s over the course of the entire season. Of course you'll bump this up now, early in the season, when rotations are still set from the beginning and everyone is lining up, but over the course of the season it simply will not hold up.

If you go back to that post two years ago you argued that josh johnson wasn't the marlins #1. Now because it suits your needs he's a number one. You're a fraud, you were wrong two years ago and will ne wrong again this year. Reason being your claim that other teams will bump up and push back starters based on facing halladay. You were wrong, deal with it and stop acting like a child.

And I thought my response was a bit on the harsh side... wow.

Wow, how do we sign up for more of THIS MJ???

You must SING to him! Sing!

so whats the number you predict this year? 2010 you said 60% vs the other teams #1, but it was actually 21%. so, whats the number for 2012?

"How do you and your buddy come up with Johnson being the Marlins Ace? That sounds like the Phillie media and a lot of unknowledgeable forum members calling Hamels an Ace with one decent post season. Can you really tell me that there is a big difference between Johnson and Nolasco?
How about this ! I know you know the point I was making. If you want to quibble about who is one and who is two, so be it. But If Halladay faces an opponents best pitcher 66 % of his starts, will you conceed I will have made my point? "

just classic stuff

Come on, SW. You made an honest and forgivable mistake last year. Most of us chalked it up as an understandable "brain cramp." Don't compound the nonsense by trumpeting your "successful" predicition through Doc's third start.

This thread has the potential to be absolutely classic.

To SW: Hold your ground buddy. Don't let MJ and imp's fuzzy math dissuade you from the real truth. ;-)

It's after lent, he can insult people again!

fuzzed

1) Lannan (WAS) - #1
2) Oswalt (HOU) - #1
3) Sanchez (FL) - #3
4) Hudson (ATL) - #4
5) Sanchez (SF) - #4
6) Pelfrey (NY) - #2
7) Lohse (STL) - #3
8) Cook (COL) - #2
9) Duke (PIT) - #1
10) Wakefield (BOS) - #5
11) Johnson (FLA) - #1
12) Latos (SD) - #4
13) Johnson (FLA) - #1
14) Sabathia (NYY) - #1
15) Pavano (MIN) - #3
16) Litsch (TOR) - #5
17) Harnag (CIN) - #3
18) Lowe (ATL) - #3
19) Wood (CIN) - #5
20) Gorzelanny (CHI) - #5
21) Cook (COL) - #3
22) Jackson (ARI) - #2?
23) West (FLA) - #5
24) Dickey (NYM) - #2
25) Misch (MYM) - #5
26) Marquis (WAS) - #4
27) Happ (HOU) - #3
28) Kuroda (LAD) - #3
29) Bush (MIL) - #3
30) Mejia (NYM) - #5
31) Sosa (FLA) - #5
32) Minor (ATL) - #4
33) Lannon (WAS) - #1

7/33 = 21%

Dude, are we supposed to guess at the Year??? C'mon man!!!

And here I tried to be kind and gentle. ;)

from the original thread, 2010

http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ml-phillies&tid=87800

Latos was the Padres #4 in 2010? Harang was the Reds #3 in 2010? Marquis was Washington's #3 in 2010? Lowe was Atlanta's #3 in 2010?

Dude, c'mon. This is FUZZY math.

SW: I'm doing your work for you here, pal. Jump in to the fray at any time. I need to get going.

Don't forget, Pelfrey was supposed to be the Mets' #1 in 2010!

It's just more of MJ's FUZZY math. Darn libtard.

i thought you were the libtard? ben's called me names, but i dont think libtard was ever one of them...

one of the reasons the math may look fuzzy now, is the criteria sw called for and that was how would have been their #1 at the time, i didnt go back at the end of the year and look at it to see who was the 1, 2, 5, etc. i did it based on what i thought each guy was in their rotation at the time (example if the playoffs started where would that guy pitch)

Even Weiz eventually came around on his "this is what happens when you rush a kid thread." It took him several years though. At least his was an "opinion" where this is "clouded" in fact.

When the first poster to challenge you is "sb_steve", you KNOW you're standing on shaky ground.