Time to get behind who we have??

[Houston_Cub_Fan]

Not to add to the pessimism :) But we also can't expect Lee to produce like he did last year. That is slack someone else will have to pick up. Who?

[CubinNY]

Just for the record. I am behind the Cubs all the way. I want Pierre to have a career year. I want Cedeno and Murton to play like ROYs even if they are not eligable. I want the pitching staff to be heathy and productive. I will root for Dusty.

 

Go Cubs!

[goonys evil twin]

Just for the record. I am behind the Cubs all the way. I want Pierre to have a career year. I want Cedeno and Murton to play like ROYs even if they are not eligable. I want the pitching staff to be heathy and productive. I will root for Dusty.

 

Go Cubs!

 

I find it annoying that people have to state this. Of course we're behind the Cubs and want them to succeed. You can want, wish and hope for all the success in the world and still keep your eyes open to the flaws. If they fall short, I want them to miss by a wide margin to instigate change and give them a higher draft pick. But I don't want them to fail at all. I desperately want to see another playoff appearance at the very least.

[noisesquared]

I think it's pessimistic to say the 2006 offense will suck based on the fact the 2005 offense sucked, in spite of the fact that the most glaring OBP problems have at least been semi-addressed. Pierre even at his career lows would be a huge upgrade over last year's CF, and full seasons of Murton and Cedeno should be better than last year's SS and LF production. Granted, it's up to Baker to allow Murton and Cedeno to play, which is the one area I'm pessimistic about.

 

You're putting words into people's mouths. The offense is a problem, but it's been acknowledged it's not the worst out there. Sure it's been improved. But at least in my eyes, not nearly as much as it could and should have been improved. And perhaps the biggest problem is it shouldn't have been as bad as it's been in the recent past if the Cubs weren't so insistent on handicapping themselves with an overly aggressive offense that refuses to walk.

 

It's not pessimism to point out weakness. It is foolish to ignore weaknesses. The offense is a problem. The health of the pitching staff is a problem. The pitching staff could conceivably be very healthy and dominant. The offense does not even offer a glimmer of hope for dominance.

 

I don't disagree with your premise, as a valid case can be made for the offense not being any noticably better, and it's probably a more realistic case than can be made than for the offense improving. However, I feel that in this instance, believing the offense will not improve much or at all is a pessimistic, but not unjustified, viewpoint.

[goonys evil twin]

If you would like to place a wager on it I will. Even with neifi's amazing april/may, his final numbers were still just plain awful. Cedeno will easily best those numbers.

 

And Since I'm the bandWGN driver, I have to show my support and faith - so if people want to be totally pessimistic, I'm willing to place down a friendly wager....

 

I would bet Cedeno outperforms Neifi. But I'd hesitate to bet that the Cubs 2006 SS production eclipses the Cubs 2005 SS production.

 

Well that all depends on how much time Dustbrain gives to Cedeno over Neifster. But your statement very well might be right, since Nomar was on fire when he came back - and it's doubtful Cedeno will put up those 2nd half Nomar numbers in his first full year at SS.

 

But much of Nomar's production was from 3rd base, after Ramirez went down. Nomar Had 34 appearances at 3B, compared to 26 at SS. He was hitting 238/297/337 on 8/26, when he made his first appearance at 3B, I believe.

 

Yes, Nomar's SS time was pretty weak overall. In fact, I think the Cubs overall SS numbers closely resembled Neifi's overall numbers. And I still think the 2006 SS numbers could be very similar.

[soccer10k]

Not to add to the pessimism :) But we also can't expect Lee to produce like he did last year. That is slack someone else will have to pick up. Who?

 

Sure, Derrek Lee's batting average and home runs will probably drop a bit. But with a competant leadoff hitter like Juan Pierre getting on in front of him, I guarantee his RBI's will increase. Same goes for Aramis Ramirez. A good leadoff hitter can completely change an offense. The number 2 hitter sees more good pitches to hit than he would with nobody on base. That will increase the number of times the Cubs will have two runners on for either Lee or Ramirez. Like I said, being realistic we can't expect Lee to put up huge numbers like last year but he isn't going to drop completely off the radar. He'll have a good year as will Ramirez.

 

Again I will repeat that I GUARANTEE Lee will have at least 107. Ramirez should also better his 2005 total of 92 if he stays healthy.

Edited February 8, 2006 by soccer10k

[goonys evil twin]

I don't disagree with your premise, as a valid case can be made for the offense not being any noticably better, and it's probably a more realistic case than can be made than for the offense improving. However, I feel that in this instance, believing the offense will not improve much or at all is a pessimistic, but not unjustified, viewpoint.

 

Pessimism would be saying Lee is probably going to have his worst year, Cedeno will probably get hurt, Murton will probably bust, Zambrano will probably be awful, and the team will probably lose 90 games.

 

Pessimism is taking the worst possible scenario and ignoring the positive.

 

Saying the offense has improved, but probably not by much, and that the team has a chance to be pretty good, but it will take a lot of things going right to be great is not pessimism. It's realism. I'm not predicting doom and gloom. I'm simply stating facts and likely predictions.

[soccer10k]

If there is one thing I like about this team it is that nobody will be talking about them as contenders when Spring Training rolls around. Also, this team looks a lot like the team in 2003 which, if you remember, was dubbed "The Team That Is Good But Is Still A Year Or Two Away." As nice as it was to see the Cubs on the cover of Sports Illustrated as favorites in 2004, it's hard to live up to expectations. The 2003 team had no expectations and came within 5 outs of the World Series. 2004 had World Series expectations and choked in the last week of the season.

 

In 2003 the Cubs had 2.5 solid hitters as Ramirez was only there for half the year. Even if Lee's home runs and batting average decrease he will still have as good of a year as Sammy did in 2003 (.279, 40, 103). I also see Ramirez having a better year than 2003 Alou (.280, 22, 91). Before the Cubs picked up Ramirez they had Mark Bellhorn, Jose Hernandez, and Ramon Martinez playing third base, which I look at like Murton in left field this year. The Cubs can play Murton and if he doesn't work out, they can try to trade for somebody else. They have a bona fide leadoff hitter with Pierre for a whole year rather than a half year in 2003 with Kenny Lofton. Michael Barrett is a far better hitter than the Damian Miller/Paul Bako combination in 2003. Jacque Jones can perform just as well as Alex Gonzalez if he hits second or Eric Karros if he hits fifth/sixth.

 

The pitching staff will be a question mark but if they stay healthy it will be one of the best in the league. The bullpen is just as good and maybe a little bit better. Ryan Dempster cancels out Joe Borowski. I will take Bobby Howry over Kyle Farnsworth-less any day. Scott Eyre is a good lefty reliever. Will Ohman had an excellent 2005 season and was the team's best relief pitcher.

 

I just hope that nobody from ESPN or Sports Illustrated starts to talk about the Cubs as legitimate title contenders and I will be ecstatic to see the "experts" pick the Cubs to finish third in the NL Central this year.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Welcome! The problem with comparing to the '03 team is two fold. First of all, the lineup isn't what won us anything in '03, it was unbelievable starting pitching. We may get that this year, we might not. Secondly, the '03 team wasn't a great team by any stretch. They didn't win 90 games, and barely hung on to the division when the contenders. Being as good as the '03 team may not even get you the wild card in '06.

 

EDIT: If you're talking about '03 v. '06 performance, Farnsworth is likely to run circles around Howry. Borowski was better than Dempster will likely be too.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Transmogrified Tiger

[goonys evil twin]

As nice as it was to see the Cubs on the cover of Sports Illustrated as favorites in 2004, it's hard to live up to expectations. The 2003 team had no expectations and came within 5 outs of the World Series. 2004 had World Series expectations and choked in the last week of the season.

 

The 2003 team choked just as bad at the end as the 2004 team, and the 2004 team had a better season. I don't think expectations or a lack of expectations can be blamed or credited for the results.

[UK1679666180]

If there is one thing I like about this team it is that nobody will be talking about them as contenders when Spring Training rolls around. Also, this team looks a lot like the team in 2003 which, if you remember, was dubbed "The Team That Is Good But Is Still A Year Or Two Away." As nice as it was to see the Cubs on the cover of Sports Illustrated as favorites in 2004, it's hard to live up to expectations. The 2003 team had no expectations and came within 5 outs of the World Series. 2004 had World Series expectations and choked in the last week of the season.

 

I just hope that nobody from ESPN or Sports Illustrated starts to talk about the Cubs as legitimate title contenders and I will be ecstatic to see the "experts" pick the Cubs to finish third in the NL Central this year.

 

I'm not a fan of this, I doubt this impacts the Cubs' players in any way shape or form. If they play tight during the season b/c of expectations, that leads me to believe that they're soft.

 

Championship teams believe they can win from the get go, regardless of expectations.

 

If the '04 Cubs choked the last week of the season b/c of expectations, this entire roster and staff would need to be demolished and rebuilt.

 

I don't buy that they choked b/c of expectations, just became fatigued and slumped at the wrong time.

[soccer10k]

If a team has huge expectations placed on it before the season starts then after every two game losing streak the team gets bombarded by questions. What is wrong with the team? Who isn't performing? What do you need to do better to win tomorrow? What positions need to be upgraded?

 

Eventually players get sick and tired of hearing the same questions over and over and over again. Players do read newspapers and watch SportsCenter and hear their names as trade bait and how they aren't playing very well. These types of things can wear down on the team.

 

While I agree that the 2003 team did choke as well, they did run into a very good Marlins team. When looking at their season as a whole, 88 wins and a division title was a successful season for a team that was picked to have, at best, a second place finish in their division. Nobody picked the Cubs to win the division and advance to the NLCS and almost make the World Series.

 

When looking at the 2004 team, they were expected to win the division easily and at least make their first World Series trip since 1945. Because of those huge expectations, many people look at the 2004 season as a failure.

 

And for the person trying to defend Kyle Farnsworth-less, sure Farnsworth has a good ERA because he pitches will in non-critical situations. But every time Farnsworth comes in a critical situation, he chokes. At this point, it's not if it's going to happen, but how it's going to happen. People get all caught up in the fact that he throws 100mph to realize that his fastball doesn't move at all and big league hitters will hit it and the fact that he rarely gets a breaking ball over the plate. The guy is horrible.

Edited February 8, 2006 by soccer10k

[Ding Dong Johnson]

And for the idiot that trying to defend Kyle Farnsworth

 

Calling names is a quick and easy way to get banned.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And for the person trying to defend Kyle Farnsworth-less, sure Farnsworth has a good ERA because he pitches will in non-critical situations. But every time Farnsworth comes in a critical situation, he chokes. At this point, it's not if it's going to happen, but how it's going to happen. People get all caught up in the fact that he throws 100mph to realize that his fastball doesn't move at all and big league hitters will hit it and the fact that he rarely gets a breaking ball over the plate. The guy is horrible.

 

Farnsworth in '03 was very very good. Better than Howry will likely be in '06. His "choker" label is a myth.

[UK1679666180]

If a team has huge expectations placed on it before the season starts then after every two game losing streak the team gets bombarded by questions. What is wrong with the team? Who isn't performing? What do you need to do better to win tomorrow? What positions need to be upgraded?

 

Eventually players get sick and tired of hearing the same questions over and over and over again. Players do read newspapers and watch SportsCenter and hear their names as trade bait and how they aren't playing very well. These types of things can wear down on the team.

 

While I agree that the 2003 team did choke as well, they did run into a very good Marlins team. When looking at their season as a whole, 88 wins and a division title was a successful season for a team that was picked to have, at best, a second place finish in their division. Nobody picked the Cubs to win the division and advance to the NLCS and almost make the World Series.

 

When looking at the 2004 team, they were expected to win the division easily and at least make their first World Series trip since 1945. Because of those huge expectations, many people look at the 2004 season as a failure.

 

And for the person trying to defend Kyle Farnsworth-less, sure Farnsworth has a good ERA because he pitches will in non-critical situations. But every time Farnsworth comes in a critical situation, he chokes. At this point, it's not if it's going to happen, but how it's going to happen. People get all caught up in the fact that he throws 100mph to realize that his fastball doesn't move at all and big league hitters will hit it and the fact that he rarely gets a breaking ball over the plate. The guy is horrible.

 

I would advise not calling anyone an idiot, being civil goes very far on this board, not being civil leads to a shorter stay.

 

A well coached team with focused players does not fall into those traps and are strong enough to avoid losing focus or pressing after a slight losing streak.

 

The Yankees have been extremely successful over this last decade with expectations higher than any of the Cubs have likely experienced. How were they able to handle the pressure? Besides being extremely talented, they are very focused and that starts from the manager on down.

 

If a team can't handle the expectations of being the favorites and fail to execute b/c of that, they are soft. I just feel that once injuries occured to the rotation and the bullpen, they were not good enough to make the post-season.

[soccer10k]

Farnsworth in '03 was very very good. Better than Howry will likely be in '06. His "choker" label is a myth.

 

Did you watch the 2005 postseason? Game 4 against Houston? What gets lost in the 18 inning marathon was the fact that Farnsworth came in with runners on first and second with no outs, got an out on a fielders choice but the runners advanced. Then he walked Luke Scott to bring up Lance Berkman. I called the Berkman grand slam right after ball 4 to Scott. Then, everybody knows all Farnsworth has is a fastball and Berkman launches it to left field for the grand slam. Even after that Atlanta still leads 6-5 and going into the ninth you think, with the 6-7-8 hitters coming up that Farnsworth is going to get out of it. He gets two outs and then gives up a home run to #8 hitter Brad Ausmus who had THREE HOME RUNS ALL OF 2005 AND JUST 71 IN HIS CAREER. This is your "very very good" closer? You've got to be kidding me. I was so happy to see Farnsworth go. Good riddence to him. The Yankees can have him.

[soccer10k]

Farnsworth in '03 was very very good. Better than Howry will likely be in '06. His "choker" label is a myth.

 

Did you watch the 2005 postseason? Game 4 against Houston? What gets lost in the 18 inning marathon was the fact that Farnsworth came in with runners on first and second with no outs, got an out on a fielders choice but the runners advanced. Then he walked Luke Scott to bring up Lance Berkman. I called the Berkman grand slam right after ball 4 to Scott. Then, everybody knows all Farnsworth has is a fastball and Berkman launches it to left field for the grand slam. Even after that Atlanta still leads 6-5 and going into the ninth you think, with the 6-7-8 hitters coming up that Farnsworth is going to get out of it. He gets two outs and then gives up a home run to #8 hitter Brad Ausmus who had THREE HOME RUNS ALL OF 2005 AND JUST 71 IN HIS CAREER. This is your "very very good" closer? You've got to be kidding me. I was so happy to see Farnsworth go. Good riddence to him. The Yankees can have him.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Farnsworth in '03 was very very good. Better than Howry will likely be in '06. His "choker" label is a myth.

 

Did you watch the 2005 postseason? Game 4 against Houston? What gets lost in the 18 inning marathon was the fact that Farnsworth came in with runners on first and second with no outs, got an out on a fielders choice but the runners advanced. Then he walked Luke Scott to bring up Lance Berkman. I called the Berkman grand slam right after ball 4 to Scott. Then, everybody knows all Farnsworth has is a fastball and Berkman launches it to left field for the grand slam. Even after that Atlanta still leads 6-5 and going into the ninth you think, with the 6-7-8 hitters coming up that Farnsworth is going to get out of it. He gets two outs and then gives up a home run to #8 hitter Brad Ausmus who had THREE HOME RUNS ALL OF 2005 AND JUST 71 IN HIS CAREER. This is your "very very good" closer? You've got to be kidding me. I was so happy to see Farnsworth go. Good riddence to him. The Yankees can have him.

 

So, one incidence makes Farnsworth a choker? Is Brad Lidge a choke artist? Remember, I said Farnsworth in 2003, which was your original comparison to Howry.

[sethuel1]

Farnsworth in '03 was very very good. Better than Howry will likely be in '06. His "choker" label is a myth.

 

Did you watch the 2005 postseason? Game 4 against Houston? What gets lost in the 18 inning marathon was the fact that Farnsworth came in with runners on first and second with no outs, got an out on a fielders choice but the runners advanced. Then he walked Luke Scott to bring up Lance Berkman. I called the Berkman grand slam right after ball 4 to Scott. Then, everybody knows all Farnsworth has is a fastball and Berkman launches it to left field for the grand slam. Even after that Atlanta still leads 6-5 and going into the ninth you think, with the 6-7-8 hitters coming up that Farnsworth is going to get out of it. He gets two outs and then gives up a home run to #8 hitter Brad Ausmus who had THREE HOME RUNS ALL OF 2005 AND JUST 71 IN HIS CAREER. This is your "very very good" closer? You've got to be kidding me. I was so happy to see Farnsworth go. Good riddence to him. The Yankees can have him.

 

So, one incidence makes Farnsworth a choker? Is Brad Lidge a choke artist? Remember, I said Farnsworth in 2003, which was your original comparison to Howry.

 

Calling BK. We need you to apply exactly the same stats as you did for the hitters, but in reverse, in order to show that the "Farnsworth can't pitch in pressure situations" myth is exactly that. You know, like you just did for the "Walker can only hit when the bases are empty" myth.

[soccer10k]

In 2003, Farnsworth relieved Mark Prior in Game 6 with the score tied 3-3 after Lee's 2 run double tied the game. Allow me to post the exerpt from ESPN.com's game recap:

 

"Prior was pulled and Kyle Farnsworth came in and intentionally walked Mike Lowell to load the bases. With the crowd sitting in stunned silence and Prior blankly staring, Jeff Conine hit a go-ahead sacrifice fly.

 

Mike Mordecai broke it open with a three-run double off the wall in left-center, his shot hitting near a splash of red-and-orange ivy, and Pierre added an RBI single."

 

Two inherited runners, both of whom score. The only out he recorded was on a sacrifice fly. It should be noted that Pierre's single was off of Remlinger.

 

Then in Game 7 he relieved Kerry Wood in the sixth with the Cubs trailing 6-5 and allowed one of the two inherited runners to score to make it 7-5 on an infield single. Then in the seventh he got two outs before giving up two hits. Dave Veres came in and allowed both runs to score to make the score 9-5.

 

If Farnsworth was so great he would have limited the Marlins in one of the two situations and kept the Cubs in the game. But he couldn't do that. He just made the situation worse.

 

Farnsworth went on the DL in 2004 with a bruised knee because he kicked a fan. Do you know why he kicked the fan? Because he gave up 6 runs to Houston when the Cubs were only trailing 9-6 and still had a chance to win the game.

 

I hate Kyle Farnsworth and think he's one of the most overrated players in baseball and I look forward to watching him choke for the Yankees next year on a much bigger stage. Mark my words, he will pitch well for most of the season but when New York needs him the most to get a big out, he will fail and fail miserably. I will be watching and laughing because it will happen. Guaranteed.

[sethuel1]

In 2003, Farnsworth relieved Mark Prior in Game 6 with the score tied 3-3 after Lee's 2 run double tied the game. Allow me to post the exerpt from ESPN.com's game recap:

 

"Prior was pulled and Kyle Farnsworth came in and intentionally walked Mike Lowell to load the bases. With the crowd sitting in stunned silence and Prior blankly staring, Jeff Conine hit a go-ahead sacrifice fly.

 

Mike Mordecai broke it open with a three-run double off the wall in left-center, his shot hitting near a splash of red-and-orange ivy, and Pierre added an RBI single."

 

Two inherited runners, both of whom score. The only out he recorded was on a sacrifice fly. It should be noted that Pierre's single was off of Remlinger.

 

Then in Game 7 he relieved Kerry Wood in the sixth with the Cubs trailing 6-5 and allowed one of the two inherited runners to score to make it 7-5 on an infield single. Then in the seventh he got two outs before giving up two hits. Dave Veres came in and allowed both runs to score to make the score 9-5.

 

If Farnsworth was so great he would have limited the Marlins in one of the two situations and kept the Cubs in the game. But he couldn't do that. He just made the situation worse.

 

Farnsworth went on the DL in 2004 with a bruised knee because he kicked a fan. Do you know why he kicked the fan? Because he gave up 6 runs to Houston when the Cubs were only trailing 9-6 and still had a chance to win the game.

 

I hate Kyle Farnsworth and think he's one of the most overrated players in baseball and I look forward to watching him choke for the Yankees next year on a much bigger stage. Mark my words, he will pitch well for most of the season but when New York needs him the most to get a big out, he will fail and fail miserably. I will be watching and laughing because it will happen. Guaranteed.

 

Mariano Rivera blew saves in games 4 and 5 of the 2004 ALCS. What a bum. If he didn't suck in either of those two appearances, the Yankees would have won. But, in these two instances, he failed to do anything but suck.

 

 

This means that, over the course of Mariano Rivera's career, he's nothing but a bum, a nobody, and a total hatchet-job of a closer. They should give him to the Devil rays for a bag of used balls.

[soccer10k]

When Mariano Rivera or Brad Lidge or any other elite closer in the league comes into the game one thought runs through my head: Oh no the game is over. My team is going to lose. When Farnsworth played on the Cubs and came into the game in a crucial situation, on thought ran through my head: Oh no the game is over. My team is going to lose. That's the difference. Good closers envoke fear in the opposing team. Kyle Farnsworth invokes fear in your team. Not a good trait to have.

 

Farnsworth doesn't have a shut down pitch. Nobody can hit Rivera's cut fastball and nobody can hit Lidge's slider when they are on. Any good hitter can hit a good straight fastball 450 feet (re: Albert Pujols against Brad Lidge). Eric Gagne was one of the best closers in the league, throws in the upper 90's with three good pitches. I remember when he tried to challenge Barry Bonds with a fastball inside and Bonds pulled it foul into McCovey Cove and the ball went almost 400 feet. On the next pitch Bonds hit another fastball 400+ feet to dead center field for a home run. Everybody knew Gagne was going to throw a fastball so it didn't matter how fast he threw it. My point is that if you only have a fastball, good hitters will hit it. And where do you find good hitters? In the playoffs. Just wait for Manny Ramirez and/or David Ortiz to send a Farnsworth fastball 450 feet this year. It will happen more than once.

[sethuel1]

When Mariano Rivera or Brad Lidge or any other elite closer in the league comes into the game one thought runs through my head: Oh no the game is over. My team is going to lose. When Farnsworth played on the Cubs and came into the game in a crucial situation, on thought ran through my head: Oh no the game is over. My team is going to lose. That's the difference. Good closers envoke fear in the opposing team. Kyle Farnsworth invokes fear in your team. Not a good trait to have.

 

Farnsworth doesn't have a shut down pitch. Nobody can hit Rivera's cut fastball and nobody can hit Lidge's slider when they are on. Any good hitter can hit a good straight fastball 450 feet (re: Albert Pujols against Brad Lidge). Eric Gagne was one of the best closers in the league, throws in the upper 90's with three good pitches. I remember when he tried to challenge Barry Bonds with a fastball inside and Bonds pulled it foul into McCovey Cove and the ball went almost 400 feet. On the next pitch Bonds hit another fastball 400+ feet to dead center field for a home run. Everybody knew Gagne was going to throw a fastball so it didn't matter how fast he threw it. My point is that if you only have a fastball, good hitters will hit it. And where do you find good hitters? In the playoffs. Just wait for Manny Ramirez and/or David Ortiz to send a Farnsworth fastball 450 feet this year. It will happen more than once.

 

Congratulations, you've just defined a good closer as one that evokes an unquantifiable emotion from you.

 

I think we should adopt this statistic. It will be called FISTKS, for Feeling In Soccer Ten K's Stomach, and it will be represented in binary: for each appearance, you either get a zero or a one. The closer with the highest total at the end of the year will receive a role in a horror movie.

 

hey, it'll make about as much sense as Gold Glove balloting.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Farnsworth went on the DL in 2004 with a bruised knee because he kicked a fan. Do you know why he kicked the fan? Because he gave up 6 runs to Houston when the Cubs were only trailing 9-6 and still had a chance to win the game.

 

Again, 2003.

 

 

In 2003, Farnsworth relieved Mark Prior in Game 6 with the score tied 3-3 after Lee's 2 run double tied the game. Allow me to post the exerpt from ESPN.com's game recap:

 

"Prior was pulled and Kyle Farnsworth came in and intentionally walked Mike Lowell to load the bases. With the crowd sitting in stunned silence and Prior blankly staring, Jeff Conine hit a go-ahead sacrifice fly.

 

Mike Mordecai broke it open with a three-run double off the wall in left-center, his shot hitting near a splash of red-and-orange ivy, and Pierre added an RBI single."

 

Two inherited runners, both of whom score. The only out he recorded was on a sacrifice fly. It should be noted that Pierre's single was off of Remlinger.

 

Then in Game 7 he relieved Kerry Wood in the sixth with the Cubs trailing 6-5 and allowed one of the two inherited runners to score to make it 7-5 on an infield single. Then in the seventh he got two outs before giving up two hits. Dave Veres came in and allowed both runs to score to make the score 9-5.

 

If Farnsworth was so great he would have limited the Marlins in one of the two situations and kept the Cubs in the game. But he couldn't do that. He just made the situation worse.

 

Predictably, you bring up Game 6. Farnsworth wasn't great in Game 6. What is neglected is that Farnsworth was also very good the rest of the postseason.

 

Game 2 of the NLDS, Farnsworth comes into a bases loaded, 2 out situation in a one run game, K's the batter to end the threat, then sets down the Braves in the 7th.

 

Game 4 of the NLDS, Farnsworth comes into a 2 run game with a runner on first, one out, retires the side and the first hitter of the next inning without allowing a baserunner.

 

Game 1 of the NLCS, Farnsworth comes in with Castillo on first, one out in a tie game. He retires the next 5 hitters, 3 via the strikeout.

 

He also finished off Game 4 of the NLCS with an inning and a third, giving up only a hit.

 

 

Our memories remember the bad much more than the good.

[Guest]

Calling BK. We need you to apply exactly the same stats as you did for the hitters, but in reverse, in order to show that the "Farnsworth can't pitch in pressure situations" myth is exactly that. You know, like you just did for the "Walker can only hit when the bases are empty" myth.

I'm on it. I'll try to get Farns' numbers back to 2003 posted some time this evening.