April Rotation

[Illini Iceman]

Goony doesn't believe you need a guy who can provide more than an inning or two. I disagree.

 

I didn't say that.

 

I said you don't set aside a roster spot for the mythical longman.

 

Glendon Rusch went 2 and a third on opening day. Then he had 2 outings where he went one third, and then he went 3 innings. The Cubs can get similar pitching out of some of the 7 guys they will have.

 

If you start with 4 starters, bring your best 7 relievers. Don't bring a Rusch impersonator because you think you might need him one day.

 

Who in our bullpen is going to go 3 innings? Wuertz, Eyre, Howry, Williamson, Dempster, Ohman? That's 6 guys who are likely locked in. That leaves one spot for a guy who can pitch more than 2 innings (Welly, Hill), and you take that guy over Novoa who can't, IMO.

 

I think they will give Welly a spot since it will provide the long relief option you reference plus avoid (at least temporarily) needing to put him on waivers since he is out of options.

[CUBZ99]

 

Obviously, performance is the best measure of the effectiveness of the pitcher. But if that performance is based upon only a handful of appearance and even less in the appropriate role of the player (as a starting pitcher), then I don't think, in this case, its an adequate measure.

 

I agree with you, but my overall point was that you can't dismiss Rusch as being a horrible starter when his stats show that in the NL central he is an above avg. 5th starter. And it is possible that the other options the Cubs have could actually be worse than Rusch (like last year). Sometimes I think it is too easy to make over uninformed over-generalized statements about role players like Rusch.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

Obviously, performance is the best measure of the effectiveness of the pitcher. But if that performance is based upon only a handful of appearance and even less in the appropriate role of the player (as a starting pitcher), then I don't think, in this case, its an adequate measure.

 

I agree with you, but my overall point was that you can't dismiss Rusch as being a horrible starter when his stats show that in the NL central he is an above avg. 5th starter. And it is possible that the other options the Cubs have could actually be worse than Rusch (like last year). Sometimes I think it is too easy to make over uninformed over-generalized statements about role players like Rusch.

 

How do the statistics show he is an above average 5th starter? I haven't looked at them compared to the league, but I find it hard to believe that Rusch's 90ish ERA+, 1.4 - 1.5 WHIP, and lack of noteworthy peripherals would rank that well.

[Laura]

Rusch is #2.

 

Which might be better than Maddux vs. Cincy in Cincy.

 

Cubs.com[/url]"] The tentative order for the start of the season will be Carlos Zambrano on Opening Day, April 3, against the Reds, followed by left-hander Glendon Rusch, Greg Maddux in the home opener, April 7, against St. Louis, followed by Jerome Williams. The Cubs don't need a fifth starter until April 15. That's when the kids could be a factor.

 

"We have some guys who will get an opportunity to get stretched out here in Spring Training, guys like Guzman, Marshall, guys like Hill and probably Ryu," Baker said. "They'll get a couple starts, and then we'll decide who we call up for the fifth spot.

 

"There are some guys who have the nod because of experience," Baker said. "There are some guys who have demonstrated better control and better stuff than others. We'll see how they do the last couple weeks of spring and how they do when they go to Triple-A or Double-A."

[Laura]

Man oh man.

[treebird]

YOU SURE ARE LUCKY I LIKE FINISHING FOURTH HENDRY

[CUBZ99]

 

Obviously, performance is the best measure of the effectiveness of the pitcher. But if that performance is based upon only a handful of appearance and even less in the appropriate role of the player (as a starting pitcher), then I don't think, in this case, its an adequate measure.

 

I agree with you, but my overall point was that you can't dismiss Rusch as being a horrible starter when his stats show that in the NL central he is an above avg. 5th starter. And it is possible that the other options the Cubs have could actually be worse than Rusch (like last year). Sometimes I think it is too easy to make over uninformed over-generalized statements about role players like Rusch.

 

How do the statistics show he is an above average 5th starter? I haven't looked at them compared to the league, but I find it hard to believe that Rusch's 90ish ERA+, 1.4 - 1.5 WHIP, and lack of noteworthy peripherals would rank that well.

 

Believe it or not if you look at the NL Central the Cardinals are the only team that had a better 5th starter based on ERA.

 

Houston

 

#4 - Backe 4.76 ERA WHIP 1.46

#5 - Rodriquez 5.53 ERA WHIP 1.46

#5 - Astacio 5.67 ERA WHIP 1.54

 

Reds

 

#2 - Milton 6.47 ERA WHIP 1.55

#3 - Ortiz 5.36 ERA WHIP 1.50

#4 - Clausen 4.21 ERA WHIP 1.41

#5 - Hudson 6.38 ERA WHIP 1.57

 

Pirates

 

#1(?) - Wells 5.29 ERA WHIP 1.57

#2 - Redman 4.90 ERA WHIP 1.37

#3 - Perez 5.85 ERA WHIP 1.67

#4 - Williams 4.41 ERA WHIP 1.41

#5 - Fogg 5.05 ERA WHIP 1.47

 

Brewers

 

Santos 4.57 ERA WHIP 1.50

Ohka 4.35 ERA WHIP 1.37

Glover 5.57 ERA WHIP 1.45

Obermueller 5.26 ERA WHIP 1.69

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

Obviously, performance is the best measure of the effectiveness of the pitcher. But if that performance is based upon only a handful of appearance and even less in the appropriate role of the player (as a starting pitcher), then I don't think, in this case, its an adequate measure.

 

I agree with you, but my overall point was that you can't dismiss Rusch as being a horrible starter when his stats show that in the NL central he is an above avg. 5th starter. And it is possible that the other options the Cubs have could actually be worse than Rusch (like last year). Sometimes I think it is too easy to make over uninformed over-generalized statements about role players like Rusch.

 

How do the statistics show he is an above average 5th starter? I haven't looked at them compared to the league, but I find it hard to believe that Rusch's 90ish ERA+, 1.4 - 1.5 WHIP, and lack of noteworthy peripherals would rank that well.

 

Believe it or not if you look at the NL Central the Cardinals are the only team that had a better 5th starter based on ERA.

 

Houston

 

#4 - Backe 4.76 ERA WHIP 1.46

#5 - Rodriquez 5.53 ERA WHIP 1.46

#5 - Astacio 5.67 ERA WHIP 1.54

 

Reds

 

#2 - Milton 6.47 ERA WHIP 1.55

#3 - Ortiz 5.36 ERA WHIP 1.50

#4 - Clausen 4.21 ERA WHIP 1.41

#5 - Hudson 6.38 ERA WHIP 1.57

 

Pirates

 

#1(?) - Wells 5.29 ERA WHIP 1.57

#2 - Redman 4.90 ERA WHIP 1.37

#3 - Perez 5.85 ERA WHIP 1.67

#4 - Williams 4.41 ERA WHIP 1.41

#5 - Fogg 5.05 ERA WHIP 1.47

 

Brewers

 

Santos 4.57 ERA WHIP 1.50

Ohka 4.35 ERA WHIP 1.37

Glover 5.57 ERA WHIP 1.45

Obermueller 5.26 ERA WHIP 1.69

 

Sorry, I didn't notice you said Central and not just central. Rusch's career numbers or numbers from last year put him either barely in the top 80(5 starters) or at the bottom of the NL among starters.

[BigbadB]

Man oh man.

 

Rusch against Eric Milton won't be the tv game of the week, but I don't think the Cubs get blown out in this game.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

It's important to get out of the gate with a good start.

[rocket]

It's important to get out of the gate with a good start.

 

just like the astros did last year

[RyCubsFan]

It's important to get out of the gate with a good start.

 

just like the astros did last year

 

No, like the White Sox.

 

I think Rusch second, and Maddux third is simply a nod to Greg--and not a upgrading at Rusch to the #2. It's an honor to have the start for the opening day at Wrigley.

[Shilzzz]

the new-ness of the 2006 season has already worn off.

 

it's going to be a loooooooooooong summer.

[RyCubsFan]

the new-ness of the 2006 season has already worn off.

 

it's going to be a loooooooooooong summer.

 

 

Oh no no no. I'm still very excited about opening day. There's a lot to root for. Like my boy Matt Murton!!! Or big Z. Or Ronny sticking at short.

 

If proven necessary, it'll even be fun to see the competition between Hill, Guzman, Marshall, and Ryu.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Rusch our #2? It seems like only yesterday I was bemoaning the fact that he was an option for #5. Wait, it was yesterday.

[Shilzzz]

the new-ness of the 2006 season has already worn off.

 

it's going to be a loooooooooooong summer.

 

 

Oh no no no. I'm still very excited about opening day. There's a lot to root for. Like my boy Matt Murton!!! Or big Z. Or Ronny sticking at short.

 

If proven necessary, it'll even be fun to see the competition between Hill, Guzman, Marshall, and Ryu.

 

im as excited as anyone for those guys or other peoples individual performances(i really want to see wade miller in a cubs uni), but as far as the team goes, right now it doesn't look so hot. ramirez should have a big year though

[baseball7897]

I think if the Cubs can get solid performances from Williams, Rusch and Guzman/Hill the Cubs will be fine. If there is one thing I would like to see Jim Hendry do is trade for Tony Graffanino. He would be a perfect number 2 hitter, just like how Mark Grudzielanik was for the cubs in 03.

[rocket]

I think if the Cubs can get solid performances from Williams, Rusch and Guzman/Hill the Cubs will be fine. If there is one thing I would like to see Jim Hendry do is trade for Tony Graffanino. He would be a perfect number 2 hitter, just like how Mark Grudzielanik was for the cubs in 03.

 

and if the reds got solid performances from eric milton, zack williams, and brandon claussen, the reds would be fine.

[Laura]

Man oh man.

 

Rusch against Eric Milton won't be the tv game of the week, but I don't think the Cubs get blown out in this game.

 

The comment is for the makeup of the 4-man in general.

 

As I mentioned, I can see the logic in terms of who pitches April 5.

[srbin84]

I don't think people are giving Williams enough credit. He has a career 3.92 ERA and is only 24. Our season supposedly depends in large part on the health of Kerry Wood and he has a 3.67. Also, I saw Guzman live in spring training, and although it was only one outing, his stuff looked electric. He looked more polished than Hill to me.