[CubsWin]

We see that he was excellent and then lost it. It doesn't help us understand why he lost it, though.

 

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness.

 

it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player.

 

you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works.

This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you?

 

I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water.

[CubsWin]

Just thought I would pass along this bit of good news in case anyone missed it...

ChicagoSports.com[/url]"]The Cubs are likely to pass up struggling Glendon Rusch in the rotation this week against Houston.

Good. Can he be sent down to AAA without having to pass through waivers? Not that a lot of teams would be likely to take him right now. :wink:

[abuck1220]

We see that he was excellent and then lost it. It doesn't help us understand why he lost it, though.

 

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness.

 

it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player.

 

you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works.

This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you?

 

I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water.

 

why would that be a joke? he's been terrible his entire career. therefore, when he has a short run of success, it seems logical to write it off as a run of good luck.

 

or do you prefer to consider his 6-7 years of crap just a wacky turn of bad fortune?

[CubsWin]

We see that he was excellent and then lost it. It doesn't help us understand why he lost it, though.

 

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness.

 

it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player.

 

you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works.

This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you?

 

I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water.

 

why would that be a joke? he's been terrible his entire career. therefore, when he has a short run of success, it seems logical to write it off as a run of good luck.

 

or do you prefer to consider his 6-7 years of crap just a wacky turn of bad fortune?

Well I thought it was a joke because otherwise it is incredibly insulting.

 

I can see a guy with Rusch's past putting together a good month and chalking it up to luck, but not 14 months of very good to excellent performance. To say that a guy who has the talent and worked hard enough to make it to the big leagues would only have a year and a half of success because of luck is completely out of touch with reality. People don't have extended period of success at something that they have dedicated their life to succeeding at because of luck. They struggle and fail and struggle and fail and then, one day, they figure it out unless, of course it is only for a few weeks. Or if it is inconsistent, up and down all year long. But that simply doesn't accurately describe how Rusch had performed for the Cubs heading into this season. Does it?

 

Do you know what it is like to compete with the best in the world at something? To do what it takes to succeed at that level? Luck? No offense, but that has to be the most out of touch with reality notion I've heard in a long time on this board.

[abuck1220]

Well I thought it was a joke because otherwise it is incredibly insulting.

 

I can see a guy with Rusch's past putting together a good month and chalking it up to luck, but not 14 months of very good to excellent performance. To say that a guy who has the talent and worked hard enough to make it to the big leagues would only have a year and a half of success because of luck is completely out of touch with reality. People don't have extended period of success at something that they have dedicated their life to succeeding at because of luck. They struggle and fail and struggle and fail and then, one day, they figure it out unless, of course it is only for a few weeks. Or if it is inconsistent, up and down all year long. But that simply doesn't accurately describe how Rusch had performed for the Cubs heading into this season. Does it?

 

Do you know what it is like to compete with the best in the world at something? To do what it takes to succeed at that level? Luck? No offense, but that has to be the most out of touch with reality notion I've heard in a long time on this board.

 

spare me the "you don't know what it takes" crap. you don't think i realize that he's a better pitcher than 99% of the world? just b/c he made it to the big leagues doesn't mean he's good compared to the rest of the league.

 

you want to talk about being out of touch w/ reality...your claim that he's been "really good" 75% of the time has been shot down left and right multiple times. it is just laughable to look at rusch's numbers and say that he has been even somewhat good...let alone really good...let alone really good a majority of the time...let alone really good 75% of the time. i don't care what counting system you use to come up w/ that ridiculous number...it just IS NOT TRUE.

 

and i'm just dying for you to list these 14 months of "very good to excellent" pitching. are you counting the winter or something? i generously count seven good months as a cub (may 04, july 04, august 04, sept 04, april 05, may 05, sept 05).

[Derwood]

what have you done for me lately?

 

Greg Maddux won 4 straight Cy Youngs, that doesn't change his near 5.00 ERA this year.

[sethuel1]

I said it before and, now that we've tossed out the stats, I'll say it again:

 

Bwahahahahahahaha.

[XZero771679666304]

We see that he was excellent and then lost it. It doesn't help us understand why he lost it, though.

 

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness.

 

it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player.

 

you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works.

This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you?

 

I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water.

 

why would that be a joke? he's been terrible his entire career. therefore, when he has a short run of success, it seems logical to write it off as a run of good luck.

 

or do you prefer to consider his 6-7 years of crap just a wacky turn of bad fortune?

Well I thought it was a joke because otherwise it is incredibly insulting.

 

I can see a guy with Rusch's past putting together a good month and chalking it up to luck, but not 14 months of very good to excellent performance. To say that a guy who has the talent and worked hard enough to make it to the big leagues would only have a year and a half of success because of luck is completely out of touch with reality. People don't have extended period of success at something that they have dedicated their life to succeeding at because of luck. They struggle and fail and struggle and fail and then, one day, they figure it out unless, of course it is only for a few weeks. Or if it is inconsistent, up and down all year long. But that simply doesn't accurately describe how Rusch had performed for the Cubs heading into this season. Does it?

 

Do you know what it is like to compete with the best in the world at something? To do what it takes to succeed at that level? Luck? No offense, but that has to be the most out of touch with reality notion I've heard in a long time on this board.

 

In the context of nearly 10 seasons, 14 months is statistically insignificant. just under 10 total seasons, about 55 months. 14 good months equates to a percentage of 25-26%.

 

That percentage may make a decent batting average, but for a pitcher it isn't acceptable. And if you are referring to his 14 months with the Cubs, 7 have been very good, 2 mediocre, and 5 abysmal. About 50/50. Not good. And his very bad stretches have been more extreme than his good stretches.

 

Insulting or not, what abuck said was dead on accurate. Glendon has been in the league long enough to get an accurate read on him, to know what you can expect and what is anomaly. His decent stretches have been anomalous, there is not logical or empirical argument to the contrary, no matter how you try and spin it.

 

None of his failure can be regarded as "bad luck". Glendon has the talent to be in the majors, but just barely. And don't delude yourself by saying just because a player has had any degree of success it means they belong. The league is full of players whose 5 minutes of success have earned them a longer stay than they deserve. Few have managed to wear out their welcome as long as Glendon.

 

10 years the vast majority of them ranging from bad to abysmal. This isn't some kid who just needs to be given his shot. He has proven that he is not good. He has been up long enough for all the luck and ups and downs to play out. 10 seasons is longer than necessary for the law of averages to pass judgement on Rusch.

 

Baseball is not about humanitarian and feel good notions about players. It's a business, and Rusch's stock is not good.

 

Rusch has had an up and down career, but the valleys have been far deeper and longer than the peaks have been high. His stuff is marginal. His numbers are terrible, and getting worse with every trip he takes to the mound.

 

How much time should his good 2004 buy him? He latest bad stretch has already been nearly as long as the sum total of his good stretches. And don't say he was decent last year, he wasn't. A WHIP of over 1.5 is BAD. Go ahead and bring up Schmidt again. He has had a very good career, and has earned the benefit of the doubt. Rusch hasn't. We can eliminate the pitchers withless that 150 inning because most of the were either demoted or cut loose, while Glendon kept getting his undeserved shots.

 

If you are determined to defend Glendon, go ahead. But your argument is totally flawed, more sentiment than logic.

[CubsWin]

Well I thought it was a joke because otherwise it is incredibly insulting.

 

I can see a guy with Rusch's past putting together a good month and chalking it up to luck, but not 14 months of very good to excellent performance. To say that a guy who has the talent and worked hard enough to make it to the big leagues would only have a year and a half of success because of luck is completely out of touch with reality. People don't have extended period of success at something that they have dedicated their life to succeeding at because of luck. They struggle and fail and struggle and fail and then, one day, they figure it out unless, of course it is only for a few weeks. Or if it is inconsistent, up and down all year long. But that simply doesn't accurately describe how Rusch had performed for the Cubs heading into this season. Does it?

 

Do you know what it is like to compete with the best in the world at something? To do what it takes to succeed at that level? Luck? No offense, but that has to be the most out of touch with reality notion I've heard in a long time on this board.

 

spare me the "you don't know what it takes" crap. you don't think i realize that he's a better pitcher than 99% of the world? just b/c he made it to the big leagues doesn't mean he's good compared to the rest of the league.

I never said that you didn't know what it takes. I asked a question. I asked if you knew what it takes. I was hoping that if you pondered what it does take that you would understand how ridiculous of a notion it is to chalk up anyone's sustained success at an elite level to luck. And since you still seem to think that Rusch was able to have 14 1/2 consecutive months of success (more than 8 consecutive months in season) at the major league level simply due to luck, I was justified in asking it.

 

And where did you get that I was saying that just because he made it to the majors that he is good compared to the rest of the league? Do you have to invent things that make no sense and act as if I said them to feel like you are making a point? Come on. Please respond to what I do write instead of wasting both of our time by responding to what I have never written.

 

you want to talk about being out of touch w/ reality...your claim that he's been "really good" 75% of the time has been shot down left and right multiple times. it is just laughable to look at rusch's numbers and say that he has been even somewhat good...let alone really good...let alone really good a majority of the time...let alone really good 75% of the time. i don't care what counting system you use to come up w/ that ridiculous number...it just IS NOT TRUE.

Shot down? By whom. Who has made a point that hasn't been adequately addressed?

 

You certainly haven't put together any sort of argument based on stats. All you have done is restate over and over again how "terrible" you think he is. But the facts show that he was anything but "terrible" in 2004. You have even said that he was good that year yourself. So that would be 50% of the time he was with the Cubs coming into this season. By your own admission, we are 2/3 of the way to 75%.

 

The stats also show that he was excellent in roughly the first 2 1/2 months of 2005, and then consistently good again in the last month of the season equaling over half of that season bringing us to 75%. It is simple math. The numbers are all there in black and white. All have to do is agree that 6-2, 3.47 is a good year and that the 5-1, 2.07 he accomplished through June 11th was excellent and the 4-0, 3.41 he was last September was back to being consistently good again.

 

I didn't call him good 100% of the time. That 25% that he wasn't good, he was absolutely terrible, not just kind of bad, but absolutely terrible as he has been thus far this season. He is a streaky pitcher who when he has his control can be good for long stretches of time and when he is off, can be bad for long stretches of time. And he has been in a good stretch about 75% of the time he had been with the Cubs going into this season. That is a balanced and statistically accurate description of Glendon Rusch's time with the Cubs. How can anyone who is open-minded, fair-minded and knows how to add disagree with that analysis's legitimacy?

 

and i'm just dying for you to list these 14 months of "very good to excellent" pitching. are you counting the winter or something? i generously count seven good months as a cub (may 04, july 04, august 04, sept 04, april 05, may 05, sept 05).

Clearly, as we have seen this year with Prior and Rusch, a pitcher's ability to come back over the off season and maintain his health and his effectiveness is something worth noting. Rusch did that last year, but not this off season. So yes, if you look at Rusch's '04 and call it good as you have and then give him credit for coming back strong in '05 from the start of the season through June 11th, then that would be over 14 consecutive calendar months in which he was not a "terrible" pitcher. Of course I don't mean only the months that he was actively pitching, he has only been with the Cubs for 14 months of season time and 5 of those months he has outright sucked. I wasn't trying to fool anyone into thinking that those 14 months were in season time. I was just describing what from the beginning of the 2004 season to June 11th of the 2005 season adds up to. Did I really have to explain that to you? I think you are smarter than that. I think you were trying to play some sort of game with words there, but whatever.

 

abuck, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm pretty clear that we aren't going to agree here. I'm just defending your attacks on my argument and trying to present a balanced view. Perhaps I'm failing, if I am, I'm open to seeing how, but please be factual. You've called my argument laughable without stating factually why. You've called Rusch's time with the Cubs terrible across the board without stating factually why. You said that my argument has been "shot down left and right multiple times" without showing how.

 

When Banedon said the 177th best out of 341 pitchers stat, or whatever it was, wasn't the greatest stat I agreed with him. So I am open to seeing what you have to say, but much of what I am reading hasn't been factually based.

[CubsWin]

what have you done for me lately?

 

Greg Maddux won 4 straight Cy Youngs, that doesn't change his near 5.00 ERA this year.

Exactly what I am saying. He sucks right now.

[CubsWin]

I said it before and, now that we've tossed out the stats, I'll say it again:

 

Bwahahahahahahaha.

Ah, finally! The intelligent and fact filled thesis I've been waiting for...

[BigbadB]

I'm staying as far away from this thread as I possibly can.

 

But, spare the insults boys....and girls?

[XZero771679666304]

I said it before and, now that we've tossed out the stats, I'll say it again:

 

Bwahahahahahahaha.

Ah, finally! The intelligent and fact filled thesis I've been waiting for...

 

Wow, dude. just wow.

[CubsWin]

We see that he was excellent and then lost it. It doesn't help us understand why he lost it, though.

 

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness.

 

it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player.

 

you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works.

This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you?

 

I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water.

 

why would that be a joke? he's been terrible his entire career. therefore, when he has a short run of success, it seems logical to write it off as a run of good luck.

 

or do you prefer to consider his 6-7 years of crap just a wacky turn of bad fortune?

Well I thought it was a joke because otherwise it is incredibly insulting.

 

I can see a guy with Rusch's past putting together a good month and chalking it up to luck, but not 14 months of very good to excellent performance. To say that a guy who has the talent and worked hard enough to make it to the big leagues would only have a year and a half of success because of luck is completely out of touch with reality. People don't have extended period of success at something that they have dedicated their life to succeeding at because of luck. They struggle and fail and struggle and fail and then, one day, they figure it out unless, of course it is only for a few weeks. Or if it is inconsistent, up and down all year long. But that simply doesn't accurately describe how Rusch had performed for the Cubs heading into this season. Does it?

 

Do you know what it is like to compete with the best in the world at something? To do what it takes to succeed at that level? Luck? No offense, but that has to be the most out of touch with reality notion I've heard in a long time on this board.

 

In the context of nearly 10 seasons, 14 months is statistically insignificant. just under 10 total seasons, about 55 months. 14 good months equates to a percentage of 25-26%.

 

That percentage may make a decent batting average, but for a pitcher it isn't acceptable. And if you are referring to his 14 months with the Cubs, 7 have been very good, 2 mediocre, and 5 abysmal. About 50/50. Not good. And his very bad stretches have been more extreme than his good stretches.

 

Insulting or not, what abuck said was dead on accurate. Glendon has been in the league long enough to get an accurate read on him, to know what you can expect and what is anomaly. His decent stretches have been anomalous, there is not logical or empirical argument to the contrary, no matter how you try and spin it.

 

None of his failure can be regarded as "bad luck". Glendon has the talent to be in the majors, but just barely. And don't delude yourself by saying just because a player has had any degree of success it means they belong. The league is full of players whose 5 minutes of success have earned them a longer stay than they deserve. Few have managed to wear out their welcome as long as Glendon.

 

10 years the vast majority of them ranging from bad to abysmal. This isn't some kid who just needs to be given his shot. He has proven that he is not good. He has been up long enough for all the luck and ups and downs to play out. 10 seasons is longer than necessary for the law of averages to pass judgement on Rusch.

 

Baseball is not about humanitarian and feel good notions about players. It's a business, and Rusch's stock is not good.

 

Rusch has had an up and down career, but the valleys have been far deeper and longer than the peaks have been high. His stuff is marginal. His numbers are terrible, and getting worse with every trip he takes to the mound.

 

How much time should his good 2004 buy him? He latest bad stretch has already been nearly as long as the sum total of his good stretches. And don't say he was decent last year, he wasn't. A WHIP of over 1.5 is BAD. Go ahead and bring up Schmidt again. He has had a very good career, and has earned the benefit of the doubt. Rusch hasn't. We can eliminate the pitchers withless that 150 inning because most of the were either demoted or cut loose, while Glendon kept getting his undeserved shots.

 

If you are determined to defend Glendon, go ahead. But your argument is totally flawed, more sentiment than logic.

I think you think my argument is something that it is not.

 

abuck is defining Rusch's time with the Cubs prior to this season as terrible. And I'm saying it is statistically accurate to say that he was "good" roughly 75% of the time coming into this season. That doesn't make him a good pitcher overall, and I never said that he was.

 

If want to agree with abuck that Rusch's success over the previous two seasons is simply due to luck and not a baseball player's intention, hard work and dedication, be my guest. I think it is completely accurate to say that the reason why Rusch has failed as much as he has in his career is because he isn't as talented as most. He certainly wasn't as the power pitcher he was trying to be when he first came up. He found some success when he came to the Cubs as a finesse/control pitcher. But he ran into trouble in his second season and has totally lost it in his third. I think we believe the same things about his career has a whole. I just don't think anyone's sustained success at an elite level can accurately be chalked up to luck. Can you?

 

What I did say was that if a pitcher the age Rusch was coming into the 2004 season suddenly gets with the right coach or fine tunes his control or whatever it is and turns things around on a consistent basis for a full season and then the first two months plus of the next, there is reason to believe that he might be able to do it again and isn't doomed to be a "terrible" pitcher for the rest of his career.

 

I never said that I thought it was likely that he would turn his season or his career around. Only that his recent past showed that it was possible for him to right the ship before the trade deadline in hopes that maybe the Cubs could dump him off on somebody.

 

So much of your argument I agree with, but it wasn't countering what I was saying.

Edited June 15, 2006 by CubsWin

[XZero771679666304]

I think you think my argument is something that it is not.

 

abuck is defining Rusch's time with the Cubs prior to this season as terrible. And I'm saying it is statistically accurate to say that he was "good" roughly 75% of the time coming into this season. That doesn't make him a good pitcher overall, and I never said that he was.

 

All I said was that if a pitcher the age Rusch was coming into the 2004 season suddenly gets with the right coach or fine tunes his control or whatever it is and turns things around on a consistent basis for a full season and then the first two months plus of the next, there is reason to believe that he might be able to do it again and isn't doomed to be a "terrible" pitcher for the rest of his career.

 

I never said that I thought it was likely that he would turn his season or his career around. Only that his recent past showed that it was possible for him to right the ship before the trade deadline. In hopes that maybe the Cubs could dump him off on somebody.

 

So much of your argument I agree with, but it wasn't countering what I was saying.

 

All right. But the bottom line here is that the Cubs would be more than justified if they cut Rusch loose right now.

[CubsWin]

I think you think my argument is something that it is not.

 

abuck is defining Rusch's time with the Cubs prior to this season as terrible. And I'm saying it is statistically accurate to say that he was "good" roughly 75% of the time coming into this season. That doesn't make him a good pitcher overall, and I never said that he was.

 

All I said was that if a pitcher the age Rusch was coming into the 2004 season suddenly gets with the right coach or fine tunes his control or whatever it is and turns things around on a consistent basis for a full season and then the first two months plus of the next, there is reason to believe that he might be able to do it again and isn't doomed to be a "terrible" pitcher for the rest of his career.

 

I never said that I thought it was likely that he would turn his season or his career around. Only that his recent past showed that it was possible for him to right the ship before the trade deadline. In hopes that maybe the Cubs could dump him off on somebody.

 

So much of your argument I agree with, but it wasn't countering what I was saying.

 

All right. But the bottom line here is that the Cubs would be more than justified if they cut Rusch loose right now.

I agree completely and have never said anything to suggest that they wouldn't. I was simply hoping that he might right the ship so that they could get something, anything for him instead of taking a complete loss. And that his most recent statistics while under the coaching of Larry Rothschild suggest that he has a chance of doing so.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You don't find it highly unlikely that Rusch, who had a career year at age 29, will not be able to do it again now that he's over 31 and has reverted back to the awfulness of the rest of his career? Rusch offers very little hope for improvement, and there's someone right now in Hill who has nothing left to prove at AAA who should be occupying Rusch's role. Holding onto him on the slim hope that he'll fetch something at the trade deadline is unreasonable when you consider the team's pitching situation, and the fact that teams will be less likely to want him with the multi-year deal Hendry signed him for.

[CubsWin]

I'm staying as far away from this thread as I possibly can.

 

But, spare the insults boys....and girls?

Let me know if you were referring to me, BBB. I thought I was clearly attacking the argument and not the poster, but I'm open to seeing it from another point of view.

[CubsWin]

You don't find it highly unlikely that Rusch, who had a career year at age 29, will not be able to do it again now that he's over 31 and has reverted back to the awfulness of the rest of his career? Rusch offers very little hope for improvement, and there's someone right now in Hill who has nothing left to prove at AAA who should be occupying Rusch's role. Holding onto him on the slim hope that he'll fetch something at the trade deadline is unreasonable when you consider the team's pitching situation, and the fact that teams will be less likely to want him with the multi-year deal Hendry signed him for.

No, I do. I said he had a chance. I never said it was a good one.

 

As I previously stated, I'm all for cutting him and making room. Obviously, the ideal situation is that he finds it again and we are able to get a little something for him in a package. And I think there is a chance that can happen. That's all. I certainly wouldn't be upset if he were cut tomorrow.

[abuck1220]

So that would be 50% of the time he was with the Cubs coming into this season. By your own admission, we are 2/3 of the way to 75%.

 

but not at 75%. and i'll get to why you can't figure out effectiveness that way in a sec.

 

Clearly, as we have seen this year with Prior and Rusch, a pitcher's ability to come back over the off season and maintain his health and his effectiveness is something worth noting. Rusch did that last year, but not this off season. So yes, if you look at Rusch's '04 and call it good as you have and then give him credit for coming back strong in '05 from the start of the season through June 11th, then that would be over 14 consecutive calendar months in which he was not a "terrible" pitcher.

 

you can't be serious. if you have to give credit for rusch for not being terrible from october-february, don't you think that your argument is a bit of a stretch? i mean...you have to see how crazy that is. if not, we'll start adding up the offseason months in between his crappy seasons, and he'll look even worse than he does.

 

 

abuck, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm pretty clear that we aren't going to agree here. I'm just defending your attacks on my argument and trying to present a balanced view. Perhaps I'm failing, if I am, I'm open to seeing how, but please be factual. You've called my argument laughable without stating factually why. You've called Rusch's time with the Cubs terrible across the board without stating factually why. You said that my argument has been "shot down left and right multiple times" without showing how.

 

When Banedon said the 177th best out of 341 pitchers stat, or whatever it was, wasn't the greatest stat I agreed with him. So I am open to seeing what you have to say, but much of what I am reading hasn't been factually based.

 

here are some facts. rusch was good in 2004. rusch had good spells in 2005, and he had some bad spells. bottom line, he finished w/ a 4.50+ era and a 1.57 whip...those numbers are BAD. those numbers alone tell me that, regardless of what he did over the span of certain months, the bad had to have outweighed the good. otherwise he would have had better overall numbers. (ps...i don't care what jason schmidt did in '04. if he had #'s comparable to rusch, then, yes, he wasn't very good. the difference b/w him and rusch is the fact that schmidt had three years of sub-1.2 whip going into '04, something rusch could only dream of.)

 

ok, let's look at your logic in determining that he has been good 50%, 75%, whatever % of the time.

 

you're probably counting april of 2005 as a "good" month for rusch. and he was good that month. he threw 13 1/3 innings. you probably also consider july a good month (his era held steady in the mid 3's). he threw 12 2/3 innings that month.

 

then look at august of 2005, which i think we can both agree is a "bad" month (his era went up over a run). in that month he threw 22 1/3 innings. his era went up over a run in june of '05 -- a month he threw 32 2/3 innings (another bad month).

 

do you see why it's crazy to look at those four months and say, hey, he was good 50% of the time...2 good months, 2 bad months? his two good months consisted of 26 innings, while his two bad months consisted of 55 innings. that's why his overall numbers are bad. who cares about what he did on a month by month basis? do you see why it's misleading to merely count months??? what type of analysis is that?

 

you want facts, i gave you some facts. his #'s in '05 were not good, regardless of what he did in certain months. i wouldn't think that you would need facts beyond his 4.50+ era, the 175 hits he gave up in 145 innings, or his bloated 1.57 whip. facts, facts, facts, facts, facts. i don't know what more you want.

[PrimeTime]

OK Rusch had one good year.....For instance.... John Garland, Esteban Loaiza..there you go...

The guy belongs working at burger king...he shouldnt be pitching anywhere in the Majors...

[Derwood]

Why the 2000 word defense essays on a guy who blows goats? So what if he was good for x% of his tenure as a cub? He sucks now, his presence on the team is an insult to baseball fans, he is stealing every penny of his paycheck....I just don't get why we need a 4 page thread of heated debate about this.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why the 2000 word defense essays on a guy who blows goats? So what if he was good for x% of his tenure as a cub? He sucks now, his presence on the team is an insult to baseball fans, he is stealing every penny of his paycheck....I just don't get why we need a 4 page thread of heated debate about this.

 

He doesn't suck. He 4-hit the Padres last year.

[CubsWin]

Why the 2000 word defense essays on a guy who blows goats? So what if he was good for x% of his tenure as a cub? He sucks now, his presence on the team is an insult to baseball fans, he is stealing every penny of his paycheck....I just don't get why we need a 4 page thread of heated debate about this.

We don't.

 

The points I was making weren't very controversial in my opinion, but some people thought I was saying things that were way out there. I was simply providing the reasoning behind what I thought was a very middle of the road and obvious statement and a few posters kept disagreeing. It was mind-boggling to me.

[imb]

you're right on that, this thread certainly is mind-boggling.