[CaliforniaRaisin]

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

 

Nice sig.

[Banedon]

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

 

Nice sig.

 

Seconded...that's excellent.

[Banedon]

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.

 

Here's the problem...it wasn't middle of the road and obvious.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I remember coming back from an Iowa Cubs game in Colorado Springs and listening to a Cub game on the radio back in 2004 with my parents. They announced:

 

"Glendon Rucsh has been called up from Iowa and will be starting today's game".

 

"Holy (insert your favorite curse word here)!!!" I exclaimed.

 

My Mom said, "What, what's wrong?"

 

I replied, "Did you hear that?!? The Cubs managed to get someone to the majors who is worse than Jeff Fassero! I can't believe Glendon is even NEAR the majors this year! He had like a 6.50 ERA last year with the Brewers! He never once had a good season. What is going on!"

 

"You are over-reacting," my Mom said.

 

So yesterday, my Mom said over the phone: "Holy (insert your word)! Glendon sucks!" ...and she thinks NEIFI is OK!!!

 

I was just listening to a song called "Green Jello Sucks (Theme Song)" by Green Jello, and for some reason, it immediately brought the Cubs to mind.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

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

 

Nice sig.

 

Seconded...that's excellent.

 

Can we split a split thread? Who's dumber -- Edward K., Indianapolis, Ind. or SCOTT ((DALLAS,TX))?

[CubsWin]

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.

No crazier than saying he was terrible 3 years in a row, which he was, right? We all refer to it that way. I think you are just playing word games now. I've already gone back and clarified that I didn't mean 14 months of in season time. So can we let it go?

 

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.

I think this one question will help make things more clear. Say a pitcher pitches great (5-1, 2.07) over 61 IP for the first 2 1/2 months, then, for whatever reason, pitches terribly for the next 2 1/2 months (0-7, 8.03) over 52 2/3 IP, but then, for whatever reason, pitches consistently good again (4-0, 3.47) over 31 2/3 IP in the last month of the season. In effect, he had two distinct seasons. One in which he went 9-1, 2.53 over 92 2/3 IP and one where he was 0-7, 8.03 over 52 2/3 IP such that his final numbers were 9-8, 4.52 over 145 1/3 IP. It would be accurate to say he did not have a good year. However, and here's the question, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he was really good over half of the time and really bad the rest?

 

This is about the 5th time I've said this, if Rusch had been average to below average consistently all year long, then I would call his numbers in 2005 bad and leave it at that. But he wasn't. Since the facts are different, the way I describe them will be too. If I'm interested in having an accurate opinion, that is.

 

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?

No, I look at your analysis and ask, "what kind of analysis is that?"

 

You only looked at four of the six months of the season, why? You left out May and September, his two best months, in which Rusch went 6-1 with a 2.93 ERA over 64 1/3 IP. What kind of balanced analysis is that?

 

I don't consider July '05 a good month. Do you? His ERA that month was 7.82. Why would I?

 

I don't go by calendar months and decide what was a good month and what wasn't. I agree that would be silly and have said as much earlier in this thread.

 

I look at when his effectiveness changed. He was really good from basically the start of the '05 season up until his start on June 12th and then oddly, he was ineffective for the most part until September. So that is roughly 2 1/2 months of great pitching (5-1, 2.07) followed by roughly 2 1/2 months of absolutely terrible pitching (0-7, 8.03). If he hadn't turned it around in September, I seriously doubt the Cubs consider resigning him, at least I hope they would. But he comes back and has 4 consistently strong starts to end the season winning all of them and compiling a very 2004-like ERA of 3.47.

 

When you add up the time he was really good 3 months and a week basically to the time he was bad 2 months and 3 weeks basically, its about half and half. When you look at the innings pitched while he was effective its 92 2/3 IP to 52 2/3 IP while ineffective. That's 64% to 36%. That's where I got my numbers.

 

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.

Okay.

[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.

 

Here's the problem...it wasn't middle of the road and obvious.

Clearly.

 

That's why I wrote that "I thought" it was middle of the road and others disagreed.

 

Though, much of my experience has been that people are misunderstanding what I'm saying and disagreeing with things they think I'm saying. I keep having to write, "I never said that."

[Chocolate Milk]

Wow. I just tried to read this thread.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Wow. I just tried to read this thread.

 

Hurts, don't it?

[CuseCubFan69]

I thought that this thread was about Rusch actually getting big enough to split into two pitchers and the Cubs sending one of the M's to the minors.

[abuck1220]

 

You only looked at four of the six months of the season, why?

 

ugh...because i don't have to look at all the months. why? because his overall numbers were BAD, so the bad clearly outweighed the good. why is that so hard to understand? i just picked out a few to show how stupid it is to look at a season on a month by month basis.

 

When you add up the time he was really good 3 months and a week basically to the time he was bad 2 months and 3 weeks basically, its about half and half. When you look at the innings pitched while he was effective its 92 2/3 IP to 52 2/3 IP while ineffective.

 

then why are his overall numbers so bad??????????

 

this is the most frustrating argument of all time. you continue to insist that his 2005 was equal parts bad and very good. yet a 4.50+ era and a 1.57 whip CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE BAD OUTWEIGHED THE GOOD (thus NOT 50% good, 50% bad).

[Derwood]

I look at the title of this thread and pretend it means that Rusch left town

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I look at the title of this thread and pretend it means that Rusch left town

 

Me too, but inevitably I open the thread and experience more pain than just that of knowing Fat Glen's still with us.

[Derwood]

I look at the title of this thread and pretend it means that Rusch left town

 

Me too, but inevitably I open the thread and experience more pain than just that of knowing Fat Glen's still with us.

 

And now the nominees for the "Weirdest of Defense of Suck" Award:

 

- Defending Glendon Rusch in "Rusch Split"

- Defending strikeouts in "Strikeouts"

- Defending Dusty Baker in "That one dude's signature that says 'Keep up the Good Work Dusty' or something like that"

[RynoRules]

I took the title literally and thought someone from this bd. acousted Glendon.

[CubsWin]

I look at the title of this thread and pretend it means that Rusch left town

 

Me too, but inevitably I open the thread and experience more pain than just that of knowing Fat Glen's still with us.

 

And now the nominees for the "Weirdest of Defense of Suck" Award:

 

- Defending Glendon Rusch in "Rusch Split"

- Defending strikeouts in "Strikeouts"

- Defending Dusty Baker in "That one dude's signature that says 'Keep up the Good Work Dusty' or something like that"

Who is defending Glendon Rusch?

 

I'm simply stating what's so about him as reflected by fact. I'm not saying that any of it means that he is a pitcher worth building around or something.

[Derwood]

I look at the title of this thread and pretend it means that Rusch left town

 

Me too, but inevitably I open the thread and experience more pain than just that of knowing Fat Glen's still with us.

 

And now the nominees for the "Weirdest of Defense of Suck" Award:

 

- Defending Glendon Rusch in "Rusch Split"

- Defending strikeouts in "Strikeouts"

- Defending Dusty Baker in "That one dude's signature that says 'Keep up the Good Work Dusty' or something like that"

Who is defending Glendon Rusch?

 

I'm simply stating what's so about him as reflected by fact. I'm not saying that any of it means that he is a pitcher worth building around or something.

 

:?: :shock: :?:

[CubsWin]

 

You only looked at four of the six months of the season, why?

 

ugh...because i don't have to look at all the months. why? because his overall numbers were BAD, so the bad clearly outweighed the good. why is that so hard to understand? i just picked out a few to show how stupid it is to look at a season on a month by month basis.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here, abuck. But, regardless, I have already agreed with you that it is stupid to look at it on a month to month basis and, furthermore, I wasn't doing that.

 

I was looking at the fact that his '05 season had three very distinct sections to it, (I must have said this like 6 times now) and that had he been consistently inconsistent all season long and wound up with the same numbers, I would chalk up '05 as a below average season and say that he really was only good during the '04 season.

 

But, as we all know, that's not what happened.

 

When you add up the time he was really good 3 months and a week basically to the time he was bad 2 months and 3 weeks basically, its about half and half. When you look at the innings pitched while he was effective its 92 2/3 IP to 52 2/3 IP while ineffective.

 

then why are his overall numbers so bad??????????

 

this is the most frustrating argument of all time. you continue to insist that his 2005 was equal parts bad and very good. yet a 4.50+ era and a 1.57 whip CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE BAD OUTWEIGHED THE GOOD (thus NOT 50% good, 50% bad).

I think we are getting close here, abuck.

 

I never said that in the 25% of the time he wasn't good that he was only kind of bad. No. I have said it over and over again, that in the 25% of the time that he was bad, he was absolutely terrible. I even totaled up how bad he was for everyone to see. 0-7, 8.03. If I were truly trying to pull the wool over your eyes about Fat Glen or as some people have wrongly interpreted "defend" him, why would I total up his worst performances and display them? Because how bad he was during that 25% doesn't change the fact that he was still quite good during the other 75% of the time he was with the Cubs prior to this season. Its just a fact. If you are willing to say that '04 was a good year which you are. And if you are willing to acknowledge that he was really effective about half the time in '05. And if you are willing to acknowledge that those are the only two seasons he has pitched with the Cubs prior to this season, then...

 

I never said that that added up to him being a good pitcher. Just that he has had quite a bit of time over the last two seasons where he was pitching effectively, which we have since agreed upon, and that he might be able to right the ship long enough for the Cubs to package him in a deal and get some other team to take him.

 

That statement, though factually accurate, brought a pretty big reaction. I understand that people are frustrated with him right now. So am I. The way he is going I don't want to see him pitch for the Cubs ever again. But it doesn't mean that when someone makes a statement that is factually accurate that we shouldn't acknowledge it.

 

Thats how stupid this thread and conversation is. It started over a completely inconsequential comment I made about hopefully Rusch being able to be worth something so that Cubs wouldn't have to cut him and get nothing in return. I said it not in defense of him or to excuse how poorly he is pitching now or to say that the Cubs should have faith in him and hang on. Nope. I said it to show that he has a chance at righting the ship in time to trade him. Not a really good chance, just a chance. I would like to see the Cubs not have to suffer his suckiness without getting something in return. That would be a double loss. Some people in this thread have recognized that that was all I was saying and gone, oh, so what's the big deal. And I've agreed with them. There is no big deal. I'm just not backing down because 1+1 still equals 2.

[Laura]

I took the title literally and thought someone from this bd. acousted Glendon.

 

I just figured he ate so much that he bursted at the seams.

[RynoRules]

I took the title literally and thought someone from this bd. acousted Glendon.

 

I just figured he ate so much that he bursted at the seams.

 

C'mon now, Serena! That was the easy one! You are better than that! :)

[cubfan1955]

I took the title literally and thought someone from this bd. acousted Glendon.

 

I just figured he ate so much that he bursted at the seams.

I was hoping he had an accident with a chain saw. :lol:

[impaler_240]

Rusch has teh AIDS. :roll:

[GG4B]

Nice outing Glendon. Let's hope that fat pig has eaten his last Krispy Kreme here in Chicago. Edited June 16, 2006 by GG4B

[impaler_240]

I saw they pulled the fat P.O.S. in teh 2nd inning. :lol:

[sweetpeteman]

I saw they pulled the fat P.O.S. in teh 2nd inning. :lol:

 

So his point on this team is? Honestly, what is it? SOMEBODY TELL ME!