Once Again Pitching Rules

[soccer10k]

Everyone take a step back, please.

 

Yeah, sorry. Got a bit heated with that last post. As I said, I was slightly intoxicated when I posted it. I think I'm gonna take a few deep breaths before coming back to this thread.

[baseball7897]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?!

 

YOU DON'T!!! GET IT?

 

It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent.

 

I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done.

 

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

[soccer10k]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

[baseball7897]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

[sethuel1]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

Ok guys, here's what i would do. I'd get some good regular season pitchers, and i'd win a lot of games and make the playoffs. And then, once the playoffs started, i would trade for all of the pitchers that did really good at the end of the year and put them on my playoff roster.

 

later in the playoffs, I'd trade for all of the pitchers that did good in the early rounds of the playoffs.

 

What do you guys think?

[baseball7897]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

Ok guys, here's what i would do. I'd get some good regular season pitchers, and i'd win a lot of games and make the playoffs. And then, once the playoffs started, i would trade for all of the pitchers that did really good at the end of the year and put them on my playoff roster.

 

later in the playoffs, I'd trade for all of the pitchers that did good in the early rounds of the playoffs.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Dont quote me when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Pitching, defense, and clutch hitting will win you a world series. I am done arguing something that I know is true.

[soccer10k]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

[sethuel1]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

Ok guys, here's what i would do. I'd get some good regular season pitchers, and i'd win a lot of games and make the playoffs. And then, once the playoffs started, i would trade for all of the pitchers that did really good at the end of the year and put them on my playoff roster.

 

later in the playoffs, I'd trade for all of the pitchers that did good in the early rounds of the playoffs.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Dont quote me when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Pitching, defense, and clutch hitting will win you a world series. I am done arguing something that I know is true.

 

WELL I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO GET GOOD PLAYOFF PITCHERS EACH YEAR IS TO TRADE FOR THEM WHEN YOU'RE IN THE PLAYOFFS.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?!

 

YOU DON'T!!! GET IT?

 

It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent.

 

I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done.

 

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

So, what Weaver really is is more proven in two starts in the playoffs instead of his 31 starts over the regular season.

 

And it's "could have" not "could of".

 

I think Weaver had a string of good starts than any pitcher could have. He just happened to have them at a very important time. Hell, if his timing was right, Glendon Rusch could have done the same thing. As could have Shawn Estes, Miguel Batista, John Thompson, or any number of mediocre pitchers.

 

 

Weaver's career shows what he is and that's a pitcher who is below average as evidenced by his 96 career ERA+. His good run in the postseason in no way makes him a good pitcher as Molina's nice little hot streak makes him a good hitter.

 

My guess is that whoever signs Weaver will get a pitcher who will post an ERA+ next season at a little below 100. If they are lucky they may get a 101-102 ERA+.

 

Molina may not be the 216 hitter he was last season, but he's a lot closer to it than the 350 hitter he was during the postseason.

[baseball7897]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

 

5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

[Shavo]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

Ok guys, here's what i would do. I'd get some good regular season pitchers, and i'd win a lot of games and make the playoffs. And then, once the playoffs started, i would trade for all of the pitchers that did really good at the end of the year and put them on my playoff roster.

 

later in the playoffs, I'd trade for all of the pitchers that did good in the early rounds of the playoffs.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Dont quote me when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Pitching, defense, and clutch hitting will win you a world series. I am done arguing something that I know is true.

 

Jeff Weaver isn't a good pitcher.

[baseball7897]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?!

 

YOU DON'T!!! GET IT?

 

It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent.

 

I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done.

 

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

So, what Weaver really is is more proven in two starts in the playoffs instead of his 31 starts over the regular season.

 

And it's "could have" not "could of".

 

I think Weaver had a string of good starts than any pitcher could have. He just happened to have them at a very important time. Hell, if his timing was right, Glendon Rusch could have done the same thing. As could have Shawn Estes, Miguel Batista, John Thompson, or any number of mediocre pitchers.

 

 

Weaver's career shows what he is and that's a pitcher who is below average as evidenced by his 96 career ERA+. His good run in the postseason in no way makes him a good pitcher as Molina's nice little hot streak makes him a good hitter.

 

My guess is that whoever signs Weaver will get a pitcher who will post an ERA+ next season at a little below 100. If they are lucky they may get a 101-102 ERA+.

 

Molina may not be the 216 hitter he was last season, but he's a lot closer to it than the 350 hitter he was during the postseason.

 

You don't need to make fun of someone's grammar to make a point. Childish response by an ignorant person.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

 

5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

 

So 5-6 starts tell you more than 31?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

 

5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

 

So if the Tigers were smart they'd get rid of Verlander and Robertson, the A's should get rid of Huston Street, the Mets should dump Billy Wagner, Steve Trachsel should retire, and Tom Glavine will win the Cy Young next year(narrowly edging out Jeff Weaver).

[baseball7897]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

 

5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

 

So 5-6 starts tell you more than 31?

 

I think you can make a pretty darn good judgement on a pitcher in 5-6 starts. You don't need a pitcher to make 31 starts to judge them. Hell, I could judge most pitchers by a couple of starts.

[soccer10k]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

 

5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

 

So Verlander's 4 postseason starts tell more about his abilities as a pitcher than the 30 starts he made in the regular season? What a ludicrous statement.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?!

 

YOU DON'T!!! GET IT?

 

It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent.

 

I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done.

 

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

So, what Weaver really is is more proven in two starts in the playoffs instead of his 31 starts over the regular season.

 

And it's "could have" not "could of".

 

I think Weaver had a string of good starts than any pitcher could have. He just happened to have them at a very important time. Hell, if his timing was right, Glendon Rusch could have done the same thing. As could have Shawn Estes, Miguel Batista, John Thompson, or any number of mediocre pitchers.

 

 

Weaver's career shows what he is and that's a pitcher who is below average as evidenced by his 96 career ERA+. His good run in the postseason in no way makes him a good pitcher as Molina's nice little hot streak makes him a good hitter.

 

My guess is that whoever signs Weaver will get a pitcher who will post an ERA+ next season at a little below 100. If they are lucky they may get a 101-102 ERA+.

 

Molina may not be the 216 hitter he was last season, but he's a lot closer to it than the 350 hitter he was during the postseason.

 

You don't need to make fun of someone's grammar to make a point. Childish response by an ignorant person.

 

Uhm...wouldn't the ignorant person be the one who doesn't know correct grammar?

 

I'm done arguing because I know using incorrect grammar is a sign of ignorance. Don't argue with me here. I'm an educator! I know these things.

[soccer10k]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

 

5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

 

So 5-6 starts tell you more than 31?

 

I think you can make a pretty darn good judgement on a pitcher in 5-6 starts. You don't need a pitcher to make 31 starts to judge them. Hell, I could judge most pitchers by a couple of starts.

 

RICH HILL

[CaliforniaRaisin]

You don't need to make fun of someone's grammar to make a point. Childish response by an ignorant person.

 

What the heck? He had a pretty long post after that responding to your points.

 

And please don't call other posters "ignorant."

[soccer10k]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

 

5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

 

So 5-6 starts tell you more than 31?

 

I think you can make a pretty darn good judgement on a pitcher in 5-6 starts. You don't need a pitcher to make 31 starts to judge them. Hell, I could judge most pitchers by a couple of starts.

 

You don't need a pitcher to make 31 starts to judge them but 31 starts is a much better judgement of a pitcher than 5-6 starts. It's basic statistics.

[baseball7897]

The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

 

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane.

 

It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

 

And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size.

 

5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

 

So 5-6 starts tell you more than 31?

 

I think you can make a pretty darn good judgement on a pitcher in 5-6 starts. You don't need a pitcher to make 31 starts to judge them. Hell, I could judge most pitchers by a couple of starts.

 

RICH HILL

 

I wasnt on this board last year, but I would of told you Rich Hill was going to be a good starter if he could command his fastball.

[baseball7897]

You don't need to make fun of someone's grammar to make a point. Childish response by an ignorant person.

 

What the heck? He had a pretty long post after that responding to your points.

 

And please don't call other posters "ignorant."

 

Hold the phone. Vance called me ignorant a couple of months ago. I dont see why I couldn't call him ignorant if he called me ignorant.

Edited October 29, 2006 by baseball7897

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

I think you can make a pretty darn good judgement on a pitcher in 5-6 starts. You don't need a pitcher to make 31 starts to judge them. Hell, I could judge most pitchers by a couple of starts.

 

Not if you think Jeff Weaver is a good pitcher.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

I wasnt on this board last year, but I would of told you Rich Hill was going to be a good starter if he could command his fastball.

would have

[CaliforniaRaisin]

You don't need to make fun of someone's grammar to make a point. Childish response by an ignorant person.

 

What the heck? He had a pretty long post after that responding to your points.

 

And please don't call other posters "ignorant."

 

Hold the phone. Vance called me ignorant a couple of months ago.

 

Well, I'm sorry I missed it but the same rules go for Vance and I or one of the mods would have called him out on name calling had we seen it.

 

There is no name calling or attacking the posters.