9/30 Cub Scrubs at Reds Scrubs

[Warren Brusstar]

Boy, it's sure going to be scary to see Dempster coming in to close games for us in the playoffs.

 

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in.

 

Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning?

 

The distinction is utterly absurd.

 

 

Also, non-save situations aren't restricted to tie games as they include any lead over 3 runs. If you don't think a pitcher pitches differently with a big lead than he does with a 1 or 2 run lead you're crazy.

 

If the actual facts were that Dempster had pitched poorly a number of times with an 8 run lead, your argument would make sense. That's not the case.

 

Dempster's really poor games this season:

 

April 22 v. StL: gave up 3 runs in a tie game in the 10th inning to lose

May 17 @ NyM: gave up 5 runs after coming with 5-1 lead in the 9th

Jun 10 @ Atl: gave up 3 runs to blow a 4-2 lead and lose 5-4

Aug 3 v. NYM: gave up 4 runs in the 9th after coming in to a 2-2 game

Sept. 6 v. LAD: gave up 4 in the 9th to blow a 4-3 and lose 7-4

Sept. 14 v. StL: gave up 2 runs in the 9th with a 5-1 lead at StL

 

Only 2 of those games were technically "save situations." But all but the Sept. 14 game were extremely high leverage spots. The Apr 22 and Aug 3 games were tie games in the 9th and 10th inning. The May 17 didn't start as a high-leverage game, but Dempster turned it into one quickly.

 

It's merely coincidental that only two of his really bad games have come in "save" situations. If you think a pitcher pitches differently with a 1 or 2 run lead than he does in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning, it's you who is crazy.

[soccer10k]

Boy, it's sure going to be scary to see Dempster coming in to close games for us in the playoffs.

 

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in.

 

Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning?

 

The distinction is utterly absurd.

 

 

Also, non-save situations aren't restricted to tie games as they include any lead over 3 runs. If you don't think a pitcher pitches differently with a big lead than he does with a 1 or 2 run lead you're crazy.

 

If the actual facts were that Dempster had pitched poorly a number of times with an 8 run lead, your argument would make sense. That's not the case.

 

Dempster's really poor games this season:

 

April 22 v. StL: gave up 3 runs in a tie game in the 10th inning to lose

May 17 @ NyM: gave up 5 runs after coming with 5-1 lead in the 9th

Jun 10 @ Atl: gave up 3 runs to blow a 4-2 lead and lose 5-4

Aug 3 v. NYM: gave up 4 runs in the 9th after coming in to a 2-2 game

Sept. 6 v. LAD: gave up 4 in the 9th to blow a 4-3 and lose 7-4

Sept. 14 v. StL: gave up 2 runs in the 9th with a 5-1 lead at StL

 

Only 2 of those games were technically "save situations." But all but the Sept. 14 game were extremely high leverage spots. The Apr 22 and Aug 3 games were tie games in the 9th and 10th inning. The May 17 didn't start as a high-leverage game, but Dempster turned it into one quickly.

 

It's merely coincidental that only two of his really bad games have come in "save" situations. If you think a pitcher pitches differently with a 1 or 2 run lead than he does in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning, it's you who is crazy.

 

Coincidental or not, Dempster has been very good in save situations and bad in non-save situations. And this is over the whole year too. If a guy is very good in one situation and bad in another, why wouldn't you feel confident in him in the first situation. What are you going to tell me next, that Sean Marshall has been inconsistent this year?

[littleburr24]

Boy, it's sure going to be scary to see Dempster coming in to close games for us in the playoffs.

 

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in.

 

Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning?

 

The distinction is utterly absurd.

 

 

Also, non-save situations aren't restricted to tie games as they include any lead over 3 runs. If you don't think a pitcher pitches differently with a big lead than he does with a 1 or 2 run lead you're crazy.

 

If the actual facts were that Dempster had pitched poorly a number of times with an 8 run lead, your argument would make sense. That's not the case.

 

Dempster's really poor games this season:

 

April 22 v. StL: gave up 3 runs in a tie game in the 10th inning to lose

May 17 @ NyM: gave up 5 runs after coming with 5-1 lead in the 9th

Jun 10 @ Atl: gave up 3 runs to blow a 4-2 lead and lose 5-4

Aug 3 v. NYM: gave up 4 runs in the 9th after coming in to a 2-2 game

Sept. 6 v. LAD: gave up 4 in the 9th to blow a 4-3 and lose 7-4

Sept. 14 v. StL: gave up 2 runs in the 9th with a 5-1 lead at StL

 

Only 2 of those games were technically "save situations." But all but the Sept. 14 game were extremely high leverage spots. The Apr 22 and Aug 3 games were tie games in the 9th and 10th inning. The May 17 didn't start as a high-leverage game, but Dempster turned it into one quickly.

 

It's merely coincidental that only two of his really bad games have come in "save" situations. If you think a pitcher pitches differently with a 1 or 2 run lead than he does in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning, it's you who is crazy.

 

You seem to have missed the part where soccer mentioned Dempster is supposed to come in with a 1-3 run lead. And in the regular season Dempster has blown 2 games so far.

 

The role of the closer, right or wrong, is to come into the game in the ninth with a 1-3 run lead. When Dempster does that, he is a very good pitcher and the numbers back this up. When he comes in when the game is tied or with a 4+ run lead, he isn't very good. I have total faith in Dempster to pick up the save if he's brought in with a 1 to 3 run lead. However, if he's brought in with a 4+ run lead or a tie game, I have faith in him to give up runs.

 

The games you posted backed up what soccer was saying.

[Warren Brusstar]

Boy, it's sure going to be scary to see Dempster coming in to close games for us in the playoffs.

 

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in.

 

Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning?

 

The distinction is utterly absurd.

 

 

Also, non-save situations aren't restricted to tie games as they include any lead over 3 runs. If you don't think a pitcher pitches differently with a big lead than he does with a 1 or 2 run lead you're crazy.

 

If the actual facts were that Dempster had pitched poorly a number of times with an 8 run lead, your argument would make sense. That's not the case.

 

Dempster's really poor games this season:

 

April 22 v. StL: gave up 3 runs in a tie game in the 10th inning to lose

May 17 @ NyM: gave up 5 runs after coming with 5-1 lead in the 9th

Jun 10 @ Atl: gave up 3 runs to blow a 4-2 lead and lose 5-4

Aug 3 v. NYM: gave up 4 runs in the 9th after coming in to a 2-2 game

Sept. 6 v. LAD: gave up 4 in the 9th to blow a 4-3 and lose 7-4

Sept. 14 v. StL: gave up 2 runs in the 9th with a 5-1 lead at StL

 

Only 2 of those games were technically "save situations." But all but the Sept. 14 game were extremely high leverage spots. The Apr 22 and Aug 3 games were tie games in the 9th and 10th inning. The May 17 didn't start as a high-leverage game, but Dempster turned it into one quickly.

 

It's merely coincidental that only two of his really bad games have come in "save" situations. If you think a pitcher pitches differently with a 1 or 2 run lead than he does in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning, it's you who is crazy.

 

Coincidental or not, Dempster has been very good in save situations and bad in non-save situations. And this is over the whole year too. If a guy is very good in one situation and bad in another, why wouldn't you feel confident in him in the first situation. What are you going to tell me next, that Sean Marshall has been inconsistent this year?

 

This is equivalent to arguing that Cliff Floyd is a better option with men in scoring position than Alfonso Soriano because "over the whole year" Floyd has performed significantly better with men in scoring position.

 

I can't believe you don't see the absurdity of your argument. Please explain how Dempster would in any way approach his job differently when the game is tied as opposed to having a one run lead.

 

Intentionally shrinking the sample size just to fit the conclusion you want to reach without any reason for doing so is just silly. Dempster certainly doesn't pitch differently in 1 run games than he does in tie games. So why would you treat those games separately?

[Warren Brusstar]

Boy, it's sure going to be scary to see Dempster coming in to close games for us in the playoffs.

 

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in.

 

Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning?

 

The distinction is utterly absurd.

 

 

Also, non-save situations aren't restricted to tie games as they include any lead over 3 runs. If you don't think a pitcher pitches differently with a big lead than he does with a 1 or 2 run lead you're crazy.

 

If the actual facts were that Dempster had pitched poorly a number of times with an 8 run lead, your argument would make sense. That's not the case.

 

Dempster's really poor games this season:

 

April 22 v. StL: gave up 3 runs in a tie game in the 10th inning to lose

May 17 @ NyM: gave up 5 runs after coming with 5-1 lead in the 9th

Jun 10 @ Atl: gave up 3 runs to blow a 4-2 lead and lose 5-4

Aug 3 v. NYM: gave up 4 runs in the 9th after coming in to a 2-2 game

Sept. 6 v. LAD: gave up 4 in the 9th to blow a 4-3 and lose 7-4

Sept. 14 v. StL: gave up 2 runs in the 9th with a 5-1 lead at StL

 

Only 2 of those games were technically "save situations." But all but the Sept. 14 game were extremely high leverage spots. The Apr 22 and Aug 3 games were tie games in the 9th and 10th inning. The May 17 didn't start as a high-leverage game, but Dempster turned it into one quickly.

 

It's merely coincidental that only two of his really bad games have come in "save" situations. If you think a pitcher pitches differently with a 1 or 2 run lead than he does in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning, it's you who is crazy.

 

You seem to have missed the part where soccer mentioned Dempster is supposed to come in with a 1-3 run lead. And in the regular season Dempster has blown 2 games so far.

 

The role of the closer, right or wrong, is to come into the game in the ninth with a 1-3 run lead. When Dempster does that, he is a very good pitcher and the numbers back this up. When he comes in when the game is tied or with a 4+ run lead, he isn't very good. I have total faith in Dempster to pick up the save if he's brought in with a 1 to 3 run lead. However, if he's brought in with a 4+ run lead or a tie game, I have faith in him to give up runs.

 

The games you posted backed up what soccer was saying.

 

Do you think Dempster approaches his job differently with a one run lead than he does in a tie game? If so, how?

 

And if not (and of course he doesn't), why would you treat those games differently?

[Roast]

Sweet Jesus.

 

 

Devin Hester just returned ANOTHER punt for a TD.

 

At some point you have to stop kicking it to him.

[3Dog]

Lighten up, Warren.

[Andy]

Sweet Jesus.

 

 

Devin Hester just returned ANOTHER punt for a TD.

 

At some point you have to stop kicking it to him.

It was a kickoff. Devin Hester is ridiculous.

[Warren Brusstar]

Lighten up, Warren.

 

I'm sorry for having a correct opinion that people don't want to hear.

[soccer10k]

This is equivalent to arguing that Cliff Floyd is a better option with men in scoring position than Alfonso Soriano because "over the whole year" Floyd has performed significantly better with men in scoring position.

 

I can't believe you don't see the absurdity of your argument. Please explain how Dempster would in any way approach his job differently when the game is tied as opposed to having a one run lead.

 

Intentionally shrinking the sample size just to fit the conclusion you want to reach without any reason for doing so is just silly. Dempster certainly doesn't pitch differently in 1 run games than he does in tie games. So why would you treat those games separately?

 

Yeah. Let's not look at splits at all because it's "intentionally shrinking the sample size". So when Lou makes his lineup out he should just put the best OPS guys in the lineup and not look up lefty/righty splits (based on the opponent's starting pitcher) because using the lefty/righty splits would be "intentionally shrinking the sample size". That makes sense.

[Roast]

Sweet Jesus.

 

 

Devin Hester just returned ANOTHER punt for a TD.

 

At some point you have to stop kicking it to him.

It was a kickoff. Devin Hester is ridiculous.

 

I turned around just in time to see him catching it, and from the way players were arranged on t field i thought It was a punt.

[Roast]

Lighten up, Warren.

 

I'm sorry for having a correct opinion that people don't want to hear.

 

oxymoron?

[shnsajax]

Sweet Jesus.

 

 

Devin Hester just returned ANOTHER punt for a TD.

 

At some point you have to stop kicking it to him.

It was a kickoff. Devin Hester is ridiculous.

 

Don't kick the ball in the air on kickoffs at all. Punts need to be short and high, who cares if you give up 5-10 yards.

 

Jerry Jones needs to sign Romo soon. Paying him after he wins MVP is going to cost him even more.

[Warren Brusstar]

This is equivalent to arguing that Cliff Floyd is a better option with men in scoring position than Alfonso Soriano because "over the whole year" Floyd has performed significantly better with men in scoring position.

 

I can't believe you don't see the absurdity of your argument. Please explain how Dempster would in any way approach his job differently when the game is tied as opposed to having a one run lead.

 

Intentionally shrinking the sample size just to fit the conclusion you want to reach without any reason for doing so is just silly. Dempster certainly doesn't pitch differently in 1 run games than he does in tie games. So why would you treat those games separately?

 

Yeah. Let's not look at splits at all because it's "intentionally shrinking the sample size". So when Lou makes his lineup out he should just put the best OPS guys in the lineup and not look up lefty/righty splits (based on the opponent's starting pitcher) because using the lefty/righty splits would be "intentionally shrinking the sample size". That makes sense.

 

Where did I say to ignore splits? There's a reason why a hitter or pitcher would peform differently v. lefties or righties.

 

There's absolutely no reason to explain why Dempster would perform differently in the 9th or 10th inning of a tie game than he would in the 9th inning with a one run lead. And you've yet to provide one. (Because, of course, there isn't one)

 

Again, it just isn't the case that Dempster's poor performances have come in meaningless games that can be explained away by poor focus, etc. They've all come (except one) in extremely high leverage spots. It's simply nonsensical to ignore those games and focus only a subset of full performance record.

[soccer10k]

This is equivalent to arguing that Cliff Floyd is a better option with men in scoring position than Alfonso Soriano because "over the whole year" Floyd has performed significantly better with men in scoring position.

 

I can't believe you don't see the absurdity of your argument. Please explain how Dempster would in any way approach his job differently when the game is tied as opposed to having a one run lead.

 

Intentionally shrinking the sample size just to fit the conclusion you want to reach without any reason for doing so is just silly. Dempster certainly doesn't pitch differently in 1 run games than he does in tie games. So why would you treat those games separately?

 

Yeah. Let's not look at splits at all because it's "intentionally shrinking the sample size". So when Lou makes his lineup out he should just put the best OPS guys in the lineup and not look up lefty/righty splits (based on the opponent's starting pitcher) because using the lefty/righty splits would be "intentionally shrinking the sample size". That makes sense.

 

Where did I say to ignore splits? There's a reason why a hitter or pitcher would peform differently v. lefties or righties.

 

There's absolutely no reason to explain why Dempster would perform differently in the 9th or 10th inning of a tie game than he would in the 9th inning with a one run lead. And you've yet to provide one. (Because, of course, there isn't one)

 

Again, it just isn't the case that Dempster's poor performances have come in meaningless games that can be explained away by poor focus, etc. They've all come (except one) in extremely high leverage spots. It's simply nonsensical to ignore those games and focus only a subset of full performance record.

 

Because it would be "Intentionally shrinking the sample size".

[soccer10k]

Let's just agree to disagree and be done with this.

[Roast]

Well, that's it. Regular season = over. Thank God we made the playoffs, cause I'm so not ready for baseball season to be done yet.

[E.J.]

Cubs lose?

[Warren Brusstar]

This is equivalent to arguing that Cliff Floyd is a better option with men in scoring position than Alfonso Soriano because "over the whole year" Floyd has performed significantly better with men in scoring position.

 

I can't believe you don't see the absurdity of your argument. Please explain how Dempster would in any way approach his job differently when the game is tied as opposed to having a one run lead.

 

Intentionally shrinking the sample size just to fit the conclusion you want to reach without any reason for doing so is just silly. Dempster certainly doesn't pitch differently in 1 run games than he does in tie games. So why would you treat those games separately?

 

Yeah. Let's not look at splits at all because it's "intentionally shrinking the sample size". So when Lou makes his lineup out he should just put the best OPS guys in the lineup and not look up lefty/righty splits (based on the opponent's starting pitcher) because using the lefty/righty splits would be "intentionally shrinking the sample size". That makes sense.

 

Where did I say to ignore splits? There's a reason why a hitter or pitcher would peform differently v. lefties or righties.

 

There's absolutely no reason to explain why Dempster would perform differently in the 9th or 10th inning of a tie game than he would in the 9th inning with a one run lead. And you've yet to provide one. (Because, of course, there isn't one)

 

Again, it just isn't the case that Dempster's poor performances have come in meaningless games that can be explained away by poor focus, etc. They've all come (except one) in extremely high leverage spots. It's simply nonsensical to ignore those games and focus only a subset of full performance record.

 

Because it would be "Intentionally shrinking the sample size".

 

You're ignoring the rest of the sentence. There's good reason to intentionally shrink the sample size to focus on splits; players perform materially different v. LHP than they do v. RHP. There isn't any good reason to focus and "save situations" and ignore other equally important, high leverage spots. There just isn't. It's like focusing on a player's performance with a full moon.

[Omar]

Season over.

[Mizzou]

Sweet Jesus.

 

 

Devin Hester just returned ANOTHER punt for a TD.

 

At some point you have to stop kicking it to him.

It was a kickoff. Devin Hester is ridiculous.

 

Don't kick the ball in the air on kickoffs at all. Punts need to be short and high, who cares if you give up 5-10 yards.

 

Jerry Jones needs to sign Romo soon. Paying him after he wins MVP is going to cost him even more.

Picking Romo in the 5th or 6th round in my fantasy league is making me look genius so far!

[shnsajax]

Sweet Jesus.

 

 

Devin Hester just returned ANOTHER punt for a TD.

 

At some point you have to stop kicking it to him.

It was a kickoff. Devin Hester is ridiculous.

 

Don't kick the ball in the air on kickoffs at all. Punts need to be short and high, who cares if you give up 5-10 yards.

 

Jerry Jones needs to sign Romo soon. Paying him after he wins MVP is going to cost him even more.

Picking Romo in the 5th or 6th round in my fantasy league is making me look genius so far!

 

The fact that he lasted that long is making the other guys look like idiots.

[Roast]

Season over.

 

:lol:

[jjgman21]

little rant here....

 

how stupid is it of MLB to not have a contingency plan to nationally televise some of the games today? four games with post-season births on the line, and I can't see any of it.

 

It is called MLB.tv and/or Extra Innings. If anything this good for them because it is more reason for them to sell you on buying one of those since you need them to see these key games.

 

while I had some things come up and wasn't able to watch anyway, why exactly did you have to be so snide about this?

[jjgman21]

sorry to clutter the game thread...but this is a very important favor to ask (I also posted it in the fantasy forum, but I doubt anyone's gonna look at it)

 

So I've got $800 on the line tomorrow. I'm currently up 5-4 in my h2h league, but am trailing in ERA which is the tiebreaker. We are both tied in SB, Wins, and Ks, and I am down .01 in WHIP. I have one pick up left so I need someone who can get me some Ks and hopefully a win. Here are my options:

 

Bailey vs the Cubs

Contreras vs. Detroit

Murray vs. Seattle

Paulino vs. Atlanta

Carlyle vs. Houston

Bullington vs. St. Louis

Laffey vs. KC

Hochevar vs. Cleveland

Bergman vs. Philly

Davis vs. Colorado

Jimenez vs. Arizona

 

 

Please help me...this is huge

 

I just saw some Ubaldo highlights and he has some nasty breaking stuff. he potentially will be facing some non-regulars as well.

 

if not him, I would say Homer Bailey.

 

hope you took my advice.