Farnsworth

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Oh, I agree. The Cubs never should have traded Farnsworth. They should have never overworked him, which led to his trade. He's no star, but he's a very good reliever. Wish the Cubs still had him.

 

However, I would like to add that some do seem to be ignoring some of his downfalls. Players aren't robots, and I don't think Farnsworth always reacts well in a given situation. I'm not sure if clutch exists in baseball, but I do know it's human nature to react differently in different situations. There had to be some reason that Hawkins was an excellent set-up man but a terrible closer. I don't believe he just started to physically stink.

 

I keep hearing this, and don't necessarily disagree, but where are the situations where he doesn't always react well? The guy has had like 3 innings of poor performance in the playoffs, and people are blowing it up to outlandish proportions. I've posted and reposted that in pressure situations during the regular season he's no different than when the game isn't on the line. His other 6 playoff outings are outstanding(7.1 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 0 BB, 8 K's). There's no basis for the argument aside from the unreasonably bitter diatribes against Farnsworth.

[brfahey]

The granny was most damaging? More damaging than the home run that TIED the game in the 9th with 2 outs (I believe?)

4 is more than 2.

 

brilliant....still had the lead after the grand slam though. I love measuring the true nature of someones crappines.

 

Lets bring Farnsworth, Alfonseca, and Fassero back. Then all will be well.

 

I'd rather have Farnsworth than Novoa in the pen next season. I'd rather see Farnsworth out there than Wuertz, or JVB, or Leicester, or Wellemeyer. I'm not sure all would be well, but Farnsworth would've been the best righty in our pen last season, and barring a major FA acquisition, likely will be better than any righty in our pen next season.

 

Oh, I agree. The Cubs never should have traded Farnsworth. They should have never overworked him, which led to his trade. He's no star, but he's a very good reliever. Wish the Cubs still had him.

 

However, I would like to add that some do seem to be ignoring some of his downfalls. Players aren't robots, and I don't think Farnsworth always reacts well in a given situation. I'm not sure if clutch exists in baseball, but I do know it's human nature to react differently in different situations. There had to be some reason that Hawkins was an excellent set-up man but a terrible closer. I don't believe he just started to physically stink.

 

I don't agree that Farnsworth shouldn't have bene traded or that he was overworked or even that he is or was a good pitcher. However, I appluad this post and a previous one for their recognition that aspects of the game cannot be quantified. Much about the game can be and quite usefully. But intangibles do exist. If someone thinks a stats line gives you the full meaure of Farnsworth or any other player that is a mistake.

[Exile on Waveland]

However, I would like to add that some do seem to be ignoring some of his downfalls.

 

I, for one, am not. I've said multiple times that he isn't great. He's put together some fantastic seasons, and he's capable of putting together a great career. But he's got drawbacks. He's not a rubber arm. He's not a great 2 inning reliever. He's a great option to have in the pen, but you have to use him carefully and smartly. You really have to monitor him and stick to the gameplan.

 

No, you're not. Like you said, if used correctly, Farnsworth is very good. I agree completely.

 

I keep hearing this, and don't necessarily disagree, but where are the situations where he doesn't always react well? The guy has had like 3 innings of poor performance in the playoffs, and people are blowing it up to outlandish proportions. I've posted and reposted that in pressure situations during the regular season he's no different than when the game isn't on the line. His other 6 playoff outings are outstanding(7.1 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 0 BB, 8 K's). There's no basis for the argument aside from the unreasonably bitter diatribes against Farnsworth.[/quote

 

I don't agree with this completely. What in my post was an "unreasonable bitter diatribe?" I like Farnsworth, he's just not perfect. That is what I said -- if it came off a different way, I'm sorry, but that's what I meant.

 

Also, I don't want to carry the torch for "clutch" arguments, nor do I want to pile on Farnsworth for the HR's he gave up against Houstion. Like I said, I'm kind of doubtful of clutch, though I certainly believe players aren't robots. However, 1) pressure situations in the regular season? C'mon, that's no where near the same thing and you know it. 2) I think most have agreed that when he gets in trouble, he really gets in trouble and 3) He pitched great for the Cubs in the playoffs, but not as closer. Why does that matter? I have NO idea. But it mattered to Hawkins. It may have mattered to Farnsworth. Is it rational? Probably not, but it seems something is there.

 

PS Sorry, I'm not really sure how to quote from two sources correctly.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

However, I would like to add that some do seem to be ignoring some of his downfalls.

 

I, for one, am not. I've said multiple times that he isn't great. He's put together some fantastic seasons, and he's capable of putting together a great career. But he's got drawbacks. He's not a rubber arm. He's not a great 2 inning reliever. He's a great option to have in the pen, but you have to use him carefully and smartly. You really have to monitor him and stick to the gameplan.

 

No, you're not. Like you said, if used correctly, Farnsworth is very good. I agree completely.

 

I keep hearing this, and don't necessarily disagree, but where are the situations where he doesn't always react well? The guy has had like 3 innings of poor performance in the playoffs, and people are blowing it up to outlandish proportions. I've posted and reposted that in pressure situations during the regular season he's no different than when the game isn't on the line. His other 6 playoff outings are outstanding(7.1 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 0 BB, 8 K's). There's no basis for the argument aside from the unreasonably bitter diatribes against Farnsworth.

 

I don't agree with this completely. What in my post was an "unreasonable bitter diatribe?" I like Farnsworth, he's just not perfect. That is what I said -- if it came off a different way, I'm sorry, but that's what I meant.

 

Also, I don't want to carry the torch for "clutch" arguments, nor do I want to pile on Farnsworth for the HR's he gave up against Houstion. Like I said, I'm kind of doubtful of clutch, though I certainly believe players aren't robots. However, 1) pressure situations in the regular season? C'mon, that's no where near the same thing and you know it. 2) I think most have agreed that when he gets in trouble, he really gets in trouble and 3) He pitched great for the Cubs in the playoffs, but not as closer. Why does that matter? I have NO idea. But it mattered to Hawkins. It may have mattered to Farnsworth. Is it rational? Probably not, but it seems something is there.

 

PS Sorry, I'm not really sure how to quote from two sources correctly.

 

Sorry, I wasn't talking about you when mentioning the "diatribes", more of the things said earlier. Again though, aside from those couple outings, which he has twice as many with amazing success in the playoffs, where is the evidence that he gets into trouble when it matters?

[Exile on Waveland]

However, I would like to add that some do seem to be ignoring some of his downfalls.

 

I, for one, am not. I've said multiple times that he isn't great. He's put together some fantastic seasons, and he's capable of putting together a great career. But he's got drawbacks. He's not a rubber arm. He's not a great 2 inning reliever. He's a great option to have in the pen, but you have to use him carefully and smartly. You really have to monitor him and stick to the gameplan.

 

No, you're not. Like you said, if used correctly, Farnsworth is very good. I agree completely.

 

I keep hearing this, and don't necessarily disagree, but where are the situations where he doesn't always react well? The guy has had like 3 innings of poor performance in the playoffs, and people are blowing it up to outlandish proportions. I've posted and reposted that in pressure situations during the regular season he's no different than when the game isn't on the line. His other 6 playoff outings are outstanding(7.1 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 0 BB, 8 K's). There's no basis for the argument aside from the unreasonably bitter diatribes against Farnsworth.

 

I don't agree with this completely. What in my post was an "unreasonable bitter diatribe?" I like Farnsworth, he's just not perfect. That is what I said -- if it came off a different way, I'm sorry, but that's what I meant.

 

Also, I don't want to carry the torch for "clutch" arguments, nor do I want to pile on Farnsworth for the HR's he gave up against Houstion. Like I said, I'm kind of doubtful of clutch, though I certainly believe players aren't robots. However, 1) pressure situations in the regular season? C'mon, that's no where near the same thing and you know it. 2) I think most have agreed that when he gets in trouble, he really gets in trouble and 3) He pitched great for the Cubs in the playoffs, but not as closer. Why does that matter? I have NO idea. But it mattered to Hawkins. It may have mattered to Farnsworth. Is it rational? Probably not, but it seems something is there.

 

PS Sorry, I'm not really sure how to quote from two sources correctly.

 

Sorry, I wasn't talking about you when mentioning the "diatribes", more of the things said earlier. Again though, aside from those couple outings, which he has twice as many with amazing success in the playoffs, where is the evidence that he gets into trouble when it matters?

 

It's cool. Farnsworth definitely seems to lead to "diatribes," I've just never meant or wanted to head down that path.

 

I think it's basically the opposite of the argument against clutch. You can't expect a player to come through in every big situation, and the small number of chances lead to fluctuation and discrepancy in the numbers. I think it would also hold true that you can't expect a player to fail in every big situation, either. However, wouldn't that make "clutch" someone who comes through more than the average player, or "non-clutch" someone who fails more often? I don't know, but just because he hasn't failed in every situation doesn't mean he's reacted well. You know as well as I do that there's luck involved in baseball -- where the batted ball lands (glove or ground), who's up to bat, etc.

[goonys evil twin]

Also, I don't want to carry the torch for "clutch" arguments, nor do I want to pile on Farnsworth for the HR's he gave up against Houstion. Like I said, I'm kind of doubtful of clutch, though I certainly believe players aren't robots. However, 1) pressure situations in the regular season? C'mon, that's no where near the same thing and you know it. 2) I think most have agreed that when he gets in trouble, he really gets in trouble and

 

I think that's the key. When he gets hit, he gets hit hard. It's not a blooper to shallow right that kills him. But I think that's the nature of being a straight 100mph thrower with location issues. When he's dominant, he's as dominant as anybody in baseball. But, because he doesn't have great movement or location (which is why he was moved from the rotation to bullpen), he can't fudge his way out of a jam. He has to blow guys away to be successful. And for the most part, he can do that. But when he misses, it's likely to be a walk or a HR, the two worst things a reliever can give up.

 

Perception is the reason why people say he can't "clutch up", not reality. He can be great or terrible in a meaningless game or a huge game. I don't think it has anything to do with how he reacts, rather with the unstable nature of his pitching ability.

[Exile on Waveland]

Also, I don't want to carry the torch for "clutch" arguments, nor do I want to pile on Farnsworth for the HR's he gave up against Houstion. Like I said, I'm kind of doubtful of clutch, though I certainly believe players aren't robots. However, 1) pressure situations in the regular season? C'mon, that's no where near the same thing and you know it. 2) I think most have agreed that when he gets in trouble, he really gets in trouble and

 

I think that's the key. When he gets hit, he gets hit hard. It's not a blooper to shallow right that kills him. But I think that's the nature of being a straight 100mph thrower with location issues. When he's dominant, he's as dominant as anybody in baseball. But, because he doesn't have great movement or location (which is why he was moved from the rotation to bullpen), he can't fudge his way out of a jam. He has to blow guys away to be successful. And for the most part, he can do that. But when he misses, it's likely to be a walk or a HR, the two worst things a reliever can give up.

 

Perception is the reason why people say he can't "clutch up", not reality. He can be great or terrible in a meaningless game or a huge game. I don't think it has anything to do with how he reacts, rather with the unstable nature of his pitching ability.

 

Now, therein probably lies the answer. If you were going to make an argument for non-clutch, it'd be the homeruns he gives up or the walks he concedes, not some bloop hit that falls in. The nature of his pitching style, not his actual nature leads to those things.

[Andy]

The granny was most damaging? More damaging than the home run that TIED the game in the 9th with 2 outs (I believe?)

4 is more than 2.

 

brilliant....still had the lead after the grand slam though. I love measuring the true nature of someones crappines.

 

Lets bring Farnsworth, Alfonseca, and Fassero back. Then all will be well.

 

I'd rather have Farnsworth than Novoa in the pen next season. I'd rather see Farnsworth out there than Wuertz, or JVB, or Leicester, or Wellemeyer. I'm not sure all would be well, but Farnsworth would've been the best righty in our pen last season, and barring a major FA acquisition, likely will be better than any righty in our pen next season.

 

Oh, I agree. The Cubs never should have traded Farnsworth. They should have never overworked him, which led to his trade. He's no star, but he's a very good reliever. Wish the Cubs still had him.

 

However, I would like to add that some do seem to be ignoring some of his downfalls. Players aren't robots, and I don't think Farnsworth always reacts well in a given situation. I'm not sure if clutch exists in baseball, but I do know it's human nature to react differently in different situations. There had to be some reason that Hawkins was an excellent set-up man but a terrible closer. I don't believe he just started to physically stink.

I just wish the Cubs hadn't traded him to keep the Paul Wilson Possibilities in play. Nothing like a nice fight to shake things up once in a while.

[CuseCubFan69]

Perception is the reason why people say he can't "clutch up", not reality. He can be great or terrible in a meaningless game or a huge game. I don't think it has anything to do with how he reacts, rather with the unstable nature of his pitching ability.

 

Can you prove this to be right? Also, how do you know when he's rattled he doesn't change his mechanics a little bit to flatten out his pitches? To hit a gland slam of of him 3 other guys had to have gotten on, how did they get there?

[goonys evil twin]

Perception is the reason why people say he can't "clutch up", not reality. He can be great or terrible in a meaningless game or a huge game. I don't think it has anything to do with how he reacts, rather with the unstable nature of his pitching ability.

 

Can you prove this to be right? Also, how do you know when he's rattled he doesn't change his mechanics a little bit to flatten out his pitches? To hit a gland slam of of him 3 other guys had to have gotten on, how did they get there?

 

Well, in the case of Sunday, the pitcher before him let two runners reach and Kyle walked the third guy. How do I know he doesn't flatten out his pitches? How could he flatten out his pitches when just about everything he throws is flat?

 

I think the people who are throwing out the accusations need to prove their side of the story.

[Careless]

I think people, including me, think he is just wasting his huge talent by not living up to the "potential". I'll bet he's out of baseball before he is ever considered a great closer.

True of how many hundreds of relievers the cubs only wish they had on their roster? (historically)

[LoneStarCubFan]

You can run out all the stats you want. I've watched baseball for 30 years, I know a gutless choking dog when I see one. And Farnsworth is a gutless choking dog. He's Calvin Schraldi in tight pants.

 

You sure like name calling. You've done it all year. Do you even know what the word gutless means?

 

Yes. It means Kyle Farnsworth.

 

Somehow, I have the feeling if you said that to Farnsworth's face you would discover he's anything but "gutless."

 

Probably so, but he'd still choke on the field when you need him most. Which is my point.

[Exile on Waveland]

Perception is the reason why people say he can't "clutch up", not reality. He can be great or terrible in a meaningless game or a huge game. I don't think it has anything to do with how he reacts, rather with the unstable nature of his pitching ability.

 

Can you prove this to be right? Also, how do you know when he's rattled he doesn't change his mechanics a little bit to flatten out his pitches? To hit a gland slam of of him 3 other guys had to have gotten on, how did they get there?

 

Well, in the case of Sunday, the pitcher before him let two runners reach and Kyle walked the third guy. How do I know he doesn't flatten out his pitches? How could he flatten out his pitches when just about everything he throws is flat?

 

I think the people who are throwing out the accusations need to prove their side of the story.

 

Well, I'm probably somewhere in the middle of this argument, but just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[CubfaninCA]

Didn't Farns enjoy the nightlife way too much?? Inconsistent numbers were only part of his problem. Guys like Farnsworth aren't a good influence on other players. If he was clutch like Brad Lidge, Eric Gagne or Mariano Rivera, it would be different story cause the benefits would far outweigh the costs.

[Outshined_One]

So, anyone else still regretting the Cubs getting Novoa, Scott Moore, and Bo Flowers for Farnsy?

[XZero771679666304]

So, anyone else still regretting the Cubs getting Novoa, Scott Moore, and Bo Flowers for Farnsy?

 

A little, but you won't find me crying myself to sleep over it.

[badger1679666666]

You can run out all the stats you want. I've watched baseball for 30 years, I know a gutless choking dog when I see one. And Farnsworth is a gutless choking dog. He's Calvin Schraldi in tight pants.

 

You sure like name calling. You've done it all year. Do you even know what the word gutless means?

 

Yes. It means Kyle Farnsworth.

 

Somehow, I have the feeling if you said that to Farnsworth's face you would discover he's anything but "gutless."

 

Probably so, but he'd still choke on the field when you need him most. Which is my point.

 

Maybe, but he's no more gutless than a person willing to throw around unfounded insults anonymously on a website.

Edited October 14, 2005 by badger

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

You can run out all the stats you want. I've watched baseball for 30 years, I know a gutless choking dog when I see one. And Farnsworth is a gutless choking dog. He's Calvin Schraldi in tight pants.

 

You sure like name calling. You've done it all year. Do you even know what the word gutless means?

 

Yes. It means Kyle Farnsworth.

 

Somehow, I have the feeling if you said that to Farnsworth's face you would discover he's anything but "gutless."

 

Probably so, but he'd still choke on the field when you need him most. Which is my point.

 

Maybe, but he's no gutless than a person willing to throw around unfounded insults anonymously on a website.

 

:lmao: