Former Cubs suspended for roid use

[brfahey]

When I saw heredia's name in the news bad former cub relievers came to mind and I thought of all of the recent posts stating how farsnworth was really a good pitcher. Now I think we can all agree that Heredia has been pretty awful, on average. Take a look at his career numbers relative to those of farnsworth. Not identical but not too disparate. Now is Heredia not really that bad or is Farnsworth not as good as some would make him out to be?

 

As a Cub, Heredia never had a WHIP below 1.33, an ERA below 4.76, a K/9 over 8.65, or a K/BB greater than 2(excepting his mark in only 16 IP after he was acquired). Almost all of those are worse than Farnsworth's career numbers. They aren't similar.

 

I said career numbers.

 

Heredia was much better the rest of his career than he was as a Cub, that's obviously going to color people's opinions like they have for Farnsworth. Also, Farnsworth's career numbers are skewed by a good chunk of innings where he was an ineffective starter.

 

Heredia: 4.42 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 6.89 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, .255 BAA, .746 OPS against

 

Farnsworth as a reliever: 4.24 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 10.38 K/9, 2.43 K/BB, BAA and OPS unavailable(eyeballing it it looks to be easily better than .255 and .746)

 

Farnsworth is pretty clearly a better reliever.

 

I didn't say he wasn't better. He may be better. But the difference between Farnsworth and Heredia is much less than the difference between Farnsworth and elite relievers. That was the point. Heredia sucks and Farnsworth ain't that much better.

 

Neither is true. Heredia wasn't a bad reliever for a couple years. And no one is claiming Farnsworth was good his first few seasons. However, Farnsworth the last several years has been very good, and trying to compare career numbers of someone 10 years older who was much worse as a Cub than his career numbers would indicate doesn't change that.

 

I think heredia is only on year older. You must really like Farnsworth if you're willing to say that Heredia hasn't been that bad. That's you prerogative.

[Knightlife_in_Lubbock]

Neither is true. Heredia wasn't a bad reliever for a couple years. And no one is claiming Farnsworth was good his first few seasons. However, Farnsworth the last several years has been very good, and trying to compare career numbers of someone 10 years older who was much worse as a Cub than his career numbers would indicate doesn't change that.

 

 

I think heredia is only on year older. You must really like Farnsworth if you're willing to say that Heredia hasn't been that bad. That's you prerogative.

 

Heredia b-day 6-20-75

Farns b-day 4-14-76

[erik316wttn]

IMO bigger names are getting away with using enhancing drugs and MLB is turning its head the other way. This is why it's a joke...they are throwing the fans bones and many are accepting it which is your right. I'm not.

 

So then why'd they throw Raffy under the bus?

 

Does an independent 3rd party lab test the results, or do MLB employees?

 

He was expendable and part of the reason why you all are disagreeing with me. You all can feel the way you want to obviously...I just think that MLB/players union are not being truthful about this.

 

Cuse, I do think there is a little truth in what you say. I too find it odd that with the exception of Raffy, it's been all minor leaguers and fringe players. It wouldn't shock me if there was some sort of cover-up going on.

 

The problem with a conspiracy theory is motive. Consider what MLB has to gain by protecting all-stars and then consider what it has to lose.

 

It makes no sense.

 

The status quo would be enough. Look at the ad revenue, the "star power" that these players have. Look at the TV money they bring in. They put fans in the seats and sell tickets and merchandise. That's quite a lot.

 

What it has to lose is all of that and more. I think they have more than enough motivation for a cover-up.

 

And one thing I'd like to see changed is that the test results don't go from the testing lab to MLB. They should go from the lab straight to the press.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

When I saw heredia's name in the news bad former cub relievers came to mind and I thought of all of the recent posts stating how farsnworth was really a good pitcher. Now I think we can all agree that Heredia has been pretty awful, on average. Take a look at his career numbers relative to those of farnsworth. Not identical but not too disparate. Now is Heredia not really that bad or is Farnsworth not as good as some would make him out to be?

 

As a Cub, Heredia never had a WHIP below 1.33, an ERA below 4.76, a K/9 over 8.65, or a K/BB greater than 2(excepting his mark in only 16 IP after he was acquired). Almost all of those are worse than Farnsworth's career numbers. They aren't similar.

 

I said career numbers.

 

Heredia was much better the rest of his career than he was as a Cub, that's obviously going to color people's opinions like they have for Farnsworth. Also, Farnsworth's career numbers are skewed by a good chunk of innings where he was an ineffective starter.

 

Heredia: 4.42 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 6.89 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, .255 BAA, .746 OPS against

 

Farnsworth as a reliever: 4.24 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 10.38 K/9, 2.43 K/BB, BAA and OPS unavailable(eyeballing it it looks to be easily better than .255 and .746)

 

Farnsworth is pretty clearly a better reliever.

 

I didn't say he wasn't better. He may be better. But the difference between Farnsworth and Heredia is much less than the difference between Farnsworth and elite relievers. That was the point. Heredia sucks and Farnsworth ain't that much better.

 

Neither is true. Heredia wasn't a bad reliever for a couple years. And no one is claiming Farnsworth was good his first few seasons. However, Farnsworth the last several years has been very good, and trying to compare career numbers of someone 10 years older who was much worse as a Cub than his career numbers would indicate doesn't change that.

 

I think heredia is only on year older. You must really like Farnsworth if you're willing to say that Heredia hasn't been that bad. That's you prerogative.

 

Sorry, confused Heredia with someone else. I said wasn't that bad for a couple years. You must really hate Farnsworth if you're going to ignore all the success he's had and use his numbers from 5+ years ago to try and drag him down to Heredia's level.

[brfahey]

When I saw heredia's name in the news bad former cub relievers came to mind and I thought of all of the recent posts stating how farsnworth was really a good pitcher. Now I think we can all agree that Heredia has been pretty awful, on average. Take a look at his career numbers relative to those of farnsworth. Not identical but not too disparate. Now is Heredia not really that bad or is Farnsworth not as good as some would make him out to be?

 

As a Cub, Heredia never had a WHIP below 1.33, an ERA below 4.76, a K/9 over 8.65, or a K/BB greater than 2(excepting his mark in only 16 IP after he was acquired). Almost all of those are worse than Farnsworth's career numbers. They aren't similar.

 

I said career numbers.

 

Heredia was much better the rest of his career than he was as a Cub, that's obviously going to color people's opinions like they have for Farnsworth. Also, Farnsworth's career numbers are skewed by a good chunk of innings where he was an ineffective starter.

 

Heredia: 4.42 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 6.89 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, .255 BAA, .746 OPS against

 

Farnsworth as a reliever: 4.24 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 10.38 K/9, 2.43 K/BB, BAA and OPS unavailable(eyeballing it it looks to be easily better than .255 and .746)

 

Farnsworth is pretty clearly a better reliever.

 

I didn't say he wasn't better. He may be better. But the difference between Farnsworth and Heredia is much less than the difference between Farnsworth and elite relievers. That was the point. Heredia sucks and Farnsworth ain't that much better.

 

Neither is true. Heredia wasn't a bad reliever for a couple years. And no one is claiming Farnsworth was good his first few seasons. However, Farnsworth the last several years has been very good, and trying to compare career numbers of someone 10 years older who was much worse as a Cub than his career numbers would indicate doesn't change that.

 

I think heredia is only on year older. You must really like Farnsworth if you're willing to say that Heredia hasn't been that bad. That's you prerogative.

 

Sorry, confused Heredia with someone else. I said wasn't that bad for a couple years. You must really hate Farnsworth if you're going to ignore all the success he's had and use his numbers from 5+ years ago to try and drag him down to Heredia's level.

 

How about his numbers from 2002 and 2004? And for 2000 for that matter. And your point about his stats as a starter skewing his overalls is a bit much: 26 starts out of 415 games.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How about his numbers from 2002 and 2004? And for 2000 for that matter. And your point about his stats as a starter skewing his overalls is a bit much: 26 starts out of 415 games.

 

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound.

[brfahey]

How about his numbers from 2002 and 2004? And for 2000 for that matter. And your point about his stats as a starter skewing his overalls is a bit much: 26 starts out of 415 games.

 

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound.

 

OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How about his numbers from 2002 and 2004? And for 2000 for that matter. And your point about his stats as a starter skewing his overalls is a bit much: 26 starts out of 415 games.

 

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound.

 

OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004?

 

What about 2001, 2003, and 2005? From 2003 on Farns has been very good, and he had a down year in '04 in which he still wasn't terrible. What are you trying to prove?

[brfahey]

How about his numbers from 2002 and 2004? And for 2000 for that matter. And your point about his stats as a starter skewing his overalls is a bit much: 26 starts out of 415 games.

 

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound.

 

OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004?

 

What about 2001, 2003, and 2005? From 2003 on Farns has been very good, and he had a down year in '04 in which he still wasn't terrible. What are you trying to prove?

 

What am I trying to prove? I just stated that to me he wasn't that much different than Heredia. What are you trying to prove? You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to prove he's good (ignore his bad years and 2004 really wasn't a bad year and he was a bad starter so ignore that). You're the one getting worked up. Are you his agent or something?

[UK1679666180]

I didn't think Felix was still in baseball. This steroid policy continues to be a joke.

 

Just curious, why does a story about Felix getting busted equate to the policy being a joke? Does it have to bust bigger names to make it worthwhile?

 

Well, the policy is a joke. Until they test for HGH or similar standards as the Olympics, it's a nice ploy to ease congress and the fans, but nothing worthwhile as far as getting MLB "clean".

 

Even Alfonseca couldn't plug all the holes in the dam with his fingers as far as illegal enhancements and the current steroid policy. Stricter suspensions don't deter those who pass the tests by using HGHs.

Edited October 18, 2005 by UK

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How about his numbers from 2002 and 2004? And for 2000 for that matter. And your point about his stats as a starter skewing his overalls is a bit much: 26 starts out of 415 games.

 

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound.

 

OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004?

 

What about 2001, 2003, and 2005? From 2003 on Farns has been very good, and he had a down year in '04 in which he still wasn't terrible. What are you trying to prove?

 

What am I trying to prove? I just stated that to me he wasn't that much different than Heredia. What are you trying to prove? You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to prove he's good (ignore his bad years and 2004 really wasn't a bad year and he was a bad starter so ignore that). You're the one getting worked up. Are you his agent or something?

 

You're the one who inserted Farnsworth into the thread, and ignoring every success he's had to try and paint him as not all that great. He is different than Heredia. One of Farnsworth's "terrible" years is similar to Heredia's for his career, they aren't comparable.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Why are you even talking aobut Farnsworth in a thread about Felix Heredia's steroid use. Seems pretty off topic to me.

[Derwood]

C'mon, who didn't see this coming?

 

Look at him, he's HUGE!

 

http://www.yesnetwork.com/images/news/heredia_1018.jpg

[TruffleShuffle]

If Heredia was that bad on the juice, I shudder to think how bad he'd be off of them.

 

I was thinking the exact same thing...

[brfahey]

How about his numbers from 2002 and 2004? And for 2000 for that matter. And your point about his stats as a starter skewing his overalls is a bit much: 26 starts out of 415 games.

 

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound.

 

OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004?

 

What about 2001, 2003, and 2005? From 2003 on Farns has been very good, and he had a down year in '04 in which he still wasn't terrible. What are you trying to prove?

 

What am I trying to prove? I just stated that to me he wasn't that much different than Heredia. What are you trying to prove? You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to prove he's good (ignore his bad years and 2004 really wasn't a bad year and he was a bad starter so ignore that). You're the one getting worked up. Are you his agent or something?

 

You're the one who inserted Farnsworth into the thread, and ignoring every success he's had to try and paint him as not all that great. He is different than Heredia. One of Farnsworth's "terrible" years is similar to Heredia's for his career, they aren't comparable.

 

You know, you're right. I should just accept your opinion as fact. I don't know why I even form my own opinions. All I have to do is discern your view and I will know absolute truth. What an epiphany.

[imb]

They wont cancel the world series because of this will they?

[hardcorecubfan]

HAHAHAHAHAHA Felix Heredia. That's funny.

 

I believe the roids got him up to a 90 pound weakling...and his fast ball hit 76 mph