CubinNY

Uh, I'm 32 and I keep improving. Drinking tolerances don't count.

Over his career Rj has been much less effective after years in which he pitched a high number of innnings. However, RJ probably isn't a good example. Let's look at Bartolo Colon. Age IP ERA+ 25 204 129 26 205 127 Cy Young 27 188 129 Total IP 597 AVE ERA+ 128 At age 28 (the prime of his career) he pitched 223 innnings his ERA+ dropped to 111 (4.09 ERA) 29 233 148 Cy Young 30 242 116 31 208 92 32 222 120 Cy Young From 29 to 32 he averaged 226 IP/year. His AVE ERA+ was 119. But after his 242 IP year look at how his performance dropped in both IP and ERA+. Then after a 222 IP year he comes up with an arm injury. 33 56 86 Arm injury Just for everyone's edifiction I am posting the link from a previous reference. The data are from a "study" Pedromartizfan did on a Yankees Website in 2004. There is a pretty strong corelation to those data. I guess the question becomes, do we want to bet that Big Z is freak? As for me, I wouldn't bet on it.

Mazel tov!

I love that word but cannot spell it. What a great word. preposterous Indeed

That was a great article.

No, they're just lazy. They read what others write then re-write it themselves. Kind of like Derek "Captian Intagible" Jeter's defense.

I already showed him that in one of the examples I referenced. The Dude wants something that can't be done, a 1 to 1 correlation. At the same time he's provided not once shred of evidence that supports that high leverage pitching is not related to future trouble.

No one has done that but you. There are always outlliers in any data set. However, the evidence is completely and overwhealmingly conclusive that high pitches per inning and innings pitched are related to future arm problems. And perhaps more damning, future inefecitveness. Your insistnace that things be "proven" conclusive is both irrational and foolish. It's like the cigerrette companies stating that somking doesn't cause cancer. So because I ask for more than arbitrary evidence, I am now stating a case absolutely? I'm done conversing with you. What is arbitrary?

Um, no, sorry. The one with the theory is the one that needs to support the theory. By defalt your theory is the null hypothesis. That has yet to be established either. But you haven't done your research so you really can't say anything. Again, the evidence is overwhealming.

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs. Holy smokes. If that isn't the biggest cop-out BS remark I've ever read in reference to Hendry and his performance then I don't know what is. It sounds like something that would come out of this Administration regarding the war in Iraq. Even with all this supposed talent and close to 100 million dollar payroll the Cubs made they playoffs once. And never managed to win 90 games. This year they almost lost 100. The Cubs have done nothing but go backwards since Hendry was given the job of GM Read my above post. I explained my remark there. Hendry is the problem. It was painfully obvious that changes needed to be made by the all-star break but Hendry didn't make them. It was obvious that the Cubs needed some run producers in this line-up and he didn't get them. Those are just two of the myriad examples of Hendry's incompetence. Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season. Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time. This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it. I'm talking about firing Dusty. And it is not just this year. Why do you insist on being obtuse in regard to Hendry? He is terrible and has been since he took over the job. Instead of firing him they gave him an extension. Then MacPhail leaves. I don't know if he's taking responisbility or not? But the last thing he should have done was fire Hendry on his way out. He and Andy created this mess.

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs. Holy smokes. If that isn't the biggest cop-out BS remark I've ever read in reference to Hendry and his performance then I don't know what is. It sounds like something that would come out of this Administration regarding the war in Iraq. Even with all this supposed talent and close to 100 million dollar payroll the Cubs made they playoffs once. And never managed to win 90 games. This year they almost lost 100. The Cubs have done nothing but go backwards since Hendry was given the job of GM Read my above post. I explained my remark there. Hendry is the problem. It was painfully obvious that changes needed to be made by the all-star break but Hendry didn't make them. It was obvious that the Cubs needed some run producers in this line-up and he didn't get them. Those are just two of the myriad examples of Hendry's incompetence.

No one has done that but you. There are always outlliers in any data set. However, the evidence is completely and overwhealmingly conclusive that high pitches per inning and innings pitched are related to future arm problems. And perhaps more damning, future inefecitveness. Your insistnace that things be "proven" conclusive is both irrational and foolish. It's like the cigerrette companies stating that somking doesn't cause cancer.

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs. Holy smokes. If that isn't the biggest cop-out BS remark I've ever read in reference to Hendry and his performance then I don't know what is. It sounds like something that would come out of this Administration regarding the war in Iraq. Even with all this supposed talent and close to 100 million dollar payroll the Cubs made they playoffs once. And never managed to win 90 games. This year they almost lost 100. The Cubs have done nothing but go backwards since Hendry was given the job of GM

Studies to define correlary are not peformed by picking names out of a control pool that support your theory. Sorry, it doesn't fly. What are you talking about? Forget it, you have no idea what you are talking about. Here is something for you to chew on http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=148 Check out the bolded names. Here is another one http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/pap2003.htm Check the top of the list Here is a study done by pedromartinezfan (it's about half way down) http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-83481.html You want more?

As utterly random and baseless as you can get. jason shmidt http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schmija01.shtml Curt Schilling http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml Randy Johnson http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsra05.shtml Pedro Martinez (see years 2001 and 2006) http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martipe02.shtml The infamous Ernie Brogilo (traded for Lou Brock) http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/brogler01.shtml You can look up the rest. The number of innings and the increased likelihood of injury is self-evident. Sorry, but what does this prove? Am I supposed to now go and find a half-dozen players with 3000+ pitch counts over several years who haven't been injured? This is the most irrational way to present an argument you could come up with...you're just plucking random pitchers to try and support a claim. Are you kidding me. These pitchers aren't random at all. They have all been highly effective and pitched a lot of innings before being injured. All have similar "traits" as big Z. You want to talk about irrational? Denying that Z's abuse may affect his future performance is about as irrational as it gets.

As utterly random and baseless as you can get. jason shmidt http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schmija01.shtml Curt Schilling http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml Randy Johnson http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsra05.shtml Pedro Martinez (see years 2001 and 2006) http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martipe02.shtml The infamous Ernie Brogilo (traded for Lou Brock) http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/brogler01.shtml You can look up the rest. The number of innings and the increased likelihood of injury is self-evident.

Why?

Many reasons: writers like hustle and trying, and you can't write a story without saying Pierre hustles and tries hard while Ramirez doesn't writers like picking on the "new" baseball where homeruns are big deals, and they really like guys who just put the ball in play writers like the bunt and stolen base and think of them as lost arts pierre played on a WS winner, and Ramirez has played for the Cubs and Pirates. If there's one things writers will fall back on more than anything else, it's the notion that players are winners or losers depending on which teams they've played on. None of those reasons account for the real, primary reason: Ramirez is a run prodcuer and Pierre is not. When Lee went down with injury, Ramirez (and nobody else really) was expected to pick up the slack as the primary run prodcuer, which he didn't. I'm not justifying the argument either way, that's just my view on the their reasoning. It's really frickin hard to produce runs when no one is on base in front of you and no one who can hit his weight is batting behind you. During his slide Aramis wasn't given anything to hit. Instead of being paitent he expanded his zone and started swinging at pitches he shouldn't. Even so, IIRC he had around career norms for walks. Aramis was a victim of circumstances, not the cause of them.

The threat of injury doesn't disappear after you've pitched for a couple seasons. Nor does it magically appear due to pitch counts that have been consistant across numerous years. Exceot if your Jason Shmidt, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, David Wells, Ernie Briollio, and pretty much any pitcher.

Why should anyone have to say anything positive about a team that lost damn near 100 games with damn near $100 million dollar payroll? There isn't anytihing positive to say except Dusty was fired. He should have been fired before the all-star break.

Yes they are. You are what your record says you are. They will be bad again if Hendry doesn't get better playrs.

Someone on a bankrupt radio station making you feel like a laughing stock? Something's def. wrong there. That's the point isn't it.

Kent Jones of Air America Radio, on The Rachel Maddo Show (of all places) just reported that the Cubs will pursue A-Rod in the off-season. I wouldn't put too much faith in the report but I thought I'd pass it along as it is not the usual thing that Air America reports. Jones then went on to make fun of the Cubs, as has virtually every reporter who has talked about the Cubs in the past week. "Yankee fans could be heard rejoicing at the news as A-Rod went 1 for 14 in the playoffs this year. If A-Rod goes 1 for 14 with the Cubs in the playoffs, Cubs fans will be saying 'hey were in the playoffs!" I hate being a laughing stock.

I think you're giving a little too much credit to Hendry for "putting together" the trade for Nomar. It is my belief that Nomar would have been traded to some team, Hendry just worked out the best possible deal for Nomar. I mean, all they got for him was Doug Menkavich Well, it's commonly known that Hendry was the one who put the whole thing together, and got all the teams involved. I don't see how I'm giving him too much credit by saying that he's had experience in successfully orchestrating a four team trade for a marquee player. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not criticizing Hendry. What I'm saying is that Hendry took advantage of a situation where players probably had to be traded. I don't think it took that much "outside of the box" thinking to put any of those trades together. However, I also think that the A-Rod situation is somewhat like the Nomar situation. Hendry has shown he is able to make these types of trades work. He got rid of Sammy He got Nomar He got Lee He got Aramis He has a good track record in these matters.

I think you're giving a little too much credit to Hendry for "putting together" the trade for Nomar. It is my belief that Nomar would have been traded to some team, Hendry just worked out the best possible deal for Nomar. I mean, all they got for him was Doug Menkavich Nomar was like Sammy. He was an outcast on the team and had to be dealt. Now, having written that, it seems that A-Rod is in a similar situation to Nomar. I don't know how desparate Cashman is to get rid of A-Rod though. I think Epstine was very keen on getting rid of Nomar. Regardless, Hendry is the king of the buzzards. He can pick up good players who are going to be traded. He got Aramis and Lee in salary dumps when no other team was able to make the trade happen. I hope Hendry recognizes the situation for what it is, A-Rod is damaged goods, he shouldn't have to give up too much to get him. If he does get A-Rod I hope he doesn't overpay.