jjgman21

no it wasn't. the assertion was that the Cubs underachieved the entire year due to injuries. it was you who decided that the analysis needed to be arbitrarily confined to post June 11, for what reason I have no idea. however, looking at how the starting pitching performed from about June 12-24 compounding the over use do to poor starting pitching earlier in the year, it is not unreasonable to attribute some of our lack of success during the eight game losing streak to wear and tear on the bullpen caused by prior overuse.

During the recent 8 game losing streak, the following pitchers lost: Maddux Prior Williams Mitre Wood Maddux Prior Novoa Since the high water mark of June 11 when the Cubs were 6 games over .500, they have lost 18 times, 8 of which are accounted for above. The other losses can be attributed to Maddux x 2, Mitre x 2, Rusch x 2, Zambrano, Remmy, Koronka and Ohman. I don't see an inordinate number of losses coming from Wood/Prior fill ins. You are going to expect losses from bullpen guys like Ohman, Remmy, etc. Rusch and Mitre were slated to be #5/ML pen guys anyway, so I don't necessary consider them "fill ins". Blaming the Cubs poor play during that stretch on injuries to starting pitching doesn't persuade me. so who gets the W and who gets the L is indicative of who the loss can be blamed on? I mean never mind that on June 23 the Cubs kept getting and extending the lead, and Rusch kept giving it right back up. Rem took the L, so it wasn't Rusch is exonerated, right? I wasn't speaking only about post June 11. I was speaking about the record against .500+ teams over the course of the entire year, but since you want to cut the sample size by two thirds: specific losses against the .500 teams immediately following June 11 June 12 - blowup game by Rusch against Boston June 13 - blowup game by Koronka against the Marlins June 15 - blowup game by Maddux against the Marilins June 17 - blowup game by Z against the Yankees June 18 - blowup game by Rusch against the Yankees June 19 - blowup game by Mitre against the Yankees June 24 - blowup game by Mitre against the White Sox 5 out of 7 losses directly attributed to fill in starters. between June 12 and June 30, the Cubs lost 10 games. they also gave up 8 or more runs in 9 of those games, 6 in the other. Wood and Prior combined for exactly 2 starts in that stretch of games, both Ws. you really don't see the fill-in starting pitching as an issue in this stretch, eh? you can slice it and dice it anyway you want, but we're not the same team without our big three going. as for the eight game losing streak, the starting pitching admittedly wasn't bad. then again, we had Wood, Prior, Z with the only aweful start in that stretch being one of Prior's. of course the biggest problem was the offense, but our two worst OBP guys batting 1-2 is no longer an issue. the bullpen was a bit of a problem as well during that stretch, but part of that could probably be attributed to the use and abuse when our staff wasn't averaging more than 5 innings per start. between the great starts v. Fla, the all star break, and more innings eatten by starters v. Pitt, hopefully they are rested and more effective because of it. I know you have a problem with people making excuses, but the bottom line is, when you don't have the services of 3-5 of your best players, I don't care what sport you are talking about or what team, you aren't going to be nearly as successful.

the Cubs are 5-7 against those three AL teams. what's funny about this is that in late may we all talked about how the Cubs had 32 of 36 (or something close) consecutive games against .500+ teams. now we have only played 43 total games against .500+ teams. this kind of makes my point. the Dodgers were 3-4 games above .500 before the Cubs played them. so should they count? just throwing some numbers out, but let's say Houston, Milwaukee and Toronto go 4-2 over the next week while AZ goes 5-1; Florida and the Mets go 3-4; and Philly 2-5. all of a sudden, in the course of one week, the number of games played against .500 teams and the Cubs record against them could change drastically. this year in particular, the teams that are above .500 and those below can change in a heartbeat. looking at how a team does against .500 teams is really a useless measure of how a team performs. but on the same subject, considering we were running out injured Wood, spring Maddux, and a mixture of Mitre, Koronka, Dempster, Leicester, and Rusch (seemed to lose it after his CG) to start many of those games, should we have expected any better? should we really be beating the team up for not doing better against those teams when the strength of the team, its starting pitching, wasn't even playing?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people drawing conclusions based on available information. For purposes of a discussion, threads would go nowhere, have no substance, and receive little feedback if people weren't willing to apply available information, limited though it may be, and share their opinions and analysis. The responsible and reasonable community members all realize that these are predictions based on incomplete information. Such is life. You can't wait until Hill has a five year ML career to start analyzing it in hindsight. What good would that do? How interesting would that be? Most opinions/conclusions communicated herein are responsible, many including tacit or express disclaimers regarding the fact that such conclusions are based on limited data. If conclusions aren't draw and disseminated in threads like this, NSBB would be no more than a virtual bulletin board with no necessity for discussion. I know what you are saying. just seems like some are being awefully definitive and forceful in their arguments with some pretty limited information. I'm just one that thinks its awefully difficult to draw such conclusions based on what we have seen so far.

I heard alot of this at the end of May before the Cubs went to the west coast. back then, the Dodgers were considered an upper echelon team. we swept them, and a couple weeks later, we stopped counting them as one of the good teams. now the same thing is happening all over again. two weeks ago, many here would have considered the Marlins an upper echelon team. they had won 10 of 15 entering the Cubs series. we sweep them, and all of a sudden they are considered not so good. whether a team is upper echelon or not and how we play against them is too fluid to use as a measure of how good the Cubs have/can play. plus, by most definitions, there aren't any upper echelon teams left on the Cubs schedule besides quite a few games against the Cards and a Braves series. unless by the time we play the Dodgers, Astros and Marlins again, they'll be back up to upper echelon status? I guess what I am saying is there is alot of discounting how good a team is when we beat them, and alot of inflating a team when we lose to them.

I am amazed that so many think they can make such definitive judgments about Hill's stuff, makeup, and future after observing his work against a grand total of 23 batters, looking at his minor league numbers, and recalling a couple of Hendry quotes from six months ago.

believe me, I'm no Sammy defender, but if Lowell was inserted into the O's lineup, he would be the poorest performer.

That would be a tough argument to make. no it's not. see the title to Badgers thread. that's what this staff is capable of and what we expected to have the entire year the past two years. (well, maybe not that good) I don't think anyone expected everything to go right either year, but we didn't expect things to go as wrong as they did. one correction that I would like to make to Wheelimus's refreshingly optimistic post, Barrett's numbers don't show how well he was hitting in April. it was the unluckiest streak of hitting I ever saw in my life. he's really only had the one bad streak all year, but has come out of it quite nicely. I really wish Dusty would get him out of the 8 hole. the shortstop should be in the 8 hole until (if?) Nomar comes back. and he should play against lefties no matter who's pitching for the Cubs.

a little bit of a different take on the situation. I think Hill should definitely be brought back up at the beginning of August if a spot is openned up. I think he offers options as a reliever, much like Rusch, only better as a lefty specialist because of his ability to get the K. but the reason I think this should be done is for his development, not as a way of putting his development in jeopardy. lot's of starters get their feet wet in the majors in a relief role. but my concern is that Hill has thrown just over 100 innings the past two years. he's already at 110+ this year. give him a few more starts in the minors, then 25-30 innings in the bigs, and he'll be at around 160 innings. I wouldn't increase his innings more drastically than that in one season.

whoever never saw Farns slam Wilson, they played it on Sportscenter during the story about today's brawl. little know fact...all Farns punches missed. Wilson was bloodied by Damian Miller trying to push a ball through his face. looked to me like today he should have just thrown a haymaker. Affeldt left himself wide open. of course being Farns, he would've thrown it with his right.

Wow. You never cease to amaze me Fred. how on earth is all of that compiled?

I remember about a month ago Pujols tied (or took the lead in) a game in Colorado with a dinger. even a couple Card fans admitted he got a call on the way to working a full count. how about this one? should Al have been riding pine? edit: that's pretty cool the way this board automatically converts from the alternate spelling of Pujols.

He was a rookie in 2003. Yes, he won 10 last year, but he didn't pitch particularly well. He stunk earlier this year and hasn't been impressive as a Cub. Don't know if you are mixing up your years, but Williams was outstanding in 2003. 3.30 ERA, OPS against of .668. Since joining the Cubs this year, his ERA is 3.68. granted that is in 22 innings, but that puts him between Prior and Z in terms of starters ERA. and you know the facts about earlier this year, so can't you make an exception? go ahead and prefer one guy over the other, but don't diminish the guys accomplishments and adversity to make your point. I don't believe I confused a thing. 2003 was his rookie year. Last year was 2004, when he won 10, but had an ERA well over 4, a WHIP of about 1.3, a k/bb under 2, a k/9 under 6. What exception am I supposed to make? The guy doesn't impress me. He hasn't been a bad pitcher. I'm just not impressed with him. I don't have to diminish his accomplishments to feel that way. I read that post wrong. but perhaps an exception should be made when using a pitchers early season performance as a tool to predict performance when that pitcher missed most of ST, and when that pitcher missed most of ST because his father was getting kidney and liver transplants and year after his mother died of cancer and when that pitcher, who has 13 innings in ST is run out on April 9 for 7 innings and 90 pitches. not quite a shock that after being skipped the next time throught the rotation he had two rough starts. I didn't say you diminished his accomplishments to form your opinion of him. I said you diminished his accomplishments to make your point, ie. that Mitre should be the starter and by extension that you think he is better. and what's funny about that is you tend to be a moneyballer but your lack of faith in Williams and your preference for Mitre seems to be based on your observations of the two, when Williams has clearly outperformed by any statistical measurement. all the ratios are about even, but favor Williams. all the raw stats favor Williams by far. but hey, you saw him give up alot of hard hit balls, so maybe he's not as good as some of us thing he is. I personally like both. they are in different molds (Wrigley plays bigger than PacBell for half the season). I could easily see either being with a ceiling around the border of #2-3 if things click for them. think maybe Livan Hernandez for Williams and maybe Matty Clement for Mitre. as for right now, I have to go with the guy likely to keep you in each game instead of the one likely to dominate two starts and stink the next three. that being the case, gotta go with Williams right now.

He was a rookie in 2003. Yes, he won 10 last year, but he didn't pitch particularly well. He stunk earlier this year and hasn't been impressive as a Cub. Don't know if you are mixing up your years, but Williams was outstanding in 2003. 3.30 ERA, OPS against of .668. Since joining the Cubs this year, his ERA is 3.68. granted that is in 22 innings, but that puts him between Prior and Z in terms of starters ERA. and you know the facts about earlier this year, so can't you make an exception? go ahead and prefer one guy over the other, but don't diminish the guys accomplishments and adversity to make your point.

I jumped on to see why Kerry came out of the game and saw the posts above. I don't think anyone is saying he shouldnt have come out, just wondering if he was injured.

can a one-hitter be jinxed? that single blew the Cubs chance to tie the all-time record for one hitters in a season.

ok. the guys name seems to appear in every other thread these days, and I have bitten my tongue up until now. has anyone taken a gander at the Cubs DL the past couple of years? how about read anything written about the Cubs between the months of March and July the past two years? fill in the blanks for me..."the Cubs could make a run if their _________ staff stays __________." why would anyone on earth even want to take that chance, especially considering he will be this offseasons highest paid free agent? So using that argument, you'd want the Cubs get rid of Aramis Ramirez because his groin injuries makes him too much of a health risk? AJ Burnett is an amazing talent and every team that can afford him (that includes the Cubs) should be interested in adding him to their payroll. no, the argument isn't the same at all, and your comparison isn't even close. let me fill in the blanks for you. ..."the Cubs could make a run if their PITCHING staff stays HEALTHY." Aramis Ramirez has played at least 7/8 of the past 4 season. are the injury histories really anywhere near comparable? my point is about acquiring a pitcher with a serious injury history, not about keeping a hitter with the occassional aches and pains. this is a team built on starting pitching. problem is, that starting pitching can't stay healthy. so what you are suggesting is adding a guy with a bloated contract who has a worse history of staying healthy than any of the guys we currently have. Kerry Wood is an amazing talent, younger, cheaper (will be next year), AND more durable. should every team be interested in adding him, or do you think there are a few that are a little leery of his injury history? AJ Burnett has made 116 starts in his 6 year career. Kerry Wood has made 172 in the 7.5 years since breaking into the big leagues. but it seems every year we all get p.o.'d that Wood can't stay healthy. what makes you think Burnett would be any different? signing Burnett to the contract he will get only to have him get injured, as has been his history, will screw this organization for the duration of his contract, and will use necessary dollars to improve the offensive problems this team has.

I don't know how many Cards games you watch, but I've only missed about ten this year, and I have no idea what you're talking about with Walker complaining about the strike zone. Edmonds does so all the time, sometimes with words, sometimes with looks, but I can't even remember a single instance of Walker complaining about a strike or ball call. He just steps out and readjusts his gloves, then steps back in. He doesn't even look back. There's a lot of people who bitch and moan in baseball, and even on the Cardinals, but Walker's not one of them. admittedly not alot this year. alot of my accusations come from what I saw of Walker last year. I recall seeing a highlight on BBT where he took a called third, right down the middle, in a key situation (of a pretty meaningless game). he turned and ranted and raved to an extent that would have gotten Alou ejected for sure. I thought to myself 'that's strange, I never saw Walker argue like that before.' then about a week later, I saw another highlight with him doing the exact same thing. a couple weeks later, another. then I watched the post season, and thought there were 2 Edmonds. the whole thing took me aback because I never saw such a quick transformation in a player from what that never argued to one that argued without just cause. that is why I remember it so clearly. then again, maybe my memory of Walker is a little skewed, for most of the time I have watched him playing it was against the Cubs. pretty hard to argue called strikes when there aren't any.

ok. the guys name seems to appear in every other thread these days, and I have bitten my tongue up until now. has anyone taken a gander at the Cubs DL the past couple of years? how about read anything written about the Cubs between the months of March and July the past two years? fill in the blanks for me..."the Cubs could make a run if their _________ staff stays __________." why would anyone on earth even want to take that chance, especially considering he will be this offseasons highest paid free agent?

just so we're clear, Z's games started/ERA against Atl - 5/4.55 (one of only two NL teams his career ERA is above 3.71) Hou - 10/3.26 StL - 9/3.18 SF - 2/3.71 Fla - 5/2.03 LA - 3/1.80 Sox - 7/3.09 one interesting thing looking at his career splits, the Metropolitans have never had the pleasure of facing Mr. Z as a starter. only one relief inning in his entire career.

as others have implied, the concern is not potential for the player being a bust. the concern is failing to develop a player properly and rushing him to the major leagues. that's exactly what the Cubs did with Corey. and to bring the comparison a little further, not only will he be brought to the majors too early, the manager will make the mistake of not putting him out there every single day, stunting his development even further.

there is certainly a possibiliy, and the age scams of a few years ago makes if plausible. things are different now then they were back when Sosa was coming up however. as we all know, there was the big rash of players saying they were younger than they really were a few years ago. players from the DR lied alot about how old they were back when Sosa was breaking into professional baseball too. however, for the most part they lied and said they were older than they really were back then (the reason being the rule that you could not sign unless 16 or play in the U.S. until 18). thus, if Sosa did lie about his age, he was a true revolutionary.

Just so you know, Pie probably won't be a leadoff hitter when he is in the majors. At least he shouldn't be one. are there really rumors that they want to bring Pie up? why not, afterall, the last time they rushed a blue chip centerfielder to the majors it worked out great.

where have their been any rumors?

as mentioned, I'd much rather have Walker at second. the Cubs already have far too few hitters like Todd Walker.