EastonBlues22

I didn't watch, but the general consensus of those that did was that his motion/mechanics looked smooth and good. His velocity was a bit down (92-94 FB), but he wasn't wild. It seems the strike zone was small, and that had an effect as two questionable calls by the ump on pitches turned potential strikeouts into hrs. Even with the small zone, no walks and 6 Ks. Was moderately efficient as far as pitch counts per inning is concerned. All in all, generally favorable/positive reviews for the first start of the year.

That's pretty much gotta kill the optimism. :lol: Funniest four words in the thread. Man, I'm still laughing. :lol:

I'm not usually one to make my way into threads like these...but man, this thread is freaking hilarious.

No "gotcha" intended... One random set of occurrances is hardly evidence for anything. I believe what you posted (I haven't had time to dig up the post yet, but it makes sense and you're not one to just spout off about stuff you haven't researched). I meant simply what I said, that it was an interesting tidbit. As far as where my info came from, one of the announcers commented about it during a Cubs game this year...I guess they had some bad info if there was a start against someone else as recently as last year. Maybe he meant all his decisions (or losses) were against Maddux, or something to that effect, and he just misspoke. Or maybe he just had no clue what he was talking about...I can't remember if it was Hrabosky or not. Hehehe.

I went over this on here 3-4 months ago, this simply isn't true. With off days, each starter winds up seeing each other spot in the rotation about the same amount. That's fine...my greater point was that it's silly that anyone thinks that one team gets to routinely skip every other team's top pitchers. BTW: Your research makes it even more interesting that, as a Cardinal, Marquis has never faced a starter other than Maddux when pitching against the Cubs. Pretty weird, huh?

Yes, I said he's had success before...he's shown the he can hit both in the majors (career .319/.400/.465) and in the minors (career .271/.355/.475). You can argue that his MLB ABs are insignificant, but his minor league numbers are more than credible as his walk rates have always been solid and his power numbers are there. He's put up very good AAA numbers since 2004. The reasons he's been in the minor leagues the last few years are because of his defensive and baserunning fundamentals. He's always been able to swing the bat. And, just for clarification, I never said his MLB success was predictable. I'm just pointing out that with his past history his current success should not be as shocking/lucky as the original poster is making it out to be. It's not like this is Mike Matheny putting up an .800+ OPS...

I wouldn't say the Cubs suck (and I'm even a Cards fan, heh). They're three games over .500 in the hottest division in baseball without two key starters, their best hitter, and with three other key members of the lineup underachieving (pierre, aram, jones). Three games over .500 is nothing to brag about, but considering the circumstances, it's nothing to go crazy about either. The Cubs best bet is to float around .500 until people start getting healthy, then hope they have enough to make a run from there. I think that's an entirely plausible scenario...I fully expect the Cubs to make a good push for a playoff spot before it's all said and done. Two bad games isn't the end of the world.

Typically, if one team is facing a team's fourth or fifth starter...it's when they have someone towards the bottom of their own rotation going. This is why Maddox always seems to be pitching against Marquis and never against Carpenter. It's the nature of the game, and the offenses for both teams should have an advantage. Seeing as how the Cards have such a weak lineup and overrated pitching, it seems it should actually be an advantage for the other team. There is no great scheduling conspiracy. Yes, some players are playing well...and a good number of those players have had great/very good success in the past (Ponson, Looper, Thompson, Rodriguez for example). Others have at least performed adequately in the past (Spezio, Luna). Only Miles' numbers can really be considered a big stretch...and that's really only in his walk rate. We'll see if that keeps up. At the same time you have Edmonds and Encarnacion massively underperforming by even the most pessimistic projections. Marquis, Suppan and Isringhausen are off to poor starts. It's not all lucky roses, for the Cards and it's way early yet to start making judgements and projections about any particular player's season. Same can be said for the Cubs (or anyo ther team for that matter)...Zambrano, ARam, Jones and several others will pick up their play. Maddux and Walker will cool. Everyone has overachievers and underachievers at this time of year...the sample size is under 100 AB/6 games started even for those playing every day. It's just way too early for threads like this.

I stand corrected. So, how does that apply back to the previous discussion where they were arguing relative value of professions based upon the number of people who were able to perform each one? Economics just ain't my game.

Reading your post makes me really glad I don't live in Festus, Missouri. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your economics are off. It's not the supply that's fixed, it's the demand. Fixing the demand wouldn't increase the cost of the players. Howso? I thought the supply was what's available to be consumed by consumers (in this case it would be ballplayers and the entertainment value/service they provide) and the demand is how much the consumers desire/are willing to pay for the good/service. If the market was flooded with good ballplayers, prices would have to become more competitive and consumers would be less inclined to pay a premium to be entertained (demand would wane...as would the average ballplayer salary).

Remeber also, only a fraction of all ballplayers become major leaguers because the number of major league positions is fixed. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other people out there qualified to do the job. There's prospects on most teams that could step in to the big show and do a respectable job if a starter went out. Consider the talent pool world wide (hello Cuba and Japan) and the number is even greater. Consider all exceptional athletes around the world who could play the game well if they just had an interest in it and the means to be trained in the sport and the number is potentially huge. (With more jobs, people would do a better job of recruiting and training talent for the sport). Just because a slot is blocked doesn't mean there aren't more people capable of doing the job out there. Jacking up demand for a profession by capping the supply doesn't make the job intrinsically more valuable...it makes it artificially more valuable, and renders value comparisons with jobs that aren't capped virtually meaningless.

Is this your idea of some kind of cruel joke? :wink: :lol: :lol: This should cheer you back up... In the Cards loss today, Edmonds made two errors (leading to two unearned runs) and continued to stink at the plate while Izzy gave up his second game losing gopher in four days and was booed off the field. Enjoy.

indeed - he solidifies their outfield for the next 3 years. (funny story - a cardinals fan friend of mine actually said those exact words to me once. i laughed.) I would have cried.

Eh, the sweep sucked...especially with the blown leads. Still, like someone else pointed out, the Cards have flat stunk against the Cubs for awhile now...it's not like this is a completely foreign experience. Early season reasons for outright optimism: Pujols, Rolen looking good as new and hitting with authority, all pitching arms are healthy, Carpenter and Mulder pitching like top of the line starters, and the defense looks solid. Early season reasons for pessimism: Encarnacion looks abysmal, Edmonds looks old, and the bullpen roles are unsettled. I may be wrong, but I think the Cards are much more likely to end up in the top 5 in the NL in ERA rather than in Runs Scored or OPS. The pitching isn't near as bad as it looked in the Cubs series, but the offense most assuredly isn't what it was last year or the year before. Edmonds will have to be a .900 OPS guy and Encarnacion will have to be light years better at the plate if the Cards are going to entertain any hopes of making a run in the playoffs. As for the Cubs, the team speed is MUCH improved...very nice upgrade. The youngsters look good, and the team as a whole looks fairly sharp and focused. With a tangibly better offense and bullpen, the Cubs could make a lot of noise if they can keep the starting rotation healthy and productive. It's going to be an interesting season.

I personally like having Reyes down to start the season. The Cards have a lot of FA pitchers coming up in the near future, and they're going to need some options. Reyes will almost certainly continue to develop no matter where he is...his development is almost a given. However, if they can rescue the career of Ponson, he could become another viable (and potentially much cheaper) option for the Cards down the road. Lets see what we have in Ponson while we have the chance. An average pitcher, at below market price, is not a bad thing to have if you can get one.

Man, I just laugh every time I see that top picture...crazy or not, the man knows how to kick some ass. Beautiful work.

None of that is any more valid than any other opinion on the matter. What's thought to be important or attractive about a ballpark is all a matter of personal taste. Some people, for instance, might think that the playability of the ballpark will be a factor in how "good" the design is compared to other parks...and obviously that's not something that we'll know for some time yet. Shouldn't we at least wait until the park is done before we start making judgements about it?

Interesting correlation... It's impossible to say decisively that the sacrifice attempts caused those two teams to be at the bottom of the league in runs...it could just as easily be something like they played more for sacrifices because they felt their teams were incapable of big innings anyway...as evidenced by the trouble they were having scoring runs. Either way, still interesting.

It certainly happens and it's possible it happened in Lugo's case. You're right I shouldn't have slapped the label on him. But here's another reason not to want Lugo on the team: Lugo .276/.340/.400 career; .295/.362/.403 '05 Walker .290/.348/.441 career; .305/.355/.474 '05 Lugo/Cedeno is only greater than Cedeno/Walker defensively. Now if you can send Neifi back in the deal, I might be interested. CFP LOL, I'm a Cards fan...those are the exact reasons why I do want the Cubs to get Lugo... :wink:

I can agree with that...I'm not sure I'd want him on my team either. He certainly wouldn't be my first choice. I just made the initial response because whenver I hear the term "abuser," it elicits thoughts of chronic and/or severe abuse (in whatever form it might take). I've never liked hearing that term associated with rather mild/one time "offenders." I've seen and lived through things that would be considered abuse under the law, but they weren't chronic happenings...they were just the results of emotions getting out of control. I've also seen people close to me get slapped with abuser labels that they didn't deserve. These things happen, to both men and women. Emotions are usually running high, and mouths might be running as well. Statements taken at these times aren't always the most accurate things. I just feel there's just too much doubt and uncertainty to be throwing labels around like that without any previous history or really severe acts to back it up. Sorry, just a cause that hits close to home for several reasons, nothing more...I didn't really mean anything by it.

So let me get this straight. You think she retracted the charges because of money? Why didn't she just settle a lawsuit and save herself the trouble of being with some guy who's abusing her? There's a lot of ways she could have cashed in on that situation without actually staying in the relationship. IIRC, a victim severely exaggerating or even making up claims is pretty commonplace as well. This is true...but then definitively calling him a "wife abuser" would be somewhere between an embellishment and slander, wouldn't it?

So let me get this straight. You think she retracted the charges because of money? Why didn't she just settle a lawsuit and save herself the trouble of being with some guy who's abusing her? There's a lot of ways she could have cashed in on that situation without actually staying in the relationship.

Maybe this rumor is just a shrewd attempt by hendry to piss off Tejada even more, so that he re-demands a trade and the price tag comes down to something a little more reasonable. :wink:

I'm curious why you think Hudson is that much better than Zito. Career numbers: Hudson: WHIP 1.24, ERA 3.33, 6.37 K/9, 0.7 HR/9, 2.27 K/BB, .688 W%, 30 years old, righty, 34+ starts in three of last five years Zito: WHIP 1.22, ERA 3.50, 7.03 K/9, 0.9 HR/9, 2.05 K/BB, .611 W% 27 years old, lefty, 5 straight years of 34+ starts Outside of the winning percentage, the numbers are very similar and Zito is younger, a lefty, and has no history of recent health problems. Plus, the price market for pitching has inflated from even last year...Zito won't be cheap.