sonofsamiam

Not that I'm saying Rollins deserves it, but 28 Win Shares (with the leader at 34) and a 11.5 WARP3 (higher than H. Ramirez) are pretty darn strong. David Wright probably deserved it, but had no realistic shot after the Mets collapse. It's not fair, but it'll always be that way.

The difference with Wood and Prior is they had high pitch-count games, with high-stress innings (as in both teams were in a pennant race to the very end) in THEIR VERY FIRST full major league seasons. At the ages of 20 and 22. I think these are all obviously contributing factors. Also, another fine example of overuse is the excellent Oakland A's staff of 1980. Check out those Complete Games! Check out their ages! Now check out what happened to them after that year! All 5 careers went in the tank, and that included extremely promising guys like Mike Norris and Matt Keough.

Prior would have to revert to his former self for this to become an issue. If he just makes little strides at AAA, he'll just be getting to the same level of effectiveness as Marquis and Miller. He's got a lot of work to do. However, if he can revert to anywhere near his former self, they will open a spot for him. They'd probably deal Miller. I sure hope so. Here's what worries me: What if, say, Miller and/or Marquis are a game or 2 above .500 at the end of April, with ERAs around 4.50? (I think this is a very possible scenario.) Meanwhile, Prior does well in Iowa, but isn't totally dominant (think Prior circa 2005, not ca. 2003). Do the Cubs make a spot for him, especially if they're having some success at the time? Previous experience tells me, very possibly not.

My biggest fear is that, while Prior improves in AAA, Marquis and Miller pitch just well enough (likely getting some wins even while allowing a fair amount of runs), that management decides that if ain't broke, don't fix it, and a spot isn't opened up for Prior. If this happens, it will both hurt the team's chances in the short-term and likely irrevocably damage their relationship with him for the long-term. I would hope they show more loyalty to him than Miller/Marquis, but unfortunately familiarity sometimes breeds contempt.

Sullivan has also said on many occasions that he thinks pitch counts, pitcher abuse points, and such are a bunch of hooey. All Cubs pitchers are a bunch of money-grubbing wimps!

Guzman's line on the 16th: 5.1 IP, 3 H, 3 BB, 1 R, 8 K He looked great; I was there. The Cubs are so bass-ackwards at this point they punish their good performers.

This is cribbed from a BP Under the Knife article, but I think it makes some sense (though will never happen): Since Wood currently is feeling discomfort and losing effectiveness around the 60-pitch mark, why not let him start games with a strict 55-60 pitch count, and then plan on having Guzman relieve, allowing him to get as much work in as reasonable? There could be a rotation of: Z Prior Wood/Guzman Marshall Marmol ...and then the young guys could continue to work on development, and Wood could try to figure things out and build up his strength in real situations. Something similar could be done with Miller, even. Just a thought -- with the season shot, why not experiment, as long as it's not to the detriment of anyone's health?

I think the value of a QS is that it shows which pitchers most consistently give their team a chance to win. (Rather than showing dominance or "true" effectiveness.) The skew that, say, an ERA can get from 1 bad outing isn't reflected here. It's not a great stat, but not useless, either. I personally like game scores, but am revealing my geekiness I suppose.

I don't get why you think it's just the Cubs. The Mets have a big Three that was highly touted and they all went down. Several teams have had great pitchers torn to shreds. The Cubs stand out because in the face of more and more evidence about abuse they ignored it and kept treating these kids like 36 year olds. It's got nothing to do with luck. It's poor decision making on the part of the Cubs. Actually, the worst example of modern abuse effects seems to emanate from the infallible Oakland A's. Guys like Mulder, Hudson and Zito (although doing better so far in 2006) all have been declining after a lot of early high IP seasons. Now they're abusing the latest crop (Haren, Harden and Blanton). Harden's already having problems and Blanton is getting worse results at this point. There are other examples - the 1970s Reds staff, the 1980s Mets staff, the early 1990s Reds staff, and individual guys like Sam McDowell, Mark Fidrych, Mario Soto, and Jim Maloney. Frank Tanana was on a meteoric path in his early 20s, but quickly became just a soft-tossing lefty. For a real chill, take a look at Steve Busby's career. Thank you for using great, real examples. May I direct everyone's attention to the 1980 A's -- check that starting staff, their innings and complete games, and what happened to them subsequently. Yikes. Also, your very own Steve Stone had his own career ruined going for the CY that very year. And he was in his prime.

It's sad to say, but I think it's all about p.r. They don't want fans mad at them for trading their favorite players, so they tear (no pun) them down until they're hated. At least it sure seems that way.........

I have the same feeling, but have always wondered if this was one of those "perceived" things, using gut (no pun, yes, I know Jerome is fattish) over any sort of tangible metrics. The guy was pretty darn good last September for us, and aside from 1 bad relief appearance and the disastrous Cardinal start, was doing just fine. His ERA going into the start that got him sent down was 2.45. Maybe he's immature -- I know he was crying when he got the news about the demotion, and obviously hasn't righted the ship since. But I think it'd be a shame to not see what's there; I thought it was an absolute steal getting him for Hawkins, esp. considering how good he was as a 21-year-old rookie. Anyway, we KNOW Rusch will be mediocre to bad. At least Williams offers the chance of being mediocre to good.

Do the Cubs have any plans for him, or have they given up? I know he's doing poorly at Iowa, but I still thought it was kneejerk to have sent him down due to 1 bad start (yes, against the Cardinals, but his last 3 outings had been solid). Is there some problem we don't know about? He's still just 24 (younger than Hill and same age as Guzman), and has a career 4.03 ERA through 65 starts. It just seems premature to give up on him, especially considering the alternatives. I'd have a lot more confidence in him than Rusch, Hill, or Guzman, personally, at least based on past performance. But it seems like he has an extremely short leash. Any insight would be appreciated!

IIRC, didn't Aramis score what turned out to the deciding run in a game where he came in from 2nd on a shallow base hit to center, sliding around and under the catcher's tag? Looked like a good hustle play to me. (Plus, a VERY fundamentally sound, and aware, slide.) He does take too much time looking at the ball's trajectory after it's hit, though, but it's still a minor quibble. I'd rather criticize the players on the team that are, y'know, bad.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Prior's recent injury is related to the speed from which he came back from the line-drive injury? IIRC, he came back quicker than expected from that (what a wuss he is, though!), and wasn't as effective as he had been beforehand. Did it still bother him, and was he overcompensating, putting stress on the shoulder? Was his effectiveness related to something like that, or was he just rusty? I just wonder -- if Brad Hawpe hadn't hit that friggin' liner, would things have continued smoothly? He only missed his first start of '05, and was plugging along just fine until then. The Cubs even seemed to have him on a reasonable pitch count. I suppose we'll never know. Regardless, the questioning of a players' manhood by fans seems to reflect more the frustration of the fans themselves than anything about the player. I doubt we'll ever really know if Prior is "soft". I'm pretty darn sure he'd prefer to be pitching for the team right now and not rehabbing, though.

Not sure if you were being sarcastic -- are you suggesting Wood wasn't doing that in '03?

I've always found it bizarre that people take their frustration with a team so personally that they appear to hate individual players as people. I'm sure Kerry Wood has never wanted to be hurt, and does not want to be currently rehabbing. And I'm sure the team will welcome him back with open arms when he returns.

I don't think I've given up on Williams, but I've never had a great deal of faith in him to begin with. And it's not a reaction to the Cardinals game. I just don't like his game. However, I agree he deserves a shot over Rusch. And he should be in the discussion for the rotation now (and deserved a better shot than he was given). He'll probably never be a dominant starter, but a lot of teams would love to have a 4th or 5th guy with his career up to now. In fact, he and Danny Haren have extremely similar career numbers, and are nearly the same age. And I think people would love Haren as a Cub at this point.

Who has given up on Williams? I think everyone here would agree that if he has a few good starts in AAA he deserves to at least be considered for a rotation spot with the big league team. The fact that maybe 2 people mentioned him over 5 pages (and 1 of the people mentioned him only to lambast him) led me to this conclusion. I felt it was a knee-jerk reaction. Yes, he was bad against the Cards, which always stings. But Rusch has been as bad or worse 3 times already. At least he has the proven experience of being able to handle himself in the big leagues. A 24-year-old with 63 career starts and a career ERA well better than league average deserves the benefit of the doubt in my book.

It's woody's fault. He should have gone longer than 7 IP with 2 runs or less. :roll: :roll: You're right. I forgot that for each of his starts the teams' took a time machine back to 1914.

Why has everyone given up on Jerome Williams? He was 1 fine start, a couple good relief outings and 1 not-so-good, and 1 very bad start (against the Cardinals) and he's gone? The guy had a 2.10 ERA for us last September, and is YOUNGER than Rich Hill. Somehow, I think if Hill had a 2.10 ERA in 5 starts last September, and blew up against St. Louis in one stinkin' start, that he'd still be in the rotation. Guess I just remember Williams when he was 21 and very effective for the Giants in '03. Lots of teams would've killed for the guy then. I feel he can recapture that, but it seems like he's been given up on (and by a team that can ill-afford to give up on young arms).

Hard luck for Kerry Wood in 2003: 4/23: 2 runs in 7 IP; gets the loss (Cubs are shut out) 5/10: 1 run in 7 IP; gets a ND (Cubs win game) 5/15: 0 runs in 7 IP (3 hits and 2 BB); gets a ND (Cubs win game) 5/25: 1 run in 7 IP (allows only 1 hit); gets the loss (Cubs are shut out) 8/11: 2 runs in 7 IP; gets the loss (Cubs score 1) 8/27: 0 runs in 7 IP; gets a ND (bullpen blows game) 9/2: 2 runs in 7 IP (1 earned); gets the loss (Cubs are shut out) 9/12: 1 run in 6 IP; gets a ND (bullpen blows lead; Cubs win game) If he'd just gotten the win in 3 of these games (which certainly would seem reasonable), would people have quit ragging on him?

Since we're talking about Aramis, I'll just rant a bit here about Barry Rozner, who is clearly as big a hack as Mariotti/Downey, etc. Today on Mike North (yes, I'm ashamed for listening), Rozner said that Aramis was a terrible signing, because Pittsburgh knew what they were doing when they let him go. Basically he said that Pirates management knew he didn't come to play every day, that he has no heart, and that the Cubs were stupid to sign him to the contract they did. He also said that: - He'd take Crede over Aramis, no question - He doubts Aramis will play 110 games this year, because he's "always hurt" (and it was of course implied that Ramirez refuses to play through any pain) - Aramis only tries to hit home runs when he's up to bat Even North was a little surprised Rozner was so quick to dismiss Aramis when compared to Crede. This probably belongs in Rants, but I didn't want it to get lost. Guess I'm just peeved that people who are so clueless about sports (or so apparently biased against certain individuals personally) get paid to write and talk about them, but I suppose I'm just giving Rozner what he wants by talking about it.

It wasn't a swipe, just the truth. And I am glad Hendry is what he is. Every writer brings up stats in every article criticizing the Cubs. A writer can't say the Hendry isn't married to these stat guys without being criticized here? The stat guys may be the most insecure people in baseball. It's more Sullivan's tone, which implies that all stats-based methods are done by computer nerds making huge spreadsheets. It's just lazy, and Sullivan is well-known for discounting stats. (Just like most of the media -- I see very few writer talking about advanced stats at all.) I don't subscribe to sabermetrics alone -- but statistics are a type of hard evidence, which should certainly be combined with scouting reports and every other bit of information a good GM should be using. I guess I just get sick of people in the media making sweeping statements about the use of stats like it's a bad thing. Anyway, the main thing that bugged me was Sullivan somehow thinking Rusch was brought in to take Estes' place in '03. Shows how important research is to him as a writer -- but I guess research should just be left to those poring over "computerized printouts of every statistic imaginable".

This, however, IS a mistake, and a particularly glaring one: Um, no he didn't, Paul. Also, I like how he takes a swipe at stat-based methodology in the first paragraph: Guess he should be extended based on that alone.

The title was supposed to be "over Cedeno's shoulder", which I was allowed to enter. It truncated on submission, which is somewhat annoying, but I suppose I should have made the title more concise.