brfahey

I think Couch probably wrote the article because, in some way, it's not a positive piece about the Cubs, whom he hates (like everyone else at the Sun-Times). He spent a long time writing about the premium ticket service and bashing the Cubs about a year ago and the case got thrown out of court. The Furcal piece could just as easily been about how Furcal has stayed out of trouble in the past year. Typical sportswriter stuff.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

One kind of big difference: Lidge had a great postseason last year and has had a good one until that pitch this year. Farnsworth has imploded in his only two chances (Game 6 in 2003 and Game 4 this year). Kind of a big difference.

4 is more than 2. brilliant....still had the lead after the grand slam though. I love measuring the true nature of someones crappines. Lets bring Farnsworth, Alfonseca, and Fassero back. Then all will be well. I'd rather have Farnsworth than Novoa in the pen next season. I'd rather see Farnsworth out there than Wuertz, or JVB, or Leicester, or Wellemeyer. I'm not sure all would be well, but Farnsworth would've been the best righty in our pen last season, and barring a major FA acquisition, likely will be better than any righty in our pen next season. Oh, I agree. The Cubs never should have traded Farnsworth. They should have never overworked him, which led to his trade. He's no star, but he's a very good reliever. Wish the Cubs still had him. However, I would like to add that some do seem to be ignoring some of his downfalls. Players aren't robots, and I don't think Farnsworth always reacts well in a given situation. I'm not sure if clutch exists in baseball, but I do know it's human nature to react differently in different situations. There had to be some reason that Hawkins was an excellent set-up man but a terrible closer. I don't believe he just started to physically stink. I don't agree that Farnsworth shouldn't have bene traded or that he was overworked or even that he is or was a good pitcher. However, I appluad this post and a previous one for their recognition that aspects of the game cannot be quantified. Much about the game can be and quite usefully. But intangibles do exist. If someone thinks a stats line gives you the full meaure of Farnsworth or any other player that is a mistake.

Let's not forget the bases loaded and bases clearing hite served up to hall of famer Mike Mordecai in game 6 of the 2003 NLCS when the Cubs were only down 2. Yesterday is the first time since he's been in a truly big situation. Does anyone really think the Braves wouldn't have won the division without him. Farnsworth is another example of numbers being deceiving at times. I wouldn't trust him in a big situation if you paid me.

Yep. I see the point. Why would Cub fans like the Yankees? Only 26 world titles since 1920. And that ARod and his complaining. Wouldn' t want him on our team.

I'm glad labelling and grouping and name-calling isn't permitted. I think you overestimate the average fan. The average fan doesn't take the time to register at an independent website like this one to talk about the Cubs all the time. They're more the type that takes until June to realize that Grudzielanek isn't playing 2nd anymore, and are currently wondering why Wood hasn't started in seemingly forever. Since the regulations of this community that you're referring to are for fellow posters(please correct me if I'm wrong mods/admins), I really doubt that IMB! was trying to group anyone here into that category. Also, I'm pretty sure the mods/admins prefer you contact them in private if you have issue with any problems you have of this nature. Sorry, I didn't know that this board was for only above-average fans. Your point about the posters vs. non-posters is well taken. If a private message is the way to do it fine.

I'm glad labelling and grouping and name-calling isn't permitted.

I said seems and no one has pointed out all the games he's won with his bat. His defense is sub-par. Have you watched him try to turn double plays? I will never figure you guys out. I am convinced you don't watch/understand much baseball. You pillory Perez all year and the guy, while admittedly streaky and too anxiuos at the plate, has played well all year. I think if you asked knowledgebale people who has had the better year -- based on watching the game, rather than based on reviewing box scores-- perez would be an overwhelming choice over walker. The point here is not to praise Perez-- he's far from great-- it's that stats-- at least in walker and perez's cases-- have blinded stats-livers to their actual contributions. I know I am not going to change the metric minds but maybe you guys should start watching more and crunching numbers less. You might get an actual line on players that way. agreed i trust your interpretation of the game instead of unbiased numbers. and try not to act like a huge jerk in your posts. actually, keep it up so you can get banned. I guess I'm acting like a jerk because I disagree philosophically with many on this board. I'll try to be be better and only ridicule--like you did in your post-- other's viewpoints.

I said seems and no one has pointed out all the games he's won with his bat. His defense is sub-par. Have you watched him try to turn double plays? I will never figure you guys out. I am convinced you don't watch/understand much baseball. You pillory Perez all year and the guy, while admittedly streaky and too anxiuos at the plate, has played well all year. I think if you asked knowledgebale people who has had the better year -- based on watching the game, rather than based on reviewing box scores-- perez would be an overwhelming choice over walker. The point here is not to praise Perez-- he's far from great-- it's that stats-- at least in walker and perez's cases-- have blinded stats-livers to their actual contributions. I know I am not going to change the metric minds but maybe you guys should start watching more and crunching numbers less. You might get an actual line on players that way.

Whatever(about the language), just giving you a heads up. Yeah, the standard response has basically been proven true. That's why I'm not going to waste time searching game logs to prove some meaningless point. I also apologize for not taking your bait with regards to Grudz. If I say that I'd rather have Grudz, it somehow justifies your point that Walker is worthless. If I pick Walker, then I'm just a stat-hugging loony. But for the record, I'd probably take Walker, but they aren't incredibly far apart. And yes, I'd rather have Walker than Eckstein, I prefer the most productive player. What are your feelings on Scott Podsednik? I don't think much of Podesednik. He hurt the Cubs his first year but he is basically a slap .270 hitter who seems to steal an awful lot of bases for a team that struggles to score. Not much of an arm in the outfield. Didn't belong on the All-Star team. I love the reponse about game logs and my meaningless point. Baseball is a numbers game but not totally and metrics guys just can't accept that. Numbers give you some material, probably a lot of material. with which to analyze the game. But if you think that numbers give you everything you need you are way off. Why even play the game. Let's just turn baseball into a board game. Do you think Walker has done more to help his team win than Eckstein has this year? And while I am asking maybe you can answer me this: does the best or better "metric" team win a championship every year. If not how do you explain that? Yes, Walker has done more to help his team than Eckstein. There are several reasons why the best team statistically doesn't win it all. First of all, the differences in numbers between teams in the playoffs isn't that great, there's very rarely a clear cut team that SHOULD win it all. Also, the nature of the playoffs is a crapshoot. The best team won't always win in a short series, it's why the hottest team wins the majority of the time. Forget about post-season. Does the best statistical team win its division all the time?

Whatever(about the language), just giving you a heads up. Yeah, the standard response has basically been proven true. That's why I'm not going to waste time searching game logs to prove some meaningless point. I also apologize for not taking your bait with regards to Grudz. If I say that I'd rather have Grudz, it somehow justifies your point that Walker is worthless. If I pick Walker, then I'm just a stat-hugging loony. But for the record, I'd probably take Walker, but they aren't incredibly far apart. And yes, I'd rather have Walker than Eckstein, I prefer the most productive player. What are your feelings on Scott Podsednik? I don't think much of Podesednik. He hurt the Cubs his first year but he is basically a slap .270 hitter who seems to steal an awful lot of bases for a team that struggles to score. Not much of an arm in the outfield. Didn't belong on the All-Star team. I love the reponse about game logs and my meaningless point. Baseball is a numbers game but not totally and metrics guys just can't accept that. Numbers give you some material, probably a lot of material. with which to analyze the game. But if you think that numbers give you everything you need you are way off. Why even play the game. Let's just turn baseball into a board game. Do you think Walker has done more to help his team win than Eckstein has this year? And while I am asking maybe you can answer me this: does the best or better "metric" team win a championship every year. If not how do you explain that?

You're right, we should probably follow the example of other organizations. If they did it, then it's probably the right call. Why do you not think he's any good? Because of the number of teams he's played for? Because he's quoted a lot? Because other people like him? Because he plays horsecrap defense and rarely seems to get a hit that means much. Point out five or so big hits he's had this year that have put us ahead or won a game for us. I'll give you a head start: he got that one vs. the Reds in the ninth about two weeks ago. Which organization made a mistake in letting him go? Did Boston? I know you metric guys reject the concept of clutch hitting; you'd have to if you think Walker is a meaningfully productive player. Despite your (I think) reasoning, all runs are not created equal. And, finally, no one who responded to my initial post mentioned the Grudz point. Interesting. Please share with me their comparative numbers. I'm guessing Walker probbaly has better hiitng numbers, but nobody mentioned they would rather have Walker than Grudz. FYI, profanity is a no-no around here. Walker's defense isn't above average, but he's not even near bad enough where we should ship him out for it. If getting rid of Walker was the key to success, why don't the Rockies and Reds have trophy after trophy on their mantles? You know who the best "clutch" hitters are over their careers? They're the one's with the best numbers, because almost all situational numbers revert towards career numbers when you have enough of a sample. But, since it never SEEMS like Walker gets a big hit, he's not really any good. That's not profanity; it's barnyard language. Thanks for repating the standard reposne about clutch hitting; I've seen it before. Thanks for not pointing out the hits Walker has had that have put the Cubs ahead or won games for us. And for not addressing the Grudz thing. Finally, when I think of Walker and his great numbers I think of a guy like Eckstein as the opposite. Who would you have rather had this year in your lineup and then let's see their respective hitting numbers. Again, Walker's are probably better. And if you say that you would rather have had Walker this year you are incredible or lying.

If Todd was outspoken and didn't back it with the performance on the field, that is one thing, but Todd does produce, thus that entitles to be "outspoken." I have not heard one complain from his teammates, thus there isn't a problem. Stop insisting there is a problem, when in reality, there isn't a problem outside the manager and his "matchbox" collection of incredibly non-talented players. I'll check in with all the Walker lovers next year when he's on another team that doesn't win anything. Also. being quoted frequently doesn't make you outposken; it makes you a media ass-kisser like Mark Grace. Being outspoken would be him saying he hasn't done much to help this team despite his great "metrics." Maybe his teammates do like him. If so, do you really want a vote of confidence from this bunch of underachievers as evidence of your asset as a teammate. Why have so many teams given up on walker? What did these teams get in return for him when they let him go? Why wasn't he swimming in offers after 2003 when he had a great offensive season? You guys will be cluthcing his great metrics to your collective breast a year from now when he has another great "metric" year and does little or nothing to help his team win. You're right, we should probably follow the example of other organizations. If they did it, then it's probably the right call. Why do you not think he's any good? Because of the number of teams he's played for? Because he's quoted a lot? Because other people like him? Because he plays horsecrap defense and rarely seems to get a hit that means much. Point out five or so big hits he's had this year that have put us ahead or won a game for us. I'll give you a head start: he got that one vs. the Reds in the ninth about two weeks ago. Which organization made a istake in letting him go? Did Boston? I know you metric guys reject the concept of clutch hitting; you'd have to if you think Walker is a meaningfully productive player. Despite your (I think) reasoning, all runs are not created equal. And, finally, no one who responded to my initial post mentioned the Grudz point. Interesting. Please share with me their comparative numbers. I'm guessing Walker probbaly has better hiitng numbers, but nobody mentioned they would rather have Walker than Grudz.

If Todd was outspoken and didn't back it with the performance on the field, that is one thing, but Todd does produce, thus that entitles to be "outspoken." I have not heard one complain from his teammates, thus there isn't a problem. Stop insisting there is a problem, when in reality, there isn't a problem outside the manager and his "matchbox" collection of incredibly non-talented players. I'll check in with all the Walker lovers next year when he's on another team that doesn't win anything. Also. being quoted frequently doesn't make you outposken; it makes you a media ass-kisser like Mark Grace. Being outspoken would be him saying he hasn't done much to help this team despite his great "metrics." Maybe his teammates do like him. If so, do you really want a vote of confidence from this bunch of underachievers as evidence of your asset as a teammate. Why have so many teams given up on walker? What did these teams get in return for him when they let him go? Why wasn't he swimming in offers after 2003 when he had a great offensive season? You guys will be cluthcing his great metrics to your collective breast a year from now when he has another great "metric" year and does little or nothing to help his team win.

Walker didn't even play in the game yesterday but he managed to be quoted all over the Sun-Times today about his situation for next year. This guy talks like he's irreplaceable and he talks all the time. Who apppointed this team spokesman? In the Sun-Times story he ridicules the Red Sox for letting him go-- the team that won the World Series the year after he left. Cubs have done nothing but disappoint since he arrived and does anyone think we're better off with him rather than Grudz at second. Walker is terrible at turning the double play, which leads to hitters getting more cracks at out great pitching. I would venture a guess that if one reviewed all the game stories (at least in the Sun-Times and Trib) from this year, Walker would be far and away the most quoted player. I am sick of this guy's phony "I'm a throwback with my CRaig Biggio-dirty helmet" crap. See you later Todd. Go to your sixth big league team and charm all the writers in that city and hit a soft.300 like you've hit here. As long as I don't have to see your self-serving quotes in the paper every day.

Two poputs on first pitches tonight with men on base for Walker. I can't remember five big hits that guy has gotten this year. He is one of the softest .300 hitters in the game.

God this team plays like they are in a trance when they're at home. Wellemeyer = career minor leaguer. He just can't get it over with any consistency.