Tracer Bullet

He was mediocre until age 33 (with 1 big exception in '93). But his peak years were concentrated, they just weren't in the normal peak age. He pretty clearly peaked from 33-40 (again, with 1 exception - the bad year in 2000). Since then, he's back to mediocre. It really looks like an average player's bell-curve type career, just delayed about 7 years. I wouldn't call them concentrated, but maybe I'm using the word "peak" more loosely than you. He broke out in '93, then sucked again, then broke back out, had a bad year at 37 in 2000, then defied the odds with a renaissance from 38-40. Then he sucked again for a couple of years before putting up above average numbers in '06. I don't call that concentrated, that's several good to outstanding seasons with a few bad ones mixed in over a 13 year period. Quick bit of trivia on the side...have any other players ever appeared in an all-star game for the first time at age 40? Every other 40 year old I can think of that's made it had been there at least a few times before. Your phrasing is pretty bad. He was mediocre to bad from his debut in '86 until '93. Then he was great in '93. You can call it a breakout or whatever, but it was one great year amongst many not great ones. I wouldn't call 105 and 91 ERA+ seasons in 94/95 "sucking" - one's slightly above average, one's slightly below. The bolded sentence makes it sound like he was on a roller coaster of suck and stud for a couple years. In reality, that sentence spans a 10-year period. All of the best seasons of his career (except '93) came from '96-'03 with 1 down year in '00. 7 of a guy's 8 best years of his career come during an 8-year span and you don't call that concentrated? Using ERA+ it looks like this: '93-'03 Great Average Average Great Very good Great Great Bad Great Great Great Then average for 5 years

I wasn't trying to guilt him into anything. I was letting him know what would happen if he didn't do what he was supposed to do. We're 3/4 of the way through the season. He's played and batted in every game. By now he knows that he's supposed to bat when it's his turn. I didn't know if he realized what would happen if he didn't do what he was supposed to do, what he had done and done somewhat successfully (he did have 1 hit and has drawn his share of walks) for over a month. "You'll be letting everyone down." Telling him that if he doesn't go to the plate, he's out and the team loses is exactly what I'd expect. But this was guilt. And it's a 9-year-old. Who was apparently crying and hiding. If he'd gone to bat that many times before during the season, I imagine there was something about that game or pitcher or night (possibly wholly unrelated to the game) that was the cause. Whatever it was - it's a meaningless game. I'm really not trying to be a jerk about this. It was a tough situation and it's not like you called him a patsy or punched him in the face or something.

Ok Dr. Ease up. not "dr. ease up". I'm referring to this specific situation and you claiming you'd be pissed if he said what he said to your kid. If it was something where he was out of line or mistreating a kid, absolutely a parent should be pissed. But your overly dramatic reaction to his story is silly. So now I'm a doctor? I guess I still don't get it, but whatever. I don't think being pissed if someone guilt trips your 9-year-old is a "silly, overly dramatic reaction." I think that's a pretty bad lesson to teach a 9-year-old. So yes, I'd be a little pissed. But I think you're overstating my reaction. I probably wouldn't say anything to the coach, though I'd probably talk about it with my kid. But it would upset me. I'm a parent of a young child and I'm constantly amazed at what he picks up, so I'm sensitive to the lessons he's learning from others (whether they know he's learning from them or not). I'm surprised you wouldn't be upset if someone did that to your kid. Why would that be a horrible lesson to teach a kid? Its called life. If, in my job, I have a large project where a team of people is depending on me doing my part and I refuse to do it, I'm going to be letting the entire team down. Its the same thing, and its a good lesson to teach at any age. Teaching kids responsibility is great. Teaching them you get others to do what you want using guilt isn't.

He was mediocre until age 33 (with 1 big exception in '93). But his peak years were concentrated, they just weren't in the normal peak age. He pretty clearly peaked from 33-40 (again, with 1 exception - the bad year in 2000). Since then, he's back to mediocre. It really looks like an average player's bell-curve type career, just delayed about 7 years.

No wonder they make no sense when they can't understand the basics. Non-Save Appearances--11 Saves-16 Blown Saves -4 Save %-75% ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

He should serve a purpose if he could actually last past the 5th. But he's gone 6 only 3 of 11 starts. Lasting 5 and giving up 3 all the time is about the opposite of purpose. That's my biggest problem with his performance. His ERA isn't terrible for us, especially since we have a good offense this year. But I just wish he could go 6-7 innings more often. I'm sure he could, but I mean without his ERA ballooning up even more.

Wow. He's worked 3 consecutive days at least twice. He has just 1 save in a 3+ run lead. And he has more IP than any closer in the league (exception for Torres, who became a closer less than 2 weeks ago). Lou is actually working him in non-save situations much more than necessary, given how many save situations we have. You just pull this stuff out of your ass, don't you? Do everyone a favor..watch the language. I know you think it's funny to be real brave to and say things like that, but it's not. I'm by no means a prude, but children read this and we need to be grown-ups. Out of Wood's 16 saves and 4 blown saves-11 are 1-2 run lead and 5 are 3+run leads. Those games are: April 3 Save #1 May 6-Save #5 May 15-Save #8 May 16-Save #9 June 3-Save #16 Now that we've settled that..please kerry on. I am a grown up, but thanks for your concern. I'm much less concerned about a kid reading that word than the substance of your posts. Re-read my post. He has 1 save in a 3+ run lead. In other words, more than 3 runs. It was the May 15 game. If you meant 3 or more, that wasn't clear. So 5 of 20 chances have come in games with a 3-4 run lead, I'm not sure how that helps your point.

Wow. He's worked 3 consecutive days at least twice. He has just 1 save in a 3+ run lead. And he has more IP than any closer in the league (exception for Torres, who became a closer less than 2 weeks ago). Lou is actually working him in non-save situations much more than necessary, given how many save situations we have. You just pull this stuff out of your ass, don't you?

If he wants to play I'm going to let him. I wasn't mad at him at the time so much as disappointed. I'm willing to give him another chance. However, he does, I think, need to make peace with his teammates and convince him that they can count on him. It's Little League. There's probably 3 "reliable" kids on the team. On my Little League teams, if the ball got past the infield, good night. You were lucky if 1 of the OFs was even facing the plate.

Jeez. Marquis sucks.

Can we get Micah back up in time to DH for the Toronto series?

Estes is going to have a tough time reaching the 20-year category the original poster talked about. Well, Mr. Technicality, the OP said "over 20 years" and Mulholland pitched in only exactly 20 years and that's assuming you count 3 IP in 2006 as a year (he skipped '87, apparently). So he's disqualified too. Or, we can drop the nit picking and just talk generally about mediocre pitchers who pitched for a long time. Not sure how that's nit-picking, the guy was talking about 20+ year guys and Estes is in just his 13th, having barely thrown at all in 4 of those seasons. If you are comping up against Jamie Moyer, I don't see much similarity. Seriously? This is worth arguing about?

What's new? You have an entire thread dedicated to your jaw.

Estes is going to have a tough time reaching the 20-year category the original poster talked about. Well, Mr. Technicality, the OP said "over 20 years" and Mulholland pitched in only exactly 20 years and that's assuming you count 3 IP in 2006 as a year (he skipped '87, apparently). So he's disqualified too. Or, we can drop the nit picking and just talk generally about mediocre pitchers who pitched for a long time.

Estes is a good example. Mulholland is too, though for many of those years, calling him "mediocre" would be generous.

Ok Dr. Ease up. not "dr. ease up". I'm referring to this specific situation and you claiming you'd be pissed if he said what he said to your kid. If it was something where he was out of line or mistreating a kid, absolutely a parent should be pissed. But your overly dramatic reaction to his story is silly. So now I'm a doctor? I guess I still don't get it, but whatever. I don't think being pissed if someone guilt trips your 9-year-old is a "silly, overly dramatic reaction." I think that's a pretty bad lesson to teach a 9-year-old. So yes, I'd be a little pissed. But I think you're overstating my reaction. I probably wouldn't say anything to the coach, though I'd probably talk about it with my kid. But it would upset me. I'm a parent of a young child and I'm constantly amazed at what he picks up, so I'm sensitive to the lessons he's learning from others (whether they know he's learning from them or not). I'm surprised you wouldn't be upset if someone did that to your kid.

David Wells and Kenny Rogers were the two I was thinking before clicking on the link. He was also far more than mediocre as others have noted. He was above average for his career and pretty darn good in several seasons. But I don't believe he was ever great. yep. I think the stats speak for themselves.

sure, but if you take out all the good seasons he had, whaddya got left? Take out the 7 seasons of ERA+ over 120? 9 more seasons of ERA+ over 90.

Maybe? He's 9. I'm sure you did the best you could and that's a tough situation. But if I heard you say that to my kid, I'd be really pissed. At 9, the game should be about having fun. I can understand the logic. There's a decent chance one of the reasons he's afraid to go up there is that he doesn't want to fail and lose the game for the team. Pointing out what happens if he doesn't go up there might give him the perspective to step in the box. Explaining the consequences and trying to guilt him into going to bat are 2 different things. Kid's 9 and crying behind the dugout. I don't think the chances are good that the guilt trip is going to get him to say "you know what? I can hit!" Okay Dr. Ease up, the guy was in a tough spot and tried to get the kid to go up there. Any parent that would get pissed at a coach for saying that shouldn't have their kid playing in organized sports. Dr Ease up? He asked for opinions on handling the situation and I suggested one. I'm not trying to call him out - I stated he was in a tough spot - I'm just suggesting that going forward, using guilt might not be the most effective method. I'm not sure where you get off telling people how they should react to a little league coach's treatment of their child. If a parent doesn't think their 9-year-old is treated the way they want them to, the kids shouldn't be involved in sports? Give me a break.

Yeah, I get that. We have a league where we don't keep score and if I had to it over again I'd put him in that league. I agree that this league is about instruction and I don't really care all that much about winning or losing. At the same time though, he has to understand that he can't just do whatever he wants without it affecting other people. Since he's 9, I'd talk to the parent to get some insight. Otherwise, I think you privately tell him at the next game that if he wants to play, he has to go to bat when it's his turn. If this happens again, I'd talk to the parent and tell them you can't have a player that refuses to bat as it's unfair to the other kids. Seems like that's the best way to get the issue resolved with least humiliation for the kid.

Maybe? He's 9. I'm sure you did the best you could and that's a tough situation. But if I heard you say that to my kid, I'd be really pissed. At 9, the game should be about having fun. I can understand the logic. There's a decent chance one of the reasons he's afraid to go up there is that he doesn't want to fail and lose the game for the team. Pointing out what happens if he doesn't go up there might give him the perspective to step in the box. Explaining the consequences and trying to guilt him into going to bat are 2 different things. Kid's 9 and crying behind the dugout. I don't think the chances are good that the guilt trip is going to get him to say "you know what? I can hit!"

mediocre?

Maybe? He's 9. I'm sure you did the best you could and that's a tough situation. But if I heard you say that to my kid, I'd be really pissed. At 9, the game should be about having fun.

he's 9 then punch him in the forehead. seriously, at 9 you shouldn't expect an apology from him and you should also make sure the other kids don't give him more crap. I don't even keep track of the score at my son's games because to me it's more important at that age that he's improving his play and solidifying fundamentals than anything else. Or having a little fun.

I wouldn't say its worthless, as it does indicate what a player does once he gets to the ball, but yeah, you're right. It's not terribly accurate even for that.