baseball7897

What the heck? He had a pretty long post after that responding to your points. And please don't call other posters "ignorant." Hold the phone. Vance called me ignorant a couple of months ago. Well, I'm sorry I missed it but the same rules go for Vance and I or one of the mods would have called him out on name calling had we seen it. There is no name calling or attacking the posters. IIRC, I think I called a post ignorant. Assumptions could be drawn from that, however. Whatever, I rememebr what you said.

would have Ok, father. Damn, that's so annoying.

What the heck? He had a pretty long post after that responding to your points. And please don't call other posters "ignorant." Hold the phone. Vance called me ignorant a couple of months ago. I dont see why I couldn't call him ignorant if he called me ignorant.

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane. It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion. And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size. 5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion. So 5-6 starts tell you more than 31? I think you can make a pretty darn good judgement on a pitcher in 5-6 starts. You don't need a pitcher to make 31 starts to judge them. Hell, I could judge most pitchers by a couple of starts. RICH HILL I wasnt on this board last year, but I would of told you Rich Hill was going to be a good starter if he could command his fastball.

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane. It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion. And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size. 5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion. So 5-6 starts tell you more than 31? I think you can make a pretty darn good judgement on a pitcher in 5-6 starts. You don't need a pitcher to make 31 starts to judge them. Hell, I could judge most pitchers by a couple of starts.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?! YOU DON'T!!! GET IT? It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent. I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done. The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year. So, what Weaver really is is more proven in two starts in the playoffs instead of his 31 starts over the regular season. And it's "could have" not "could of". I think Weaver had a string of good starts than any pitcher could have. He just happened to have them at a very important time. Hell, if his timing was right, Glendon Rusch could have done the same thing. As could have Shawn Estes, Miguel Batista, John Thompson, or any number of mediocre pitchers. Weaver's career shows what he is and that's a pitcher who is below average as evidenced by his 96 career ERA+. His good run in the postseason in no way makes him a good pitcher as Molina's nice little hot streak makes him a good hitter. My guess is that whoever signs Weaver will get a pitcher who will post an ERA+ next season at a little below 100. If they are lucky they may get a 101-102 ERA+. Molina may not be the 216 hitter he was last season, but he's a lot closer to it than the 350 hitter he was during the postseason. You don't need to make fun of someone's grammar to make a point. Childish response by an ignorant person.

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane. It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion. And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size. 5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion.

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane. It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion. Ok guys, here's what i would do. I'd get some good regular season pitchers, and i'd win a lot of games and make the playoffs. And then, once the playoffs started, i would trade for all of the pitchers that did really good at the end of the year and put them on my playoff roster. later in the playoffs, I'd trade for all of the pitchers that did good in the early rounds of the playoffs. What do you guys think? Dont quote me when you don't know what you're talking about. Pitching, defense, and clutch hitting will win you a world series. I am done arguing something that I know is true.

NO!!!!!

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane. It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?! YOU DON'T!!! GET IT? It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent. I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done. The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. What are you suggesting? The Tigers had great pitching and lost the WS. The 2nd and 3rd best pitching staffs (SD and Minnesota) got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. The 4th and 5th best didn't make the playoffs. So, do the Cubs go out and try to build one of the best pitching staffs in baseball? Or do they just try to get an average pitching staff that somehow knows how to "step up when it matters the most"? I would go out and build one of the best pitching staffs in the league. Cubs already have some pieces in place for the lineup. Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, and Murton all could hit .300 next year.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. Yes, quite well....better than any team in any sport. It worked every year, from what -1996-2000? Something like that. So yes, I'd take their formula if possible. From 1996-2000 the Yankees had some good pitching staffs. They didnt have the mindset of, "hope for the best with the pitching." Over the years, they have had the mindset of trying to win a world series with buying everyone. Has that worked?

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

Clutch defense? I dont think there is a such thing. I think I said "clutch hitting". For example: The Cardinals had runners on 2b with 2 outs the whole world series. Their hitters found a way to get that run in. That's clutch hitting. LOL! Next you're going to be telling me that gritty players are over-rated. "gritty players are over-rated." I'll pretend I didnt hear that. It was a joke.

Clutch defense? I dont think there is a such thing. I think I said "clutch hitting". For example: The Cardinals had runners on 2b with 2 outs the whole world series. Their hitters found a way to get that run in. That's clutch hitting. Clutch hitting exists, but the clutch hitter does not. Trying to get those players for your team is a futile task. Get good hitters and hope they do their job when the time comes. Where did I say they exist????? All I said was, "clutch hitting is measured into a teams success."

Where's the proof that pitching is more important than hitting? I think the 06 Yankees are a good example. They had a really good offense, but their pitching was suspect the majority of the year. And the Yankees also had the best record in all of baseball this year with that suspect pitching. All this postseason proved is that the playoffs are a crap shoot. A GM needs to build a team to get there and hope the players do the job once they are there. Did the Cardinals outpitch the Tigers in the WS? Maybe so. But that collection of pitchers is no way better than the Tigers. They may have been better than the Tigers in that series, but if you were blindly without hindsight picking pitchers for which you would call WS caliber staff, there's no way in hell that you would pick the Cardinal staff over the Tigers. Jeff Suppan is a league average pitcher. Weaver was DFA'ed by the Angels, and underperformed for the Cardinals for most of the season. Reyes was remarkably inconsistent throughout the year. The only one of the Cardinals who had been truly dominant was Carpenter. So, if the Cubs were to follow the Cardinals model...we could have Zambrano and he equals Carpenter, we need a league average pitcher to match Suppan...so maybe we should sign him this offseason. We need a reject like Weaver, so let's pick up Jose Lima. Then Marshall equals Reyes. So, Zambrano, Suppan, Lima, and Marshall. There you have your Cubs rotation that could win a World Series. Whoopeee! Where did anyway say the Cubs should follow the Cardinals plan? Im not sure where you're going with that post either?

Clutch defense? I dont think there is a such thing. I think I said "clutch hitting". For example: The Cardinals had runners on 2b with 2 outs the whole world series. Their hitters found a way to get that run in. That's clutch hitting. LOL! Next you're going to be telling me that gritty players are over-rated. "gritty players are over-rated."

Clutch defense? I dont think there is a such thing. I think I said "clutch hitting". For example: The Cardinals had runners on 2b with 2 outs the whole world series. Their hitters found a way to get that run in. That's clutch hitting.

Where's the proof that pitching is more important than hitting? I think the 06 Yankees are a good example. They had a really good offense, but their pitching was suspect the majority of the year.

I remember being laughed at for believing defense played a major role on your chances of winning. This world series showed why defense is very important.

Let's not forget how that 03 Cubs team made the playoffs. PITCHING They were fourth in the NL in pitching and middle of the pack in offense. Their offense played more of a role than you'd like to give them credit for. Don't believe me? The Dodgers had a major league best 3.16 team ERA that season. The next closest was Seattle at 3.76...that's how much better LA's staff was than everyone else (for the record, the Cubs were at 3.83). And they didn't make the postseason, finishing 15.5 games out of first in their division. Want to know why? They had one of the worst offenses in baseball that year. I'm not arguing that you need offense more than pitching, although you seem to think I am. I'm arguing that you need both. I know you need hitting to win. Pitching, however, plays a bigger role in your chances of winning a world series. The Houston Astros were second in baseball in team era. Their offense was one of the worst that year. They made the world series because their pitching was so dominant.

Let's not forget how that 03 Cubs team made the playoffs. PITCHING

Based on your logic, the Angels, Astros, and Blue Jays should have all made the postseason since their pitching staffs gave up fewer runs this season than the Cardinals. If you go by team ERA, you can add the Marlins, Indians, Diamondbacks, Reds, and Pirates to that list. Also, based on your logic, San Diego should have beat St. Louis in the NLDS and then the Mets in the NLCS. Based on your logic, the Indians, Phillies, Whitesox, Red Sox, Atlanta, and Rangers should have all made the playoffs since their hitting was in the top 10 in all of baseball. Also, based on your logic, the Yankees should have beat the Tigers in the ALDS, and then the A's in the ALCS. to review...your logic has been proven wrong. and so has this imaginary logic that you've magically attributed to no one in particular. Didnt the Astros make the world series last year because of their pitching? My logic has been proving wrong? By who? You? LOL