fromthestretch

"How do you half-expect something?" "It's just a turn of phrase."

Dempster's career numbers as a starter: 988.2 IP 4.99 ERA 1.57 WHIP .808 Opponent's OPS 1.11 HR/9 4.71 BB/9 9.39 H/9 There is nothing in there that gives me any faith that he'll do anything good as a starter. I agree. I also believe that given some more time, Marshall and that ridiculous K/9 will see similar results. I don't like either option, but given the increase in WARP from DeRosa to Roberts, I don't mind giving away what I believe is nothing better than what we already are trotting out there. Marshall has something else going on IMO as well. His absence late in the season has me wondering. The problem isn't Marshall, per se. It's that when somebody gets hurt or Marquis/Dempster are ineffective....the Cubs go from being able to start Marshall, who has had ML success or Gallagher, who has faced ML hitters and has a decent upside....to having to throw a lesser talented or less ready pitcher on the mound. Correct, the 2008 Chicago Cubs will use more than 5 starting pitchers throughout the season. They shouldn't be trading those who are closest to being ready to step in. I guess Hart would be next in line, but I have no idea who would be after that. They aren't going to want to rush Veal or Samardzija, so it could end up being someone like Walrond or O'Malley. Yikes. Is Mateo healthy?

Dempster's career numbers as a starter: 988.2 IP 4.99 ERA 1.57 WHIP .808 Opponent's OPS 1.11 HR/9 4.71 BB/9 9.39 H/9 There is nothing in there that gives me any faith that he'll do anything good as a starter. he'll be really good at sucking Ah yes. I did overlook that.

Dempster's career numbers as a starter: 988.2 IP 4.99 ERA 1.57 WHIP .808 Opponent's OPS 1.11 HR/9 4.71 BB/9 9.39 H/9 There is nothing in there that gives me any faith that he'll do anything good as a starter.

Care to elaborate? Yes, people on this board need to take the blue tinted sunglasses off and realize this deal is a steal for us. We getting one of the best leadoff men in baseball, an all-star and another great club house guy for pretty much nothing. You guys are blowing your loads over the 2 pitching prospects that have showed us NOTHING. Marshall showed last year he was better than Marquis. But you go ahead with blowing things out of proportion...that always helps the debate.

Cedeno's been to the majors more than once, and has been less than impressive each time. I'm not so concerned with giving him up. 2005 Ronny Cedeno says hello. :lol: I wouldn't have too much of a problem with him being included in this trade if the Cubs weren't also dealing away one solid starting pitcher and a pitching prospect who could have possibly been better than Marquis and Dempster this season. But theyre not, this board needs to realize this. Marshall and Gallagher in the rotation together at the same time, is in fact worse than Dempster and Marquis. Good lord at some of you people. Lighten up, Francis. Assuming his arm is sound, Marshall is no worse (and is most likely better) than Marquis. In his career as a starter, Dempster has a 4.99 ERA and a 1.57 WHIP in just under 1000 innings. When you consider that Dempster hasn't made a start in over two seasons...well, it's farily obvious he should not be a legitimate candidate for the job. I'm very confident that Gallagher could do better than that. I really don't have a problem with Marquis as the fifth starter, but having both him and Dempster in the rotation would be a horrible decision.

Selling high is great if you are dealing from a position of strength or if you're not in a position to be competitive in the immediate future. Dealing away two quality arms doesn't leave the Cubs with many major league ready options at starting pitcher beyond Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, and Dempster. Who steps in when Dempster fails as a starter or when someone gets hurt? Mateo? And no one is comparing this to the Pierre deal. Roberts is much better than Pierre. Edited to correct a misspelling.

Cedeno's been to the majors more than once, and has been less than impressive each time. I'm not so concerned with giving him up. 2005 Ronny Cedeno says hello. :lol: I wouldn't have too much of a problem with him being included in this trade if the Cubs weren't also dealing away one solid starting pitcher and a pitching prospect who could have possibly been better than Marquis and Dempster this season.

And when you consider that the Cubs have Marquis and Dempster as their fourth and fifth starters, Ryan Theriot starting at SS, and already have a decent second-baseman, it's a bit of a steep price to pay when you're giving up a decent major league starting pitcher, another starting pitcher with a strong minor league track record who is knocking on the door of the majors, and a young SS with a AAA OPS over .900. I'm not saying Roberts isn't a nice addition to the team because he certainly is. He'll be a upgrade offensively. However, at what cost? If the Cubs have to give 50+ starts to Marquis and Dempster this season because they don't have anyone else to step in, that's a problem.

Not as much as you would think. Who said Roberts isn't a good leadoff hitter?

Photoshop anyone? So, I guess you'd have Jose Canseco, Bonds, Clemens and who? Big Mac? Caminiti.

Purdue lost to Wofford. This loss sucks. It really sucks. But we'll probably win 20 games still. Tourney's done for though which is really sad. Just work on developing DMac, Tisdale, and Davis. Purdue also beat a ranked Louisville team. When your starting five most games consists of four freshman and a sophomore(although they've changed up the starting five recently), you're going to struggle at times. They have quite a bit of talent, but they are going to have their ups and downs this season. The loss to Wofford was bad though, no question about that. Wasn't trying to insinuate that Purdue would be a walk because of that. Just saying that Purdue had its bad loss too. I think the game in West Lafayette is a toss up and that we should win at home. But you hit it on the head, that it pretty much depends on what Purude team shows up. They're going to be really good in a couple years. Winning 20 games (I had 11-5 +1 in the tourney, Pomeroy has us at 10-8) with how awful the Big 10 is this year is pretty much a lock to miss the tourney. Being a Purdue fan, my biggest concern is how Johnson will develop. The kid needs to put on weight badly. At 6'11, 210 pounds, he's going to get pushed around during conference season. I think Martin (if he can cut back on the fouls), Hummel, and Moore will be very good players in a year or two.

Purdue lost to Wofford. This loss sucks. It really sucks. But we'll probably win 20 games still. Tourney's done for though which is really sad. Just work on developing DMac, Tisdale, and Davis. Purdue also beat a ranked Louisville team. When your starting five most games consists of four freshman and a sophomore(although they've changed up the starting five recently), you're going to struggle at times. They have quite a bit of talent, but they are going to have their ups and downs this season. The loss to Wofford was bad though, no question about that.

Best PBP: Harry, before his stroke in 1987. A lot of people remember Harry from the later years, which is unfortunate. Prior to the stroke, he really did a great job. Pat Hughes is a close second. Worst PBP: Gotta agree with Bob here. Lewin was terrible, and he really hasn't gotten much better.

Nor is there any reason to say things like that about a ballplayer. No one is getting defensive because some people don't like Prior. People are taking exception to the lack of class/maturity in the way some present their dislike for him. Two completely different things. And people need to stop exaggerating the level of support Murton gets. Saying he deserves a shot to start or thinking he has a chance to be a quality ballplayer does not equal thinking he's a Hall of Fame candidate. I agree with the bolded portions, but I think that it is hypocritical to take this position if you (not "you" grassbass, but "you" in general) are one of the many here who see no problem with engaging in ad hominem attacks on Hendry (weight) and others. I agree 100%.

The only reason Purdue was a bowl team this season is because there are too many bowls. It should not be surprising to anybody who remotely paid attention to their season that they would struggle defensively in that game.

I'm not sure how the result of this game is embarrassing. Purdue is not an elite team, and its defense (especially the secondary) has been horrible the past couple seasons. It's not like the Boilers should have been expected to win by 45. As a Purdue grad/fan, I can honestly say they probably didn't deserve to even be in a bowl game after the way they played against Michigan State and Indiana. Considering how poorly they played to end the season, I'm just happy they won this game. The Boilers are typically good for 7-8 wins per season, which is a nice improvement over what they were before Tiller got there. And while I appreciate the work Tiller has done, they probably need a coaching change if they want to reach the next level.

Nor is there any reason to say things like that about a ballplayer. No one is getting defensive because some people don't like Prior. People are taking exception to the lack of class/maturity in the way some present their dislike for him. Two completely different things. And people need to stop exaggerating the level of support Murton gets. Saying he deserves a shot to start or thinking he has a chance to be a quality ballplayer does not equal thinking he's a Hall of Fame candidate.

Actually, it would be 4.27 since 2003, 3.82 if you take out his 2006 stats when he was pitching with a damaged shoulder.

They didn't stop running on him in 2007 after he notched 22 outfield assists in 2006.

In 97,556 chances. In other words, errors were only made on 1.7% of the chances that fielders had. My numbers are loose, but doesn't that roughly average out to "100" extra baserunners? Not necessarily. A fielder could be given an error on a dropped pop foul only to have the hitter make an out on the next pitch. An error could be charged on a throw that allowed a runner to take an extra base in a situation where a good throw would not have resulted in an out (i.e. a hitter lines a base hit to right field with a runner on second, the RF throws home to try to get the runner, throw goes past the catcher allowing the hitter to move from first to second). Don't necessarily assume that every error would result in an additional baserunner. True. Okay, then let's split that to 50 extra baserunners per year? That's still nearly a extra baserunner in 33% of the games. I could be way off on my numbers. Since we're dealing with stats based on events that already took place, you'd probably want to look at the situations in which those errors took place to really gauge any impact they may have had. For example, how many runners reached on an error when the team was already up by five runs? How many reached in the eighth inning of a tie ballgame? I guess a good question would be, if Soriano struck out 80 times instead of 130 times, what would the result have been? How many more double plays would he hit into? How many more sac flies would he have? How many runners that he moved over would have scored? And in how many ballgames would any of this have made a difference?

In 97,556 chances. In other words, errors were only made on 1.7% of the chances that fielders had. My numbers are loose, but doesn't that roughly average out to "100" extra baserunners? Not necessarily. A fielder could be given an error on a dropped pop foul only to have the hitter make an out on the next pitch. An error could be charged on a throw that allowed a runner to take an extra base in a situation where a good throw would not have resulted in an out (i.e. a hitter lines a base hit to right field with a runner on second, the RF throws home to try to get the runner, throw goes past the catcher allowing the hitter to move from first to second). Don't necessarily assume that every error would result in an additional baserunner.

In 97,556 chances. In other words, errors were only made on 1.7% of the chances that fielders had.

Here's a list of players with more than 40 BB in 2007 that happened to walk more than they struck out (or had the same number of each). I didn't include anyone with less than 40 walks because, let's face it, if they're playing a full season and draw less than 40 walks, their OBP is always going to be highly dependent on their batting average. I probably should have cut the list off at 60 walks. Player: BB/K Bonds: 132/54 Helton: 116/74 Ortiz: 111/103 Pujols: 99/58 Sheffield: 84/71 Chipper Jones: 82/75 Hideki Matsui: 73/73 Brian Giles: 64/61 Vidro: 63/57 Mauer: 57/51 Luis Gonzalez: 56/56 Lofton: 56/51 Schneider: 56/56 Luis Castillo: 53/45 Kotchman: 53/43 Conor Jackson: 53/50 Hatteberg: 49/35 Pedroia: 47/42 Loretta: 44/41 When you take out those that don't qualify as good baserunners (your criteria as listed above), the list gets very short. Now, outside of Lofton and possibly Castillo, which of these would you classify as a "traditional leadoff hitter?"

I wouldn't be surprised if he has a halfway decent season, considering where he'll be pitching half his games. Also, wasn't his home ballpark in Japan very hitter-friendly?