fromthestretch

Go have a Coke and a smile.

You're reading way too much into things if you think people are making excuses for the Cubs hitters...especially when you consider the fact that people on this board have been saying all season that this isn't a great offensive team. Perhaps you should quit twisting the words of everyone in this thread and just take them at face value.

No one is saying Webb must have been good because the Cubs looked crappy. A lot of people are saying he looked good because he actually did look good. His sinker had great movement. He was pitching the left-handers (except Z in his first two at-bats) very well. Did he have his best stuff? Doubtful, but that doesn't mean he wasn't pitching well. That's not to say the Cubs didn't make some mistakes. Personally, I didn't think Lee looked very good at the plate last night. For a guy that is usually very patient, he was swinging early and often.

Bingo. Handle this during the regular season, not the playoffs.

Even if he didn't just resign I'd ask if you've been smoking crack... Fluke career year at age 35, dear god no. Not that I'm lobbying for the Cubs to sign him, but how can you say that an .869 OPS is a fluke season for him? That's not even his career best (he put up a .909 OPS in 2003). On top of that, he's not 35...he turns 34 next week. stop letting facts get in your way of a good argument Yeah, I need to correct that character flaw. Just noticed your new avatar. Got to see Joe Williams wrestle a couple times in college when Purdue took on Iowa. That guy was unstoppable.

Even if he didn't just resign I'd ask if you've been smoking crack... Fluke career year at age 35, dear god no. Not that I'm lobbying for the Cubs to sign him, but how can you say that an .869 OPS is a fluke season for him? That's not even his career best (he put up a .909 OPS in 2003). On top of that, he's not 35...he turns 34 next week.

You don't get to be his size so quickly just because you're lazy. I added 45 lbs in about 2 months after I quit smoking, partly because I ate everything I could get my hands on but mostly because I'm lazy Well, there go your chances for winning the MLB/People Magazine Sexiest Fan Alive contest.

Marquis Sept.: 32.2 IP, 5.23 ERA, 1.44 WHIP 2nd Half: 85.2 IP, 5.36 ERA, 1.49 WHIP Hill Sept.: 27.2 IP, 6.18 ERA, 1.48 WHIP 2nd Half: 85.0 IP, 4.34 ERA, 1.32 WHIP Hill's been much better in the 2nd half than Marquis but worse in Sept. I'd still take Hill over Marquis, but you have to wonder if the innings are catching up with him this season. As you mentioned, the Phillies seem to be the toughest lineup. I'm not sure I'd want Marquis facing Howard or Utley...or Rollins for that matter.

Those are great pics. I really like the rapid fire shot of Z.

Helton doesn't seem like he's interested in getting involved from his comments to the media. Lack of interest in spilling it to the media and lack of willingness to cooperate with an MLB investigation into the matter (if there ever is one) are two different things.

His name is Jim Powell. Thanks. Couldn't remember it and was too lazy to look it up. They do sound a lot alike, but if you listen to them often enough, it's pretty easy to tell who's talking. This is one of the many reasons I love XM. If the Cubs aren't on, occasionally there will be another day game to listen to. Gives me a chance to hear other team's broadcasters.

You must have caught him on a bad day or something. Typically, he calls a very good game. They actually have another guy rotate in for a few innings of play-by-play. That guy's voice sounds VERY similar to Uecker, although he's not nearly as good.

Such a great read: http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2006/08/best-ever.html

The one and only Steve Stone fine. How you? :lol:

His ERA is over 4 in one of those seasons. I don't think he's worth 5.3. But he's here already and is the best candidate to close. Just watched the highlights of the 9th this morning. It's hard to get pissed at Dempster. The first guy hit an outside pitch the other way. The 2nd at bat should have been a double play, and at the very least, a fielders choice. The homerun was a pop-up that floated into the basket. There's really no reason for people to get all pissy about Dempster. He's far from great, but he's been fine this year, and he's been fine throughout the majority of his time on the Cubs. His cumulative ERA over the last four years is over 4 which is not good. Actually, it's 3.88. And since we're talking about his ability as a closer, perhaps you shouldn't include his horrible numbers in six starts at the beginning of 2005. Let's face it, everyone knows he's not good in a starting role. His ERA as a reliever over the last four years is 3.65. While not stellar, it's much better than "over 4." Thanks for doing the actual math. Obviously I was just estimating. While your at it, could you compare a 3.65 ERA to the top 10 closers in the NL over the last four years? Maybe then you guys can change my opinion about Dempster. Well, if I (or anyone else) was actually arguing that Dempster was a top closer, I'd actually take the time to do that. However, no one is arguing that he's elite. He shouldn't need to be in order for this team to win. He's good enough for this team to win. Would I like an elite closer like Putz or Saito or Nathan? Sure, who wouldn't? But it's not like we're throwing Todd Jones, Joe Borowski, or Al Reyes out there (two of which pitch for teams with better records than the Cubs).

His ERA is over 4 in one of those seasons. I don't think he's worth 5.3. But he's here already and is the best candidate to close. Just watched the highlights of the 9th this morning. It's hard to get pissed at Dempster. The first guy hit an outside pitch the other way. The 2nd at bat should have been a double play, and at the very least, a fielders choice. The homerun was a pop-up that floated into the basket. There's really no reason for people to get all pissy about Dempster. He's far from great, but he's been fine this year, and he's been fine throughout the majority of his time on the Cubs. His cumulative ERA over the last four years is over 4 which is not good. Actually, it's 3.88. And since we're talking about his ability as a closer, perhaps you shouldn't include his horrible numbers in six starts at the beginning of 2005. Let's face it, everyone knows he's not good in a starting role. His ERA as a reliever over the last four years is 3.65. While not stellar, it's much better than "over 4."

Yep, he's done a good job this year. Now it's up to his teammates to pick him up and score some runs in the 9th. Dempster - ERA after today 3.5+. SOs/IPs = 48/55 Marmol ERA 1.45. 77/56 Saves are misleading. Dempster gets hit hard and doesn't strike out enough guys to be a good closer which is why he is constantly in trouble even when he does get lucky saves. While I completely agree that saves are misleading, to say that Dempster gets hit hard is inaccurate. Coming into this game, opponent have put up a line of .197/.296/.275 against Dempster this season. Lets compare his ERA to others in the weak Central division. Marmol - 1.45 Izzy - 1.77 Lidge - 2.97 Cordero - 2.96 Eventually all those line smashes against him start to fall in. His ERA is out of whack with his other numbers. If anything, Dempster has been unlucky this season. Opponents aren't hitting for average or power against him. His control could be better, but you were wrong in saying he's been hit hard this year. If you want to say he's been hit hard by the Mets, that would be accurate. Hell, if you take away those two horrible games, his ERA would have been 1.84 coming into today.

Yep, he's done a good job this year. Now it's up to his teammates to pick him up and score some runs in the 9th. Dempster - ERA after today 3.5+. SOs/IPs = 48/55 Marmol ERA 1.45. 77/56 Saves are misleading. Dempster gets hit hard and doesn't strike out enough guys to be a good closer which is why he is constantly in trouble even when he does get lucky saves. While I completely agree that saves are misleading, to say that Dempster gets hit hard is inaccurate. Coming into this game, opponent have put up a line of .197/.296/.275 against Dempster this season.

over-rated or under-rated? I always thought he was pretty under-rated. I also agree with Steve Garvey. Probably the most over-rated player in the 70s. Yeah, I was in the wrong thread. Meant to put that in underrated.

How about Brian Downing (at least offensively)? Career 122 OPS+. with a .370 OBP.

How about Brian Downing (at least offensively)? Career 122 OPS+. with a .370 OBP. EDIT: Whoops...meant to put this in the underrated thread.

While their non-conference schedule hasn't exactly been strong the past few years, I wouldn't say the Boilers always schedule nobodies. They don't play I-AA schools. They've played solid teams in the past such as Bowling Green, West Virginia, and Wake Forest (they were ranked 20th when Purdue played them in 2003 if I remember correctly). It's not like they pad their entire non-conference schedule with terrible teams. The fact that they have Notre Dame on their schedule every year speaks to that. And they haven't scheduled that weak team from Muncie since '04. :wink: Bold 1: Eastern Illinois is still a 1-AA team last time I looked it up. Bold 2: Purdue played us last year and beat us by 10 - the biggest margin of defeat we had against the three Big Eleven opponents we played. Wow...I didn't know EIU was 1-AA. My bad on that one. And I don't know how I forgot that we played Ball State last year. I need to stop drinking at work. My point is still valid though. Purdue doesn't always schedule a bunch of crap teams for non-conference. We had Notre Dame and Hawaii last year, although Hawaii was near the end of the season.

While their non-conference schedule hasn't exactly been strong the past few years, I wouldn't say the Boilers always schedule nobodies. They don't play I-AA schools. They've played solid teams in the past such as Bowling Green, West Virginia, and Wake Forest (they were ranked 20th when Purdue played them in 2003 if I remember correctly). It's not like they pad their entire non-conference schedule with terrible teams. The fact that they have Notre Dame on their schedule every year speaks to that. And they haven't scheduled that weak team from Muncie since '04. :wink: As for how they'll do against Notre Dame, it largely depends on the defense. The Boilers' running game is actually decent, Painter is solid at QB, and they have a few good receivers. The kicker still sucks though. The fact that the game is at Purdue will certainly help the Boilers.

A poor man's Jack Morris? I can't agree with that at all. I'd take a healthy Schilling over Morris any day. Schilling: 126 ERA+ 1.14 WHIP 8.6 K/9 4.4 K/BB .673 Opp OPS Morris: 105 ERA+ 1.30 WHIP 5.8 K/9 1.8 K/BB .693 Opp OPS It's one thing to say that Schilling is overrated at this stage of his career, which is probably true. However, when you look at his career as a whole, he's been a damn good pitcher, moreso than Morris.

Shane Mack and to a lesser extent Phil Bradley. Short but productive careers.