abuck1220

they're substantially better than the cubs. yet they cant beat the brewers joke you're right...the brewers should just lose every game from here on out so the cubs can play .450 baseball the rest of the way and coast into the playoffs.

they're substantially better than the cubs.

it's pretty sad to watch the cub fans and their typical woe is me crap.

isn't that, like, the definition of inconsistent? Like, no it isn't. Telling me a player has been consistent doesn't tell you anything about his production because you could be consistently good or consistently bad. All that matters is that your performances don't fluctuate. A pitcher who allows six earned runs every single time he takes the mound is a consistent pitcher. A pitcher who allows 1 earned run every time out is also a consistent pitcher. I would classify an inconsistent pitcher as one who has two bad outings followed by a good outing followed by a bad outing followed by three good outings, etc. Because Z was bad for two months and then good for two months means he has been, for the most part, consistent. His good outings were mostly lumped together in June and July whereas his bad outings were lumped together in April and May To use some of the stats that Lord of Khemennu used: Z's average game score on the year: 53.9 Z's standard deviation of game scores: 19.3 But to look at it further: Z's average game score in first 12 starts from 4/2 - 6/1: 44.2 Z's standard deviation of game score over that time: 16.7 That shows that he was still a bit inconsistent but no more so than Marshall or Hill and I believe LoK said that "People should shut up about Hill's inconsistency" which would lead me to believe that a StDev of 16.7 isn't too bad. Now let's look at Z from 6/6 - 8/3 Z's average game score in next 12 starts from 6/6 - 8/3: 68.25 Z's standard deviation of game score over that time: 9.95 Yes, 9.95 which is far better than any starter on the Cubs. That is what I would call consistent. sorry, but being really good for a while and then really bad for a while is being inconsistent. i don't know what else you'd call it.

Yea I know, I mean his .820 OPS in August is killing the club. but what was his ops yesterday? exactly.

isn't that, like, the definition of inconsistent?

the bashers have been unstoppable lately.

wow.

hill is no more inconsistent than any of the other cub starters. i don't know why people keep saying otherwise. Where did he say otherwise in the post you quoted? There's a prevailing opinion (on this board, and maybe throughout MLB's fandom), that inconsistency is a "reason player X is bad." I would guess that abuck was reading between the lines (as I did) in mhuber's post... Rich Hill may be inconsistent, but he's not "bad" because of it. Right, but he didn't say he was any more or less inconsistent than any of the Cubs' other starters. by saying that he's inconsistent, don't you think that he's implying that he's more inconsistent than the other cubs or more inconsistent than most pitchers?

hill is no more inconsistent than any of the other cub starters. i don't know why people keep saying otherwise.

wow, if i had started guthrie instead of mitre earlier this week, this would have actually been close. shawn hill had two great starts this week too.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. you're right. comparing hendry to dombrowski is ridiculous.

I wish the eckstein references would stop. While I agree that people (and the media) love their "scrappy", light hitting, white middle infielders; Theriot doesn't exactly fall into that category. Just take a look at their slg/ops over the past 3 years: Eckstein 2005: .395/.758 2006: .344/.694 2007: .363/.706 CAREER: .360/.710 (7 Seasons) Theriot 2005: *Only had 14 PA* 2006: .522/.934 (159 PA) 2007: .374/.724 CAREER: .408/.771 (3 seasons) I realize he's never going to be some bigtime slugger, but he's proved to have more pop than eckstein with 2 more of both homers and doubles over the past two seasons. And while two isn't really a big difference, when you consider he's done it in nearly 300 fewer PA, it becomes a little more significant. Theriot's minor league numbers and major league numbers this season match up pretty closely to Eckstein's. Theriot's 2006 major league numbers are the only aberration in the data set. He is really a very similar player to Eckstein. He has maybe slightly more pop and slightly less OBP ability, but they are still close enough to be a valid comparison. theriot struggled as a switch-hitter through part of his minor league career.

Why isn't Bruce up, since he has put up better numbers at a higher level? it's not like they play for the same team.

good job building a $100 mil team that wins slightly more than it loses!

It should be if those 7 hits are 2 HRs, 3 doubles and 2 singles. yeah, but is a guy that gives up three solo homers any worse than a guy that gives up three runs on eight singles and three walks or something?

[expletive], my pitchers must give up a ridiculous amount of homeruns or something. 5.1 INN, 4 HA, 7 K, ER is worth almost twice as much as 7 INN, 7 HA, BBI, 4 K, 3 ER? as stupid as QS are, i like last year's scoring better. anyway, raw's pitching is very good, and it looks like he'll win the division.

That's exactly how the system was designed! Did you notice the screw abuck factor? that would explain it. well, obviously ryan [expletive] jorgensen is going to get his first [expletive] major league hit by hitting a cocksucking [expletive] homerun against lilly and the cubs. any more starts for gallardo?

anybody watching sf/atl? they're apparently letting junior high girl softball umps call the game...interesting promotion, but lots of people are getting ejected because of it.

looks like i've ran into buzzsaw for the second straight week. i swear, even at this point in the season, i can't look at a pitching line and come even close to guessing how many points it's worth. all i know is that lately, whatever my guy puts up is between -20 and 4 and whatever my opponent puts up is 15-35. [expletive] you, mitre.

with the help of his manager leaving him in way to long. agreed. he yanks hill or marshall w/o hesitation in the fifth/sixth inning, but for some reason he feels like z deserves to continue pitching when it's clear he's got nothing.

Yeah, with a rotation consisting of Marquis, Hill and Marshall, it's critical for the Cubs to win Zambrano's and Lilly's starts. they at least need him to not give up a baker's dozen worth of freaking hits. pathetic.

that one's all on the ace. damn.

nice game, zambrano.

you gotta be s'in me.