abuck1220

fit pagan for a new pair of horseshoes, please.

You wouldn't? You would be wrong then. no i'm not. as i said, most relievers were starters at one point, but that doesn't mean they failed at it. about the only closers that i can see that failed as starters but were successful as closers are gagne, nathan, and izzy. that hardly qualifies as a lot. and those guys did have success as starters in the high minors.

agreed. most relievers were starters at one point. however, most of the dominant relievers weren't "failed" starters. they may have been starters at one point, and relievers now, but that doesn't mean they failed as starters. additionally, a lot of guys (like guardado) failed for a considerable amount of time as relievers (he was mediocre-bad from 1996-2000) before turning it around. with those guys, it seems like it's more of an issue of figuring it out pitching-wise (as opposed to going from a starter to a reliever) that turns them around.

sorry...didn't know i had to show my work. exactly. and they were both very good at it. thus, not a failure. um...no. 1996 Tucson PCL 25 Hou AAA 6 2 3.28 12 12 1 0 74.0 62 32 27 33 86 7.54 --- 4.01 10.46 1.28 1996 AAA-Tucson 6 2 3.28 12 12 1 1 0 74.0 62 32 27 2 6 33 86 the 7.54 was his h/9, which, you guessed it...is very good! right. and he was good at it. thus, not a failure. last season as a starter... 1999 A-Piedmont 12 8 3.35 26 26 4 1 0 161.0 130 67 60 10 7 53 149 he still had great numbers (other than era) and two good seasons as a starter.

Make me an offer for one of my 2B.... eh, cano will be back in a couple of weeks.

i'm confused beyond the point of caring right now. but anyway...

I believe that is exactly the point. Then I don't understand what it is. There are many pitchers who fail at starting and then go on to be relievers. Some of them become good relievers, some bad. What makes Dempster more likely to be among the good relievers? If you'll note the quote I was responding to... abuck wrote that "i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters." My response refuted that, while also making the larger point that OF COURSE there are many failed starters that become relievers, because most relievers were starters. Whether or not that means they will be good or bad had nothing to do with my post-I simply was addressing the quote that there have "not been many successful closers that were failed starters." But thanks for the condescention from whomever piled on after TT's response. now list all the failed starters who also failed as reliever. that task may take a while b/c that list is 8 billion people long. That's fine. But its also correct that many failed starters have become effective relievers. It was an accurate statement. fine. compared to the number of failed starters that have become, say, astronauts, there are "many" failed starters who have become effective relievers. but compared to the number of failed starters who have not become effective relievers, i wouldn't say that "many" failed starters have become effective relievers.

I believe that is exactly the point. Then I don't understand what it is. There are many pitchers who fail at starting and then go on to be relievers. Some of them become good relievers, some bad. What makes Dempster more likely to be among the good relievers? If you'll note the quote I was responding to... abuck wrote that "i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters." My response refuted that, while also making the larger point that OF COURSE there are many failed starters that become relievers, because most relievers were starters. Whether or not that means they will be good or bad had nothing to do with my post-I simply was addressing the quote that there have "not been many successful closers that were failed starters." But thanks for the condescention from whomever piled on after TT's response. now list all the failed starters who also failed as reliever. that task may take a while b/c that list is 8 billion people long.

geez, seven hits and only six k's for hill. embarrassing. papelboner!

He is? He's not at all in line with his numbers as a reliever. His numbers as a reliever are less than 60 innings prior to this year, not a whole lot. True, but it's also a much different game pitching as a short reliever compared to a starter and that's evidenced by the many successful closers/set-up men who were failed starters. He wasn't going to stay on the pace he was at during the 30+ inning scoreless streak and 25 consecutive saves, but he's also a better relief pitcher than he's shown in the last month. what makes you think the relatively few good relief innings are the norm while the relatively few bad relief innings are not? it's not like he's racked up 200 fantastic relief innings that dwarf his recent struggles. and i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters.

rich hill's imminent no-hitter will be temporarily delayed by rain.

he's right about in line w/ his career numbers. i don't know why everyone's so surprised.

why is this a testy time? the cubs are 5,000 games under .500...it's not like this was game 7 of the world series or something. who even cares at this point?

ARGH...ROOKIE PITCHERS!!!!!!!!!!!

argh, we gotta fix this young pitching.

poor dusty having to use all these young pitchers. if only he had more vets like maddux (4.80 era) and rusch (7.80 era) the cubs would probably be in first place.

rich hill day...my favorite, yet most depressing, day of the minor league week. look at those numbers, people.

chris burke was a nice mid-week injury replacement...0-11, 4 k's, error, gidp. i would have been better off with mickey morandini out there...literally.

ouch. jeff could be a decent pick up for a contending NL team in need of a 5th starter. he had an underrated 2005.

i'm not big on wuertz, but that's a pretty strange thing to say. he's had over 100 decent big league innings. he was real good in 2005 until he got run into the ground. how novoa cracks the big league roster over wuertz is beyond me. novoa has inexplicably become one of dusty's guys despite the fact that he's awful and under 30. the guys this organization latch onto really boggle the mind sometimes.

good ab, neifi.

podsednik's 11 CS of the year. boy, his speed is really a difference maker!

No, just finding holes. ozuna's ball was very hard hit, konerko's was a bloop. dye's hit wasn't a dribbler or anything, but it was hit in the right spot. same w/ aj's. i'm concerned that marshall is going to fall apart as his innings add up.

at least they're sucking with a bunch of young players.

after hill threw 4 1/3 no hit, six k innings in relief on 6/22/05, he didn't even pitch in a big league game again until 7/25/05. so, what i'm saying is, guzman's got another two weeks. now when rusch throws "well" out of the pen one time he gets a spot in the rotation. fair is fair.