abuck1220

pfft...without the hr, stolen base, and the single, he's just 0-2.

damn it, i had everything going perfect for me in the cin/mil game. harang had a QS and a shot at the win and bush had a QS, but no chance at a loss. then harang goes out for the seventh and it falls apart. and i hope kazmir's arm falls off. wow, just checked in on the cubs' game...how the f do the cubs have clemens up to 105 pitches in the 5th? picked a bad time (for me, at least) to work the count for the first time this year.

guzman's finally healthy and he goes two weeks w/o pitching. great organization. on a positive note, maybe i'll bid on guzman's jersey at the jersey auction on friday.

also, it's worth noting that corey is hitting fewer ground balls this year than in 04 and considerably more than in 05, further refuting the claim that his good numbers are the result of bunts.

any post that claims that an improved slugging % is the result of more bunting deserves to be quoted. good stuff.

false. Look at Patterson's numbers when he isn't bunting for a base hit. Awful. look at patterson's numbers when he isn't hitting a homerun. awful.

false.

with 10 starts, i had better win.

hooray for cubs' coaching!

yeah, it's great. he may as well stick to his guns...he's going to get traded anyway.

not slandering him at all. just saying the 0 points he would have scored this week would have helped me more than burke's contribution.

congrats to rich!

couple of things that would be hilarious if they weren't so sad... the cubs have been waiting to get guzman healthy since 2003. now he's finally healthy, but given the way he's being used, it's almost like he's hurt. the cubs talked about how they may have won the WS if guzman had been healthy in 2003...hinting that he would play a prominent role in what was the biggest cubs' season in a billion years. but now he's not even being used in what may be the worst cubs' season in a billion years.

why are the batkids being punished like that? did they do something wrong with the bats?

i'm up for some beanballs in this one.

who's mark buehrle?

look at the impact pagan's presence has on the offense...he doesn't even have to get a hit to make a difference! len, the cubs could win this game 6,000-2, and the white sox fans would still have the upper hand.

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.