abuck1220

in rusch's defense, guzman seems to be having lots of problems today as well.

please fire this idiot. nope. there is absolutely no way around it. mlb rules strictly prohibit you from taking a pitcher out until he reaches 110 pitches. and twice a month a pitcher, by rule, has to throw 120+. how does anyone in this organization still have a job?

the cubs are the knicks of major league baseball. it's laughable that a team in the race would throw guys like bynum and rusch out there. it's even more outrageous that a team out of the race would throw guys like bynum and rusch out there. of course, the worst part is, murton will have a two hit game or something against a lefty and dusty will think that his platoon idea works.

rusch better be kissing the ground that baker walks on. NO manager would give that guy the number of chances baker has.

sure, now iowa starts to hit. bunt single by augie, single by soto...hill is being pinch hit for. boo!

just 66 pitches thru 6 for hill, but the pen is up (boo!). 6 ip, 5 h (four singles), 2 er, 1 bb, 6 k's who is the elderly man in the booth?

jason kubel making me feel better about keeping his gimpy ass on my roster for seemingly forever... 9 for his last 18 w/ 3 homers and 8 rbi's he may be in line for a promotion...

5th inning: 1st pitch groundout k (swinging, on a curve) 2 pitch flyout just 52 pitches for hill.

3rd inning: k (looking) triple sac fly fly out to cf

12 of hill's 14 pitches in the 1st were strikes. 2nd inning: four pitch walk k dp

ugh...because i don't have to look at all the months. why? because his overall numbers were BAD, so the bad clearly outweighed the good. why is that so hard to understand? i just picked out a few to show how stupid it is to look at a season on a month by month basis. then why are his overall numbers so bad?????????? this is the most frustrating argument of all time. you continue to insist that his 2005 was equal parts bad and very good. yet a 4.50+ era and a 1.57 whip CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE BAD OUTWEIGHED THE GOOD (thus NOT 50% good, 50% bad).

his .346 OBP puts him middle of the road among ML leftfielders. not too excited about him as a corner OF, especially given what it would take to get him).

He hasn't had all his horses healthy dude pittsburgh and florida barely had any horses to begin with.

i'm not big on murton, and i didn't expect much from him this year, but to call him a D+ player is pretty ridiculous. every gm in the majors would take murton over bynum, without a doubt. I'd take Murton over Bynum, too, but I still think Murton has been overall below avg. this year. And, again, that could be because I did expect more out of him. My question is if we never dealt for Murton would he be playing in Fenway Park by now? That goes to my point about our GM setting him up for failure. i didn't expect much from murton, but you might as well see what he's got by letting him play it out. if you don't let him play, then you go into '07 w/ him still being a question mark.

exactly.

i'm not big on murton, and i didn't expect much from him this year, but to call him a D+ player is pretty ridiculous. every gm in the majors would take murton over bynum, without a doubt.

i've never been huge on murton, and i'd be all for a platoon. however, i would like that platoon to be w/ him and jones, w/ a stud at the other corner OF spot. and that was what i wanted at the beginning of the season (when the cubs had a chance to be good). now that they're hopelessly out of it, i'd rather see murton out there every day.

well, he's definitely earned it.

seriously, what is with that lame ass, limp dick, first-to-150-wins [expletive]??? both you dicks put up 320+ against me the last two weeks!

but not at 75%. and i'll get to why you can't figure out effectiveness that way in a sec. you can't be serious. if you have to give credit for rusch for not being terrible from october-february, don't you think that your argument is a bit of a stretch? i mean...you have to see how crazy that is. if not, we'll start adding up the offseason months in between his crappy seasons, and he'll look even worse than he does. here are some facts. rusch was good in 2004. rusch had good spells in 2005, and he had some bad spells. bottom line, he finished w/ a 4.50+ era and a 1.57 whip...those numbers are BAD. those numbers alone tell me that, regardless of what he did over the span of certain months, the bad had to have outweighed the good. otherwise he would have had better overall numbers. (ps...i don't care what jason schmidt did in '04. if he had #'s comparable to rusch, then, yes, he wasn't very good. the difference b/w him and rusch is the fact that schmidt had three years of sub-1.2 whip going into '04, something rusch could only dream of.) ok, let's look at your logic in determining that he has been good 50%, 75%, whatever % of the time. you're probably counting april of 2005 as a "good" month for rusch. and he was good that month. he threw 13 1/3 innings. you probably also consider july a good month (his era held steady in the mid 3's). he threw 12 2/3 innings that month. then look at august of 2005, which i think we can both agree is a "bad" month (his era went up over a run). in that month he threw 22 1/3 innings. his era went up over a run in june of '05 -- a month he threw 32 2/3 innings (another bad month). do you see why it's crazy to look at those four months and say, hey, he was good 50% of the time...2 good months, 2 bad months? his two good months consisted of 26 innings, while his two bad months consisted of 55 innings. that's why his overall numbers are bad. who cares about what he did on a month by month basis? do you see why it's misleading to merely count months??? what type of analysis is that? you want facts, i gave you some facts. his #'s in '05 were not good, regardless of what he did in certain months. i wouldn't think that you would need facts beyond his 4.50+ era, the 175 hits he gave up in 145 innings, or his bloated 1.57 whip. facts, facts, facts, facts, facts. i don't know what more you want.

spare me the "you don't know what it takes" crap. you don't think i realize that he's a better pitcher than 99% of the world? just b/c he made it to the big leagues doesn't mean he's good compared to the rest of the league. you want to talk about being out of touch w/ reality...your claim that he's been "really good" 75% of the time has been shot down left and right multiple times. it is just laughable to look at rusch's numbers and say that he has been even somewhat good...let alone really good...let alone really good a majority of the time...let alone really good 75% of the time. i don't care what counting system you use to come up w/ that ridiculous number...it just IS NOT TRUE. and i'm just dying for you to list these 14 months of "very good to excellent" pitching. are you counting the winter or something? i generously count seven good months as a cub (may 04, july 04, august 04, sept 04, april 05, may 05, sept 05).

yeah, except nine times out of ten, dribblers and dinks aren't worth crap. i'd rather have strikeouts and extra base hits than no strikeouts with a bunch of bloops and slow rolling grounders.

i picked a good week to sit myers. raw and SofS are having a high-scoring affair...

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness. it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player. you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works. This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you? I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water. why would that be a joke? he's been terrible his entire career. therefore, when he has a short run of success, it seems logical to write it off as a run of good luck. or do you prefer to consider his 6-7 years of crap just a wacky turn of bad fortune?

as strange as it seems, it's true. i'm not very good at explaining why...so maybe someone else can chime in.