abuck1220

i'm done talking about this w/ you. i'm not claiming that he's pitched well, and i'm not saying he's going to wind up being a HOFer. all i'm saying is that nobody (especially you) can make blanket statements about a guy's career after 30 bad innings.

Erm, the most basic rules of probability? No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability. There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year. But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous. Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong. You can't be serious. When something keeps happening, it's a trend. Until the trend ends, it's most likely to continue. I never friggin' guaranteed anything. Stop letting your bias toward Prior because you like him as a pitcher or he signed an autograph or had a great 03 get in the way of your view of reality. Until he goes a whole year without going on the DL, we should expect him to. It's not absolute, but until something different happens, it's very likely to happen. Why don't you quit while you're behind. Each post you make only makes things look worse for you. And the worst part is, I'm the only one with facts on my side. The opposition who likes Prior and wants to keep him just has gut feelings and such to go on. lol...if you consider stuff that you make up (ie if something happens 5 out of 5 times, the chance of it happening a 6th is 100%), then, yeah, you have "facts" on your side.

dude, there's a difference between saying that we can expect prior to go to the DL and saying there's a 100% chance of it happening.

his second and third outings weren't bad. had baker taken him out after six (as everyone knew he should), he would have had a 6 ip, 3 er outing. his third outing was 5 1/3, 3 er...not great, but not horrible. he also had three very good outings in '05. of course, you're apparently a scout of some sort, so i don't know why i'm arguing it w/ you. and he was already sent to AAA, copernicus.

are you serious? :shock:

that would have been a very bold move, but you're probably right. it would have been a better option than relying on the kids. of course, there could be long-term consequences. prior could still be really good. he probably needs to leave the cubs before that happens tho. the baseball gods won't allow him to be a successful cub. :( How would trading Prior for a slightly above average starter make this team any good? Someone said they are 1-14 in the replacement pitcher starts. Half for Wood, half for Prior up until this point. We won't give the win to either. Let's say we go 4-3 in 7 starts for the slightly above average pitcher and 0-7 in Prior's replacements. It's not as big a difference as I originally said, but it's 21-21 insteasd of 17-25. The spread will only increase as long as Prior is out. That's how we'd be better. and they'd still be in fourth place.

i'm just glad we have another thread where internet posters can challenge the manhood of professional athletes. haven't had one in a while.

good grief, dude....who do you want to start? you were rusch's biggest fan last year (obviously you've changed course on that), and everyone knows your feelings about hill (since 99% of your posts are bashing him).

i think you're confusing what you've seen in real life w/ the movie the program. because i seriously doubt you've seen other teams do that.

I'd settle for seeing him win one. here's a fun fact...how many runs have the cubs scored in hill's four losses? 1 (that's combined) pretty sure it wouldn't matter much if hill had an era of 8 or 1...the offense is the problem, not rich hill. That doesn't change the fact that Rich Hill flat out sucks. he's thrown 40 major league innings. there may be some people who can predict the ability of a pitcher after that long, but you aren't one of them.

so wait...if pujols is older than he says he is, then all the cardinal victories in which he's played are wiped from the record books, right?

It's not like they have a power lineup or anything. how many times does harold reynolds have to tell you? they won the WS because they hustled, bunted, stole bases, and made sliding catches. it had nothing to do w/ being fifth in the majors in hr's.

it's their offensive strategy.

It was actually a pretty good bunt, but everyone in the city saw it coming. true. what i should have said was - i thought pierre was supposed to be good at bunting for hits. i guess when you can't hit the ball past the mound, the infield can play you kinda close.

i thought pierre was supposed to be a good bunter.

lol @ more walks. the cubs get all kinds of singles & don't score. the problem is no power. weren't you a big fan of the small ball approach?

four times. billingsley's the better prospect. Why because he can throw the ball harder then Marshall? Well...so can Angel Guzman. And I DO consider Angel is the same class with Billingsley. that makes one of you.

four times. billingsley's the better prospect.

i guess if i spent all off season hyping juan pierre, i'd do the best i could to make everyone forget it by making every one of my posts about rich hill too.

I'd settle for seeing him win one. here's a fun fact...how many runs have the cubs scored in hill's four losses? 1 (that's combined) pretty sure it wouldn't matter much if hill had an era of 8 or 1...the offense is the problem, not rich hill. Here's another fun fact..... if the CUBS had scored 5 runs in every game that Hill pitched........ his record would be...... let's see....... uh....... 0-4 !! but...uh....they didn't. i'd say the fact that a 90+ mil payroll team has the worst offense in the NL is a bigger concern than the struggles of the team's #7 starter.

Pierre's career games played: 886 Hill's career games played: 13 Excellent comparison. i know. pierre's actually done something on the major league level. hill's definitely more to blame for the cubs' season than pierre. if people want to troll about pierre/speed, fine. i just find it funny when hill gets ripped a few times and it gets called out as trolling right away. hopefully, the hill bandwagon can handle all the vultures circling. :D it's considered trolling b/c it's obvious that you're just doing it to get under people's (specifically mine) skin.

you're assuming that there's something to get. i don't care what you say, so i'm not missing out on anything.

I don't buy that. whether you buy it or not doesn't matter. billingsley, guzman, laroche, martin, etc puts any cub offer to shame. if i'm giving up the farm for an impact player, it's gonna be a bat. this offense is horrible.

except hill has pitched four times this year, and the offense takes the field everyday.

I'd settle for seeing him win one. here's a fun fact...how many runs have the cubs scored in hill's four losses? 1 (that's combined) pretty sure it wouldn't matter much if hill had an era of 8 or 1...the offense is the problem, not rich hill.