CubsWin

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. I never said that you didn't know what it takes. I asked a question. I asked if you knew what it takes. I was hoping that if you pondered what it does take that you would understand how ridiculous of a notion it is to chalk up anyone's sustained success at an elite level to luck. And since you still seem to think that Rusch was able to have 14 1/2 consecutive months of success (more than 8 consecutive months in season) at the major league level simply due to luck, I was justified in asking it. And where did you get that I was saying that just because he made it to the majors that he is good compared to the rest of the league? Do you have to invent things that make no sense and act as if I said them to feel like you are making a point? Come on. Please respond to what I do write instead of wasting both of our time by responding to what I have never written. Shot down? By whom. Who has made a point that hasn't been adequately addressed? You certainly haven't put together any sort of argument based on stats. All you have done is restate over and over again how "terrible" you think he is. But the facts show that he was anything but "terrible" in 2004. You have even said that he was good that year yourself. So that would be 50% of the time he was with the Cubs coming into this season. By your own admission, we are 2/3 of the way to 75%. The stats also show that he was excellent in roughly the first 2 1/2 months of 2005, and then consistently good again in the last month of the season equaling over half of that season bringing us to 75%. It is simple math. The numbers are all there in black and white. All have to do is agree that 6-2, 3.47 is a good year and that the 5-1, 2.07 he accomplished through June 11th was excellent and the 4-0, 3.41 he was last September was back to being consistently good again. I didn't call him good 100% of the time. That 25% that he wasn't good, he was absolutely terrible, not just kind of bad, but absolutely terrible as he has been thus far this season. He is a streaky pitcher who when he has his control can be good for long stretches of time and when he is off, can be bad for long stretches of time. And he has been in a good stretch about 75% of the time he had been with the Cubs going into this season. That is a balanced and statistically accurate description of Glendon Rusch's time with the Cubs. How can anyone who is open-minded, fair-minded and knows how to add disagree with that analysis's legitimacy? Clearly, as we have seen this year with Prior and Rusch, a pitcher's ability to come back over the off season and maintain his health and his effectiveness is something worth noting. Rusch did that last year, but not this off season. So yes, if you look at Rusch's '04 and call it good as you have and then give him credit for coming back strong in '05 from the start of the season through June 11th, then that would be over 14 consecutive calendar months in which he was not a "terrible" pitcher. Of course I don't mean only the months that he was actively pitching, he has only been with the Cubs for 14 months of season time and 5 of those months he has outright sucked. I wasn't trying to fool anyone into thinking that those 14 months were in season time. I was just describing what from the beginning of the 2004 season to June 11th of the 2005 season adds up to. Did I really have to explain that to you? I think you are smarter than that. I think you were trying to play some sort of game with words there, but whatever. abuck, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm pretty clear that we aren't going to agree here. I'm just defending your attacks on my argument and trying to present a balanced view. Perhaps I'm failing, if I am, I'm open to seeing how, but please be factual. You've called my argument laughable without stating factually why. You've called Rusch's time with the Cubs terrible across the board without stating factually why. You said that my argument has been "shot down left and right multiple times" without showing how. When Banedon said the 177th best out of 341 pitchers stat, or whatever it was, wasn't the greatest stat I agreed with him. So I am open to seeing what you have to say, but much of what I am reading hasn't been factually based.

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? Well I thought it was a joke because otherwise it is incredibly insulting. I can see a guy with Rusch's past putting together a good month and chalking it up to luck, but not 14 months of very good to excellent performance. To say that a guy who has the talent and worked hard enough to make it to the big leagues would only have a year and a half of success because of luck is completely out of touch with reality. People don't have extended period of success at something that they have dedicated their life to succeeding at because of luck. They struggle and fail and struggle and fail and then, one day, they figure it out unless, of course it is only for a few weeks. Or if it is inconsistent, up and down all year long. But that simply doesn't accurately describe how Rusch had performed for the Cubs heading into this season. Does it? Do you know what it is like to compete with the best in the world at something? To do what it takes to succeed at that level? Luck? No offense, but that has to be the most out of touch with reality notion I've heard in a long time on this board.

Just thought I would pass along this bit of good news in case anyone missed it... Good. Can he be sent down to AAA without having to pass through waivers? Not that a lot of teams would be likely to take him right now. :wink:

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.

Wow....why don't you try to find a more meaningless statistic, because I bet you'd be hard pressed to do it. You used unqualified stats, which means that every pitcher that even threw an inning is in that list. EDIT: Since ESPN stats don't let me add a filter of minimum innings pitched other than "qualifying", I had to choose a different method. Sorting all of last years pitchers by innings pitched, and looking at the ERA of each of the ones that pitched 140 innings or more, (there 58 of those by the way) only 13 of them had worse ERA's than Glendon. That's not average. So we should ignore all pitchers with less than 140 IP in an attempt to show what is league average? I agree that the overall ranking I gave of him against all National League pitchers isn't the best stat, but it did give a big picture view of where he fell. The fact of the matter is that a lot of pitchers pitched worse than Rusch did that season. Calling his performance "terrible" is overstating it and inaccurate and that was my point. Had that been the only stat I gave, I would understand how it made my argument weak, but it wasn't the only piece of evidence. Look, a 4.52 ERA isn't good, no one is saying that it is, but are you agreeing that it qualifies as terrible? Are you saying that Jason Schmidt was "terrible" last season? Or would average or slightly below average more accurately describe his performance? What about the manner in which Glendon compiled his 4.52 ERA, should that be taken into account? I'm asking your opinion and why. I think it does matter because sometimes a player's overall stats on a season don't paint an accurate picture. It seems clear to me that how Rusch got to his final numbers matters in this case because we understand more about his year, not the same or less. We see that he was excellent and then lost it. It doesn't help us understand why he lost it, though. We also get to see that consistently for the entire month of September, he returned to form. That gives a more accurate picture of what he is capable of. Doesn't it?

if that's what you want to believe, fine. we've had this argument before, and i don't know what else to tell you. he was good in 2004...there, i admitted it. you can tell yourself that he was good for most of 2005 all you want, but a 4.50 era and (especially) a 1.57 whip say otherwise. like i said, i don't know what else to say. glendon rusch was terrible in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. his career era is a shade under 5, and his career whip is 1.46. if you can look into those numbers and find hope that he's going to be worth the 4 mil he has left on his contract, knock yourself out. You may not know what else to say, but unfortunately I do. :wink: I don't have a lot of hope right now that he will be worth the 4 mil that is left on his contract, never said I did, don't know where you got that. I certainly don't think he was terrible last season. I wouldn't call anyone with a 4.52 ERA terrible. Jason Schmidt had an ERA of 4.40 with a WHIP of 1.42, was he "terrible" last season? Rusch ranked 177th out of 341 National League pitchers in ERA last year. Not good. But not terrible, thats about league average, isn't it? I wouldn't call it good either, and haven't. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that those facts exist. Instead, you will only acknowledge is ERA and WHIP and call them terrible. Calling his entire year terrible in the face of those facts and the knowledge that he wasn't consistently mediocre all year long but instead was excellent for the first 2 1/2 months of the season, then lost it and was terrible for the next 2 1/2 months and then got it back and was consistently good for the last month is an unbalanced opinion that is selectively looking at only the facts that support the opinion you have already formed. Reply if you like. If there is something faulty with my numbers or logic. But it seems like we are going to agree to disagree.

Me too. What's funny, and I probably shouldn't even mention his name in a thread like this, is that Marmol was reminding me of another Cub prospect who was being compared to Pedro Martinez. Marmol looked like a confident and slightly less wiry Juan Cruz. Similar stuff but Cruz always seemed to have a scared look on his face while Marmol had the eye of the tiger.

Yes! They mentioned that on the broadcast...the fact that Marmol never shook off anything Michael called. It was truly a team effort by the battery. 8) Yeah, I was noticing how quickly Carlos was working. He was getting the sign and going. He had a great, confident tempo.

His control has always been an issue. I wouldn't expect those problems to completely disappear after a double jump to the big leagues. all right...that's enough doom and gloom from you, mr. i've followed marmol's career for more than 10 innings. [-X Gee, and I was about to agree with him. :wink:

Thanks, DJAXX. Those are great reads.

After having a terrible outing two starts ago, Todd Blackford has come back with consecutive strong showings. That makes it something like 5 out of 6 or 6 out of 7 starts in which has been quite good. Before that streak, his ERA was in the 7s IIRC, he has dropped to 4.00. As a 20-year-old, he is becoming a viable prospect, especially if he continues to throw groundball outs and can add velocity as he fills out.

Me, too. Hopefully that will be still to come, and soon. But way to go, Sean. I was waiting for this news and was overjoyed when I saw the title of this thread. Well deserved...

terrible. which is what they are. you seem to want to discount his bad spells with the cubs as if they are the exception. i look at his good spells as the exception. and if you look at the rest of rusch's career, i'd say my view is probably more likely. Well, I'm of the belief that it is possible for players to improve over time, even as late as their early 30s. They get with the right coach or they figure something out and it finally comes together. In the case of Rusch, he was a power pitcher in his early years and became more of a control/finesse guy later on. It seems that when he has his control, he can be very good, but when he doesn't, boy, is he hittable. But you are absolutely right, when looking at Rusch's entire career his 1 1/2 good years with the Cubs are the exception, But, unfortunately for your argument, you can say that about other pitchers as well. Look at Scott Eyre's career. And there are others. Again, if Rusch had put up his numbers in 2005 of 9-8 4.52 by being inconsistent all year long and not one long stretch of excellent pitching, followed by one long stretch of bad pitching and followed up by a consistent month of really good pitching, I'd be more inclined to think that 2004 was a fluke, but that is simply not what happened. And I take offense to you saying that I "seem to want to discount his bad spells". I don't want to discount anything. How much more plainly can I put it when I wrote... I have never seen you write how good he was in 2004 and for most of 2005 and say that that can't be ignored. So when are you going to step up to the plate and balance out your view of Rusch like I have? Your position is that he sucks, he has always sucked and the Cubs were stupid for resigning him. That seems a whole heck of a lot more in denial than my position that he seemed to have turn a corner after joining the Cubs and has performed well enough over the last two seasons to think that he might be able to find his control again some time before the trade deadline. Whether or not his first two seasons with the Cubs turn to be a fluke depends on how he performs from here on out. Can he get his fine-tuned control back? But to look at 2004 and 2005 and to think that this guy may have turned a corner in his career, ala Scott Eyre, after possibly finding the right coach or maturing and gaining some mastery of being a control pitcher isn't an outlandish or unsupportable position to take. The numbers supported it. What they support now is that he has lost it. All I'm saying is that the numbers also support that he has the ability to get it back again. Is that such an impossible position to take?

No doubt, I couldn't agree more.

for one, that wasn't your point. your argument was that rusch has been "really good" 75% of the time...not that he had been "good" more often than not. secondly, instead of arguing over what constitutes a good or really good outing, how about we just look at his overall numbers, which are awful. No, abuck, that was my point. I originally used the stat, albeit a subjective one, that Rusch has been good about 75% of his time with the Cubs going into this season, to make the point that he may turn things around by the trade deadline and actually have some trade value. I then used it to show how people were forgetting how good he was for much of his time with the Cubs. I broke down his numbers to give the argument more specificity. But to look at good outings vs. bad outings isn't the best barometer because every pitcher is up and down even in a really good year. I'm all for looking at overall numbers going into this season so long as we do it with a certain amount of specificity. Just looking at the numbers a pitchers has at year's end doesn't always tell the whole story. But lets start by just doing that. Do you call 2004 a "good" year for Rusch or a "not good" year? I call 6-2, 3.47 good. Did he have his bad outings? Yes. Do I feel comfortable calling all of his 32 appearances good? No, and that's how I got into the other way of looking at it. But, over all, 2004 was good. Now how about 2005? Some great, some good, some really bad. And it wasn't all inconsistent and jumbled together either which is weird. If he had wound up with his overall numbers 9-8 4.52 by being up and down from game to game all year long, I would call the year "not good" on the whole. But he was excellent for the first two months plus and then fell apart. This falling apart period hurt the Cubs and it definetly counts against him. And if he had never returned to his 2004 form throughout the entire month of September, I don't think the Cubs should have resigned him this past off season. But he did. He was excellent from the beginning of the season until June 12th and then basically bad until August 31st, and then consistently good the entire month of September. That's over half the calendar season in which he was consistently good or excellent. That can't be ignored just like we shouldn't ignore how bad he has been this season or for the two and half months last year. But because his 2005 season was so night and day with him being so good in parts of it and so bad in others and because he got it back at the end, it seems inaccurate to me to call it a "not good" season overall. I think it would be more accurate to call it "half good". So, you put a good season in 2004 with a half good season in 2005 and you get 75% of the time. Now that is so unscientific that I had to go with the other method, but that's the way I see his overall numbers. How do you see them?

Wow, you are absolutely right. That's why I showed you all the stats. Its not too surprising that instead of being magnanimous and simply saying the numbers do show that he has been better for the Cubs than you thought. You actually took the time to go through and name certain outings bad that I didn't. I could list all of his outings and we could quibble about what makes up a bad outing and what doesn't, but I'm not going to do that because I don't have to. You've already proved my point. Even using your spun numbers, my point, that Rusch has been good more often than not while a Cub and a whole lot better than you were making him out to be, is still supported. So, whether you take my numbers or yours, it doesn't matter. The facts and stats still show that he is likely to turn things around and perhaps have some value by the trade deadline. Whether he will or not, who knows? Thats just what the numbers say. Hahah, spun numbers? I went beyond giving him the benefit of the doubt. I counted several 1/3rd 0 run outings as good. The only ones I counted as "bad" outings were ones that he had an era above 4.50. Those are bad outings, you can ignore it if you want, but you are totally, completely wrong, and lying about it doesnt make it not true. It's not too surprising that instead of saying "hey, i made up this stat", you called me a liar and called the facts "spun numbers". Nice try. Wow, are we both taking this a little too seriously. I never made up a stat or lied about anything and it is pretty sad that you would think that I did. If you still think so, prove it. If I did what you say I did, it should be pretty easy. Everything I wrote was accurate. We may have different definitions of a good or bad outing, but thats it. Aren't you going a little overboard with this one? As far as the original argument goes, I'll still happily concede to your numbers that support my notion that you were way underselling Rusch and walk away happy.

Wow, you are absolutely right. That's why I showed you all the stats. Its not too surprising that instead of being magnanimous and simply saying the numbers do show that he has been better for the Cubs than you thought. You actually took the time to go through and name certain outings bad that I didn't. I could list all of his outings and we could quibble about what makes up a bad outing and what doesn't, but I'm not going to do that because I don't have to. You've already proved my point. Even using your spun numbers, my point, that Rusch has been good more often than not while a Cub and a whole lot better than you were making him out to be, is still supported. So, whether you take my numbers or yours, it doesn't matter. The facts and stats still show that he is likely to turn things around and perhaps have some value by the trade deadline. Whether he will or not, who knows? Thats just what the numbers say.

Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that. In fact, what I did was ask a question. Is he worth getting excited about as any other 13th pick? You said no and provided some reasons only one of which I disagreed with. I also asked is this pick worthy of something other than sarcasm, especially in the immediate hours after the draft. Did we have anything else to say about this pick besides sarcasm? I asked that because I wanted to hear people's honest opinions about Colvin and the sarcasm surrounding Dusty and OBP got old for me a long time ago. It was in no way an attempt to get people to stop criticizing the Cubs as you continue to imply. For me, there will always be things to criticize, and you seem to be an expert at finding them, good for you. Don't stop. All I am attempting to provide is a little balance to the opinion-forming discussions we have on this board. It may seem to you that I am only and always just saying positive things about the Cubs. I submit to you that that is because you are consistently leaving them out and mentioning largely only the negative. Thus, balance. Clearly the Cubs are not immune to criticism nor are any of their draft picks. When you wrote... I only disagreed with the amount of emphasis you placed on his BA ranking and I thank you for seeing the logic on that point. I agree that he doesn't have much of a history of performance, just this season really, and that is a cause for concern. Of course, he is still just a junior. I also agree that he doesn't walk a lot. But, mainly, what I disagreed with was the utter lack of any of his positive qualities. I honestly hope you can see that I'm not asking you to stop criticizing anyone or anything. I'm simply trying to provide a little perspective, a little balance to our discussions. If that annoys you, so be it. But please stop with the "immune to criticism" comments. Its becoming almost comical. They simply aren't accurate and don't apply.

First post here. Given how many times they have picked someone #1 that BA designated as a top prospect, only to see them never make it to the majors, or not turn into much as a Cub (though maybe that's a developmental problem), this guy probably has as much of a chance to be good as anyone else. If anything, we'll see if Wilken is all that Hendry makes him out to be. I guess he put his reputation on the line right away. Welcome to the forum!

That's a lot of laughing and attempted ridicule, but not a lot of knowledge guys. Look it up for yourselves, as a Cub going into this season, Rusch had been good about 75% of the time. Thems the facts, I'm not making them up. Certainly, at 6-2 with a 3.47 ERA, we can safely say that Rusch was "good" in 2004. Every pitcher is going to be better some outings than others obviously so I won't dare to say that all of his 32 appearances and 130 innings were "good" however. Of those 32 appearances, he was not good in about 8 of them. That's 75% good appearances and if you calculate the innings pitched during those good outings versus the bad outings its about 110 innings of good outings to 20 innings of bad which comes to 85% good. He was actually better during 2005, when he was on. Rusch lost it in the middle of the year. It was odd. He was great in the first part of the season, then absolutely terrible and then he seemingly got it back in September and found his stuff again. Had he gotten his 4.52 ERA by being up and down all year long, then the Cubs would have had a lot less reason to resign him this off season, but he wasn't inconsistent throughout the year. He was 5-1 with a 2.07 ERA through June 7th and then he just lost it. He had 3 bad starts in a row and was returned to the bullpen where he continued to struggle. Due to injuries, he was returned to the rotation on August 15th where he promptly lost his next 4 starts. But then something happened and in September he went 4-0 with a 3.47 ERA. On for a long stretch, then off for a long stretch and then on again. 17 of his 46 appearances were not good. Of his 145 innings pitched in 2005, 52 2/3 innings came during that terrible stretch from June 12th to August 31st. That means he was terrible about 37% of the time that season. So in 68% of his appearances and slightly over 74% of his innings he had been good going into this season. Thems the facts. Now this year he has clearly lost it again, maybe his man boobs are getting in the way, I don't know. But with the numbers that he has put up in the previous two seasons, logic and facts would tell us that he has a shot of getting it back together again and having some trade value by the deadline. Laugh if you want, but those are the numbers. I know he has been frustrating so far this season. I'm certainly disappointed, too, but before you ridicule a poster for posting something accurate, you may want to check the facts.

But the point is he shouldn't have been picked 13th. He should have been picked about 140th. Maybe there's a nice list of guys picked around the 13th pick that turned out good, but that doesn't mean you can just throw any name at the 13th spot and say he's got the same chance as all the rest. Based on what, one prospect list that was how many days old? Colvin was rumored to go to the White Sox later in the first round and was widely reported to be a late riser up the ranks in the days before the draft. Shouldn't that evidence be considered before you label this guy as the 140th best prospect? What about what other scouts and industry professionals who's opinion differ with that of BA? Shouldn't what they have to say also be considered? Is BA the only source worth noting? Shouldn't we also consider the source, Wilken, and his track record as a scout? Doesn't the fact that Wilken drafted Alex Rios who also was nowhere to be seen on BA's pre-draft rankings count for something? It seems like you find a few convenient pieces of evidence that support your very quickly made up opinion and you stop considering the rest of the evidence. Or am I wrong, and you did consider all the evidence but have some reasons why it is meaningless and shouldn't impact your original opinion? Again, I don't know how many times I have to say this, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm truly asking.

Yeah, I agree for the most part. About the only thing left for Hill to do at AAA is to build confidence through consistency, but if it is a mental block on his part, then there is likely more to be gained by having him in middle relief at the major league level. Rusch has been really good for the Cubs about 75% of the time. Hopefully, Rusch can find his form again and put several strong appearances together and have some trade value at the deadline. Some team is usually looking for left-handed pitching. Then Hill can wet his feet at the big league level on a more consistent basis.

Well said. It is between the ears with Hill. He could stand to do with some more chances in a row. At the same time, he has the ability to get over it himself, to relax and just pitch the way he does in Iowa and earn the right to stay in the rotation to. Eh, if the Cubs keep losing, he likely get his worry free chances to pitch uninterrupted at the big league level. Here's hoping he has to earn it though.

He doesn't seem to be much of a patient guy. And he doesn't have a strong track record of performance. He was also rated much, much, much lower than where he was selected. Wouldn't you expect a football fan to question his team if they drafted a guy in the first round who everybody else had listed as a 3rd or 4th rounder? I don't think he's worth getting excited about. Maybe in a few years he'll be a halfway decent baseball player, but that's not exactly exciting. I'm reserving judgement at this time. Wilken's record in Toronto was stellar...16 of his 17 first round picks either are or were quality every day players in the majors. I'm real interested to see the direction our system moves in over the next couple of years. Just because you're not projected high doesn't mean squat in baseball. Look where Pujols was drafted... I'm not passing final judgement either. I was responding to another in a long line of criticism of fans for criticizing the Cubs. The guy could be a decent major leaguer some day. The odds of him being great are extremely small, and there's no one thing about him to really create a bunch of excitement. On what evidence do you base this statement? Isn't a little early to tell what the odds are? The odds of any given player being great, with the possible exception of the #1 or #2 overall pick, are extremely small. A significant percentage of first round draft picks don't even reach the majors. That must be a pretty harsh definition of great. I guess mine is a little less demanding, but I see your point. If were talking Pujols or Lee great, then, no, of course the chances are slim. I was talking about his chances to be a guy who is worthy of being picked 13th. A guy who has a pretty good shot to contribute at the major league level in a way that is worthy of excitement. Throughout the 90s, about half of the years, there was a guy selected 13th or right around there that turned out to be pretty good and made significant contributions in the majors. And when you look at Wilken's picks...

And as far as my post being "another in a long line of criticism of fans for criticizing the Cubs", that is completely inaccurate, disrespectful and unnecessary. It wasn't related to the topic of the post at all and was a personal shot at me. If you are an honorable person, you will retract it. If you don't, I challenge you to find the quotes in my posts that support such a statement. I only ask questions or challenge someone's criticism if I fail to see the evidence for it, or if I see decent evidence on the opposing side that is going unacknowledged. Most of the time I'm asking questions, trying to understand the evidence that you see. Case in point, see the above post from me. If you call that being critical of you just because you are being critical of the Cubs draft pick, you need to get over yourself. If you want to only see one side of an issue, I'm not stopping you. That's your right. But please, stop the BS about me criticizing people simply for them being critical of the Cubs. Its completely unsubstantiated in response to any of my posts. How many times do I have to write that I believe the Cubs have done a lot of stuff worthy of criticism before you will read it?