artvandalay

It's hard to gauge that, though. Zambrano would be throwing fewer innings and pitches out of the bullpen. However, relievers are usually encouraged to throw harder and let loose compared to starters. My worry with Zambrano is that he'll let loose in relief and do something to screw up his mechanics or delivery, which could lead to a lot of problems when he returns to starting or, worse, injuries. I'm praying the Cubs keep a close eye on him and that he doesn't overdo it in relief. Yeah, it definitely couldn't be quantified, but my thinking was that the fewer innings could help Z stay healthier longer and slowing down the decline similar pitchers like Livan Hernandez hit. That's a good point on him potentially changing his mechanics, though. I'm not sure where you got that impression, because about the only similarities between Z and Livan Hernandez is that they are both rather large hispanic guys.

The bolded is simply wrong in several different ways. The whole theory about pitchers not being able to control balls in play does not suggest that all pitchers will have exactly the same BaBIP, it suggests that they will all fall within a fairly tight range (which is a little bigger for relievers than starters, theoretically because relievers pitch fewer innings, more often have the platoon advantage, and since they pitch fewer innings they can generally "air it out" more than starters who have to be able to maintain their stuff for 100+ pitches). That range for starting pitchers is around 280-300 generally, and Z's career BaBIP is right at 282, so no, he doesn't have some special power to cause less balls in play to drop in for hits. Also, as far as the whole "BaBIP isn't consistent" thing, I dare you to try and find me 5 non-knuckleball throwing (because it is also acknowledged that knuckleballers have a wider range of potential BaBIP than regular pitchers) starters from the modern era that pitched >1000 innings in their career with a BaBIP of <270. You won't, because they don't exist. Randy Johnson's career BaBIP is 302, Pedro Martinez' is 291, Greg Maddux's is 289, Johan Santana's is 287, Roger Clemens' is 294... and the list goes on and on. You're not going to find a whole lot more filthy pitchers in the last 20 years than the ones on that list, and they are all right smack in the middle of the widely accepted range of what a starting pitcher has control over.

Would love love LOVE to hear Fisk's reaction to that article. That's the kind of thing that pisses me off about these ex-ballplayers that mouth off with their [expletive] righteous indignation about current or more recent players. They say this stuff, then they just leave it and refuse to say anything more when someone responds to them clearly debunking any points they're trying to make. If they want to make their opinion known in the media like this, they should be held accountable. I'd just love to hear him explain how his 37 home runs in his age 37 season isn't suspicious as hell, not to mention the whole getting all the numbers wrong in his initial argument.

in his best year he struck out 155 times. because everyone knows striking out automatically means you're a bad hitter, right? seriously, how many hitters do we have to see that strike out a ton yet still absolutely rake before we stop viewing striking out a lot as such a terrible thing?

But, both of those things could be directly impacted by performance enhancing drugs. I.E. he hit for power because of the steroids, thus he was pitched around a lot. It might not be the case, but you should be able to see why people would think that. What a ridiculous argument about the walks. He was such a dangerous hitter that pitchers felt they had to pitch around him (which is a point that I contest anyway- it is NOT always a decision by the pitcher that leads to a walk, there is such a skill as plate discipline and working a count), but that means that he isn't necessarily all that good because the only reason he got on all those times was because he was pitched around. backwards logic anyone? by that reasoning someone could hit a homerun literally every time they came to the plate, causing pitchers to eventually walk him literally every time he came to the plate. that person, by your reasoning, wouldn't be a great hitter at all because the only reason he was getting on all those times was because pitchers were afraid to pitch to him. So you don't think that there was a correlation between his power and the amount of times that he walked? There's no doubt that there was SOME correlation, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a good hitter because of it, and while I'm sure you would say that his power was the main reason he walked a lot I would strongly disagree. There are plenty of hitters that hit lots of home runs but don't walk nearly as much as McGwire did.

But, both of those things could be directly impacted by performance enhancing drugs. I.E. he hit for power because of the steroids, thus he was pitched around a lot. It might not be the case, but you should be able to see why people would think that. What a ridiculous argument about the walks. He was such a dangerous hitter that pitchers felt they had to pitch around him (which is a point that I contest anyway- it is NOT always a decision by the pitcher that leads to a walk, there is such a skill as plate discipline and working a count), but that means that he isn't necessarily all that good because the only reason he got on all those times was because he was pitched around. backwards logic anyone? by that reasoning someone could hit a homerun literally every time they came to the plate, causing pitchers to eventually walk him literally every time he came to the plate. that person, by your reasoning, wouldn't be a great hitter at all because the only reason he was getting on all those times was because pitchers were afraid to pitch to him.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people honestly subscribe to the "he wasn't a good hitter because he had a low career batting average" theory or some such [expletive] about "pure hitters". Seriously, what is a hitter's goal at the plate? To help his team score runs, correct? By pretty much all accounts McGwire was one of the best of his time, if not ever, at helping his team score runs when he was at the plate. He got on base and hit the ball for extra bases (the two most important things that a batter can do) more frequently than just about anyone else in the game. That's the issue, plain and simply, and there really isn't any other way to look at it.

That, to me, = bleh. regardless of whether that is "bleh" to you or not, that's still a lot more valuable than 2 of 3 of the cubs' outfielders this year and around half of their starting infielders for the majority of this year, and he's our worst starting OF'er now. So, you have a below average hitter for a corner OF, but the point you're trying to make is that "he's better than two of your OF's"? :banghead: The point is that it's pretty ridiculous to say "well the cardinals are just lucky that their shitty players are playing so well" when our players aren't even playing over their heads, we just no longer have any absolute holes in our lineup like several cubs players. as someone else mentioned upthread, there's a lot of value in surrounding a couple of great players (pujols, holliday) with a whole lot of average players (ludwick, schumaker, lugo) and a couple slightly above average players (ryan, rasmus, derosa, molina).

what an intelligent thoughtful response.

That, to me, = bleh. regardless of whether that is "bleh" to you or not, that's still a lot more valuable than 2 of 3 of the cubs' outfielders this year and around half of their starting infielders for the majority of this year, and he's our worst starting OF'er now.

I forgot that defense doesn't matter. My bad. It better matter a ton for Rasmus to be better than Fukudome. Also Aramis Ramirez gets no mention? I guess he isn't very good either? He's been injured? And yes, Rasmus has been absolutely phenomenal defensively in the outfield- the same goes for BRyan at SS. Both are amongst the top 3 defenders at their position in all of MLB.

I forgot that defense doesn't matter. My bad.

I think they are a very good team. I think most people here do. Wainwright, Carpenter, Pujols, Holliday, and Dero are all very good players. The rest are kinda bleh, but that's all they need. Simply wrong. Brendan Ryan, Yadier Molina, and Colby Rasmus have all been nearly if not as valuable as any cub position player besides Derrek Lee this year. While Ludwick isn't a 35 home run player (and I don't think anyone would try to convince you that he ever was) he plays passable defense and hits enough to be a serviceable starter.

I'll acknowledge the Cardinals are good but, superior talent? Come on. Lohse, Wellemeyer, Pinerio, Lugo, Thurston basically, anyone not named Pujols, Wainwright, Carpenter or Holliday are not good or superior at anything. The difference between the cardinals and the cubs is organizational philosophy and good coaching. You talk about guys like Ryan Franklin, Joel Piniero, and such as luck but ignore the fact that none of their stats this year suggest that what they're doing is unsustainable. The only notable cardinal pitcher that has significantly outpaced his FIP up to this point in the season is Franklin, and his FIP is still only 3.02, which is not bad at all. Piniero's FIP is actually slightly LOWER than his actual ERA up to this point. If this were just one season of data it would be different, but you would think after all the other castoffs that TLR and DD have gotten a couple serviceable seasons out of that you wouldn't discount the possibility that maybe they're actually better at their jobs than most managers/pitching coaches. As far as position players go- having the best player in the game goes a long way. factor in some of the underrated role players that the cardinals have (Brendan Ryan, Skip Schumaker, Colby Rasmus) and their lineup is just good enough to get by with the stellar pitching they get. Also, what exactly is there to complain about in regards to Skip Schumaker? He's just a run of the mill empty average decent OBP fourth outfielder type, but the way some cubs fans talk about him you'd think he was hitting 30 home runs a year or playing gold glove defense. Nothing he is doing or has done in the majors is at all different than what he has always been- a serviceable .280-.300 hitting guy that can play a few positions. The same goes for Brendan Ryan. He is exactly what he has always been- a light hitting phenomenal defensive shortstop. Also, not a single one of those players you mentioned (that i bolded) have been a serious contributor to the cardinals' success this year. In fact, most of them have been amongst our absolute worst players this year. That would be like if a month ago I had cited Miles, Soriano, Freel, and Cotts as the reason for the Cubs' success up to that point.

GIDP's aren't nearly as useful with 2 outs already.