XZero771679666304

This thread is a joke, so I'm not going to mess with it. However, I did want to point out that this statement is completely untrue. Pitchers do NOT come back stronger. Sometimes they come back throwing harder than they did immediately before their surgery, but this is due to the fact that these injuries don't happen overnight. They get worse and worse over time, and by the time they actually have to have the surgery, they're down from where they once were already. Isn't just another way of saying what I said? Not really. He was saying that a pitcher comes back stronger than he was immediately before his injury, but not as good or better than their previous top form. If a pitcher is worn down by injury at the end of a season, has surgery, and comes back stronger, does that mean he is the strongest he has ever been? No, the injury has permenantly decreased his ability. Since Carpenter has always been fragile, saying he is stonger than immediately before his injury says very little.

I checked out Mike Lincoln's numbers last year, and they really weren't anything to get excited about. He was OK with the Pirates, but really, any disappointment about his injury has been more than made up for with Al Reyes' extremely unexpected performance. I don't think anyone is saying that the Cardinals have been lucky in terms of injuries this year. The lucky part is that guys like Abraham Nunez, Chris Carpenter, and Julian Tavarez (among other) have been much better than anybody could have expected when they signed with the Cards. Anyone who thought Nunez could be this good in 2005 is either an optimistic family member or completely insane. Then call Jim Leyland insane, because as a scout for the Cardinals who had seen alot of Pirate games, he BEGGED them to sign Nunez. Reyes had some VERY good years in the minor leagues (3.59 ERA, and 1.28 WHIP spready out over 15 years), but was never given a chance with a Major League club. Could it be that a little big-league coaching has pushed him over the top? Chris Carpenter has had a TON of potential since the day he was drafted in the first round back in '94. The Cards didn't just get lucky with him. They made an investment (when nobody else was willing to) in a kid with a ton of potential, who was just coming off of surgery, and it's paying off for them now. It's not like they threw money at a journeyman, and he turned into gold. Duncan is a miracle-worker at times, I won't deny that. But I think it's a little unfair to call it all dumb luck. The only point I'll argue here is Reyes. Do you know how many minor league pitchers put up better numbers than that, and never even make to the bigs? Hundreds.

And 4 of those losses the Astros scored 0 runs. What exactly did you want out of Clemens? A 10 inning (or more) shutout so that the Stros could finally score a run? Nope. Clemens did all he could. But if your team loses, how much value did you provide your team that day? There's no value in losing. Again, not Clemens' fault, but his team could have gotten the exact same ultimate results if you or I had been pitching that day, so what good did he do them? The Cy Young award is for the best pitcher, not the best pitcher in the context of his team. This isn't the MVP. Who has dominated the opposition with the most consistency? That is your award winner. You can make an argument for how valuable a player is to his team for the MVP, but nowhere in the description f the Cy Young does it say anything about value, just performance. And Roger has performed better than Carpenter. Hypothetically, a great pitcher can make 35 starts for a team with no offense, and go something like 10-15 with a 1.00 ERA and .70 WHIP. Another pitcher can go 25-5 with a 2.50 ERA and 1.20 WHIP for a team that scores him a load of runs. Do you punish the better pitcher because his team can't score? No, you give him the award because he was better.

It's been almost 3 years since Carpenter's surgery. It's time to get over it. The biceps problem last September/October was a nerve issue. It wasn't from his workload, and wasn't related to his surgery. It was a freakish thing, much like Brad Penny has suffered from. Carpenter is 31s in Pitcher Abuse Points. He's NOT being abused this year. Arm injuries most often occur because a pitcher is abused (left in a game too long when he's stuggling, extremely high pitch counts, etc.). That hasn't been the case for Carpenter. When was the last time that ANY starting pitcher was pitching well, but the team decided to rest him in the middle of August? Are the White Sox sitting their pitchers down? They've all but locked up their division. Carpenter will get plenty of rest down the stretch (I've already explained that Reyes was called up last week for that very purpose). After September call-ups, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a 6-man rotation, with Wainwright and Reyes alternating starts, to give everyone else plenty of rest. We'll see. Carpenter has one full season in his 8+ years in the bigs. For one reason or another, he has NEVER been consistently healthy. By comparison, Kerry Wood is a rock. With someone who has a long history of ill health, discretion is always the better part of valor. There is no magic Cardinal pill that will ensure Carp's health.

2004 Playoff Rotation Woody Williams 4.18 Matt Morris 4.72 ERA Suppan 4.16 Closer Izzy 2.87 2005 Playoff Rotation Chris Carpenter 2.25 Morris 3.83 Mulder 3.87 Closer Izzy 1.77 The offense isn't quite as potent, but has the potential to be pretty close if players can get healthy. The pitching is definitely in better shape, and I believe that I have heard that pitching is important in the playoffs. I agree with you for the most part, but Morris has really been scuffling of late, and hasn't looked goot at all in the second half. By the time you reach the postseason, you may not get any more from him than you did last year. Also, Carpenter still has pitched only one full season in his career, and none in the past four years. With LaRussa riding him like a horse, I wouldn't assume anything.

Carpenter is not long removed from reconstructive surgery and he broke down last season. When the Cards had the division all but cinched in June, and Carpenter has won a lot of blowout games and the Cards have a good bullpen, what is the point of allowing him to work so many innings? There is none. The only thing that can come from it is negative for the team.

Isolated power. Slugging PCT - Batting average

The middle ground might be that each side decides to agree to disagree. Or agree that the rest of the season might open up opportunities for Clemens or Carp to be a clear cut winner. I sure hope that is the case because if Clemens wins because of ERA alone than the whole process will look pretty questionable. I can agree to that. It's obvious there is no middle ground in this discussion. I hope one or the other runs away with it, so there's no debate at the end of the year. But the debate now isn't just because of Clemens ERA. He's also among the league leaders in almost every other category. His ERA isn't the only reason I think he's leading right now. It's the fact that he's the most dominant pitcher in baseball. He's not the most "dominant". He's probably been the most consistent, for 7 innings a game, but Carpenter is more dominant. Carpenter has pitched 3 of the 5 best games in baseball (not just the NL, but in the entire Major Leagues), according to ESPN's game scores. Clemens is nowhere to be found: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/bestgames In fact, if Carpenter hadn't blown up for one game back in April (3.1 innings, 8 earned runs), then he'd have an ERA well under 2, and would probably be the easy favorite for the Cy Young Award. Now, I'm not saying that game should be ignored, because it shouldn't. My only point is that Carpenter has been awfully steady, except for one bad outing. Give Clemens the 17 extra innings that Carpenter has (especially going late into games), and Clemens might have busted up once or twice. Who knows? Actually, if you remove Carp's 8 run game, he would have an ERA barely under 2, 1.98 to be exact. Still over half a run higher than Roger's. Roger allows less runs, less baserunners, has a lower BAA, opponent SLG and OPS. Roger has not had one start where he gave up more than 3 ER. 3 great starts do nothing to change the fact that Roger has been better in nearly every facet. Roger is a more dominant pitcher by almost any standard. He simply shuts down the opponent more effectively, and more consistently. Carp averages less than an inning per start more than Clemens, which is not as significant as the statistical advantage Roger has in nearly every category. Clemens wins in most of the rate stats. Carpenter wins in strikeouts, and K/BB, which are numbers that alot of people use to determine "dominance". 3 great starts? Carpenter has been great virtually every time out. And he's given his bullpen 17 innings of rest that Clemens hasn't. By my math, if you remove Carpenter's 8-run game, he would have given up 37 earned runs in 177 innings, for a 1.88 ERA. Maybe my math is wrong, or maybe yours is wrong. I may have been wrong. 1.88, 1.98, either way, it is still not "well" under 2, and a far cry from Clemens. And I don't think people define dominance by strikeouts. Carp is 6th in the NL among qualified SP in k/9, so does that make him the 6th most dominant pitcher? I didn't think so. Dominance is allowing few runs and few baserunners. Clemens does both better than Carpenter.

Carpenter is more dominant. He's pitched 3 of the best 5 games in baseball this year. Clemens isn't even on the list. Clemens has been more consistent, because he's had the advantage of being coddled more than Carpenter. Carpenter WANTS the ball in the 8th & 9th inning, and has shown that he'll finish the job. Clemens wants a shower after 7. Furthermore, Carpenter has faced batters with a .737 OPS. Clemens, .730. Carpenter has faced 7 playoff teams. Clemens, 3. It's not black and white. Both pitchers have done things that the other hasn't. They've both been great, in different ways. Clemens is more effective when he is in the game than Carp is. This is the definition of dominance. Dominance = effectiveness. Stamina falls into a different category.

The middle ground might be that each side decides to agree to disagree. Or agree that the rest of the season might open up opportunities for Clemens or Carp to be a clear cut winner. I sure hope that is the case because if Clemens wins because of ERA alone than the whole process will look pretty questionable. I can agree to that. It's obvious there is no middle ground in this discussion. I hope one or the other runs away with it, so there's no debate at the end of the year. But the debate now isn't just because of Clemens ERA. He's also among the league leaders in almost every other category. His ERA isn't the only reason I think he's leading right now. It's the fact that he's the most dominant pitcher in baseball. He's not the most "dominant". He's probably been the most consistent, for 7 innings a game, but Carpenter is more dominant. Carpenter has pitched 3 of the 5 best games in baseball (not just the NL, but in the entire Major Leagues), according to ESPN's game scores. Clemens is nowhere to be found: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/bestgames In fact, if Carpenter hadn't blown up for one game back in April (3.1 innings, 8 earned runs), then he'd have an ERA well under 2, and would probably be the easy favorite for the Cy Young Award. Now, I'm not saying that game should be ignored, because it shouldn't. My only point is that Carpenter has been awfully steady, except for one bad outing. Give Clemens the 17 extra innings that Carpenter has (especially going late into games), and Clemens might have busted up once or twice. Who knows? Actually, if you remove Carp's 8 run game, he would have an ERA barely under 2, 1.98 to be exact. Still over half a run higher than Roger's. Roger allows less runs, less baserunners, has a lower BAA, opponent SLG and OPS. Roger has not had one start where he gave up more than 3 ER. 3 great starts do nothing to change the fact that Roger has been better in nearly every facet. Roger is a more dominant pitcher by almost any standard. He simply shuts down the opponent more effectively, and more consistently. Carp averages less than an inning per start more than Clemens, which is not as significant as the statistical advantage Roger has in nearly every category.

This is the same Jim Hendry who said that Sammy Sosa would be the CUBS' right fielder in 2005, no? It just occurred to me that Hendry may be preventing Dusty from turning him into the bad guy, as Baker did w/Sabean and the Giants. Who knows.

Who wants to bet Dusty convinces Hendry to pick him up?

If he doesn't see what is wrong here, I have to seriously question his judgement.

And who is saying Jim will "unequivocally" still be in a position to decide that next year? :twisted:

Yep, sure can. But not when he's coaching the team with the highest payroll in the league (including Sosa's money). And you're kidding yourself if you think this is the 1 bad year. Last Sept was absolutely dispicable. Dusty clearly lost control of his team. The Cubs have been in the top 3 in payroll in the NL for all his 3 years, and they got 1 playoff berth, with a mediocre 88 wins. Regardless of the wins/losses, Dusty has lost complete control. The team was fighting with their own broadcasters, leaving early, quit on him. This year, the team has had several spans of horrible baseball. Point is, he hasn't done what he was brought in here to do. He wasn't a good fit then, he's not a good fit now. What you just talked about was the players not the manager, sure Baker should be able to control them, but if the players have bad attitudes they aren't going to listen to the manager. JMO. And Hendry got rid of Mercker, Alou, Sosa, Farnsworth, and Hawkins....the main culprits. Granted, this team hasn't had the same blowups in the media....but the team has still not shown up to play on numerous occassions this year. And BTW, what is a manager's job to you? What seriously can a manager in baseball do besides put his team in position to win and control the clubhouse? Exactly. If the coaching staff is responsible for fundamentals and the players are responsible for their attitudes, are the Cubs paying Baker 4 million to fill out lineup cards and sit on the bench (which he does quite poorly)?

Well, at least you're finally admitting some of the blame should fall on Hendry for the decision to hire Dusty. That's alot more than I thought I would get out of you. As for the chain of command: oh come on, you can't honestly tell me you have never entertained the thought of where this club might be if the Tribune sold it to a more proven owner. At least a more dedicated ownership team. I know I have. I think this whole thing has to be blamed on everyone involved. I see alot of Dusty bashing. I engage in alot of Dusty bashing. It's high time Hendry took some heat too. If we want to extend that to MacPhail and the Tribune ownership team (or whatever they call the committee dedicated to the Cubs---probably the Cubs Steering Committee, hah), fine by me. Hey, I have bashed everyone recently. And make no mistake, I have no love for the Trib, I was just pointing out the flaw in the logic. I was nearly drooling when Mark Cuban said he would be interested in the Cubs if they ever went up for sale. Maybe there should be a consortium of Chicagoans that buy the Cubs and make them community property, a la the Packers. But the idea of Cuban owning the team is really nice. And I think it is common sense that Hendry is partially responsible for Dusty, and is not worth mentioning. It seemed that you were assigning all of Dusty's blame to Hendry, and that is what got my ire. FWIW, if Hendry refuses to fire Baker, I would see them both gone, and this isn't the first time I've said it on this board. His recent support for Dusty has been perplexing, but I'm taking the wait-and-see-until-the-offseason approach.

The problem is that throughout this argument you've sounded a whole lot like someone trying to assign all or nearly all of the blame to Hendry. Unless I am mistaken, no one here has said that Hendry is an awesome or stellar GM. He is certainly flawed, but has done enough to merit another chance, IMO. Dusty hasn't.

You and I both.

What is?

Since I believe wins are a team stat, and Clemens is statistically dominating, I think the choice is clear. If Clemens were on the Cards, he'd have 20 wins by now. I hate Roger and think he has enough awards, but he has been the best NL starter.

Certainly Dusty wasn't brought in as a disciplinarian. He never had that rep in San Francisco. If anything, Dusty was brought in because he wasn't disciplinarian. Had he been, he would have clashed with Bonds on more than one occasion. Instead, he gave Bonds carte blanche, and it was players like Jeff Kent that clashed with Barry. To his credit, Dusty did appear to do a good job of diffusing those situations. Dusty was brought in because he was a massager of egos -- a Phil Jackson of sorts. One of things you constantly heard about Baker after he was hired was how well he worked with Bonds, ergo he was the perfect choice to manage a Sammy Sosa led team. But, as you said, he didn't do a very good job of handing the 2004 fiasco; and without his supposed strength, what else does he offer? Dusty may be the least disciplinary manger in the game.

Jeter on the list is ridiculous. He isn't top 10 offensively, and not even a top 10 defensive SS.

You haven't done squat to address my post, because you can't. You cannot attribute that lion's share of the 2005 failure to Hendry, and I pretty well proved why. Dusty is at least 50% responsible for the Cubs record this year. If you can refute what I said in my post, go ahead. Dusty is at least 50%. And Hendry hired Dusty. There. I just completely refuted it. Again. Whatever. What did you think when Dusty was hired? Oh wait, I suppose you saw the full spectrum of his poor performance coming the winter he was signed. :roll: Here we go...MacPhail hired Hendry, he must be at fault. No wait, the Trib hired MacPhail, they are the ones at fault. Are the Tribune shareholders responsible for Dusty as well? Come on. Dusty is a professional who should be held responsible for his ineptitude, not a bad child whose parents should be blamed for their poor behavior. Saying Hendry made a poor decision by hiring him is one thing, but putting the full mantle of Dusty's failings on Hendry is patently ridiculous. Hendry is not clairvoyant. I sincerely doubt that he or anyone here could have predicted the litany of terrible decisions that Dusty has made. Is Hendry partly responsible for Dusty? Sure. But saying Dusty's 50% blame is actually Hendry's by default is just stupid. By that logic, you can transfer Hendry's fault to someone else, and no one is really responsible for anything. It is convient for blaming Hendry, but very flawed.

You haven't done squat to address my post, because you can't. You cannot attribute that lion's share of the 2005 failure to Hendry, and I pretty well proved why. Dusty is at least 50% responsible for the Cubs record this year. If you can refute what I said in my post, go ahead.

It's skewed perception, and Omar is wrong. The ONLY time sliding into first is a good idea is to avoid a tag. The reasons that fielders dive is because it is easier to get the glove hand close to the ground. Plus, bending over while in full sprint slows a runner down, and may cause you to fall right on your face. If you are an OF, diving on balls hit over your head is totally unnecessary, since running at full speed under the ball will get you to the ball faster. I think the truth is that many dives in the OF are just unnecessary. Since catching a ball or bending over going into first isn't necessary, there is simply no way to get to first faster than to run full speed through the bag. The instant you stop running and go into a dive, you lose kinetic energy. All diving does is slow you down.