Transmogrified Tiger

Who says I'm "embracing" anything? You're the first Cardinal fan that actually agrees that they have the best fans. It's impossible to judge, and that survey is a joke. You have AL players who have never been to half the NL parks voting with the same weight as someone who spent 15 years in the NL. Not that the players are any definitive source as to who has the "best fans" anyway. If 2nd place were close, you'd have a legitimate grip. 46% (compared to 13% for 2nd place) is pretty decisive, in my opinion. And what, 45% of those surveyed don't even go to Busch that year? Nevermind the fact that the player's aren't a definitive source, or that the poll is two and a half years old.

Who says I'm "embracing" anything? You're the first Cardinal fan that actually agrees that they have the best fans. It's impossible to judge, and that survey is a joke. You have AL players who have never been to half the NL parks voting with the same weight as someone who spent 15 years in the NL. Not that the players are any definitive source as to who has the "best fans" anyway.

I think that's the first Cardinal fan I've actually seen embrace the "best fans" title.

I love the irrational ND-haters. Under Ty this team would have been 2-4 because they would have absolutely gotten blown out at UM and they would have found a way to blow the Purdue game. The reason that Henne 'had his head up his butt' was because that was a glimpse of a defense that will be much, much better in the future once they plug in some top recruits. ND is going to win out this season, and they can beat anyone they would be matched up with in a BCS game. Texas or VTech would be tough games but ND has proven they can beat anybody after Saturday's game. Also I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish ran the table in 2006. The PSU/UM game sounded like a good game but it also sounded like UM got the usual aid from the refs that they always get at home. I wonder how many games' outcomes have been changed over the years at the Big House due to the refs' jobbing the opponents. ND IS that good. If you wanted to rank teams solely on how they looked on the field, not on past rep, than ND would probably be a top-5 team right now. I know you can't put them there with two losses because it would give them a chance to win the title...which they shouldn't have considering two losses. But I don't think it's irrational to think ND is playing top-five caliber football at this point. ND-haters are always fun to make fun of. It's too bad that for so many years they were right, but the Irish are soon to return to their rightful place at the top. For crying out loud, THEY LOST THE GAME. Notre Dame is looking a frightening bit like last year's Cal team.

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound. OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004? What about 2001, 2003, and 2005? From 2003 on Farns has been very good, and he had a down year in '04 in which he still wasn't terrible. What are you trying to prove? What am I trying to prove? I just stated that to me he wasn't that much different than Heredia. What are you trying to prove? You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to prove he's good (ignore his bad years and 2004 really wasn't a bad year and he was a bad starter so ignore that). You're the one getting worked up. Are you his agent or something? You're the one who inserted Farnsworth into the thread, and ignoring every success he's had to try and paint him as not all that great. He is different than Heredia. One of Farnsworth's "terrible" years is similar to Heredia's for his career, they aren't comparable.

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound. OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004? What about 2001, 2003, and 2005? From 2003 on Farns has been very good, and he had a down year in '04 in which he still wasn't terrible. What are you trying to prove?

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound.

As a Cub, Heredia never had a WHIP below 1.33, an ERA below 4.76, a K/9 over 8.65, or a K/BB greater than 2(excepting his mark in only 16 IP after he was acquired). Almost all of those are worse than Farnsworth's career numbers. They aren't similar. I said career numbers. Heredia was much better the rest of his career than he was as a Cub, that's obviously going to color people's opinions like they have for Farnsworth. Also, Farnsworth's career numbers are skewed by a good chunk of innings where he was an ineffective starter. Heredia: 4.42 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 6.89 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, .255 BAA, .746 OPS against Farnsworth as a reliever: 4.24 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 10.38 K/9, 2.43 K/BB, BAA and OPS unavailable(eyeballing it it looks to be easily better than .255 and .746) Farnsworth is pretty clearly a better reliever. I didn't say he wasn't better. He may be better. But the difference between Farnsworth and Heredia is much less than the difference between Farnsworth and elite relievers. That was the point. Heredia sucks and Farnsworth ain't that much better. Neither is true. Heredia wasn't a bad reliever for a couple years. And no one is claiming Farnsworth was good his first few seasons. However, Farnsworth the last several years has been very good, and trying to compare career numbers of someone 10 years older who was much worse as a Cub than his career numbers would indicate doesn't change that. I think heredia is only on year older. You must really like Farnsworth if you're willing to say that Heredia hasn't been that bad. That's you prerogative. Sorry, confused Heredia with someone else. I said wasn't that bad for a couple years. You must really hate Farnsworth if you're going to ignore all the success he's had and use his numbers from 5+ years ago to try and drag him down to Heredia's level.

As a Cub, Heredia never had a WHIP below 1.33, an ERA below 4.76, a K/9 over 8.65, or a K/BB greater than 2(excepting his mark in only 16 IP after he was acquired). Almost all of those are worse than Farnsworth's career numbers. They aren't similar. I said career numbers. Heredia was much better the rest of his career than he was as a Cub, that's obviously going to color people's opinions like they have for Farnsworth. Also, Farnsworth's career numbers are skewed by a good chunk of innings where he was an ineffective starter. Heredia: 4.42 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 6.89 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, .255 BAA, .746 OPS against Farnsworth as a reliever: 4.24 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 10.38 K/9, 2.43 K/BB, BAA and OPS unavailable(eyeballing it it looks to be easily better than .255 and .746) Farnsworth is pretty clearly a better reliever. I didn't say he wasn't better. He may be better. But the difference between Farnsworth and Heredia is much less than the difference between Farnsworth and elite relievers. That was the point. Heredia sucks and Farnsworth ain't that much better. Neither is true. Heredia wasn't a bad reliever for a couple years. And no one is claiming Farnsworth was good his first few seasons. However, Farnsworth the last several years has been very good, and trying to compare career numbers of someone 10 years older who was much worse as a Cub than his career numbers would indicate doesn't change that.

As a Cub, Heredia never had a WHIP below 1.33, an ERA below 4.76, a K/9 over 8.65, or a K/BB greater than 2(excepting his mark in only 16 IP after he was acquired). Almost all of those are worse than Farnsworth's career numbers. They aren't similar. I said career numbers. Heredia was much better the rest of his career than he was as a Cub, that's obviously going to color people's opinions like they have for Farnsworth. Also, Farnsworth's career numbers are skewed by a good chunk of innings where he was an ineffective starter. Heredia: 4.42 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 6.89 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, .255 BAA, .746 OPS against Farnsworth as a reliever: 4.24 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 10.38 K/9, 2.43 K/BB, BAA and OPS unavailable(eyeballing it it looks to be easily better than .255 and .746) Farnsworth is pretty clearly a better reliever.

As a Cub, Heredia never had a WHIP below 1.33, an ERA below 4.76, a K/9 over 8.65, or a K/BB greater than 2(excepting his mark in only 16 IP after he was acquired). Almost all of those are worse than Farnsworth's career numbers. They aren't similar.

Andy got to celebrate his pennant after Game 4, and after Berkman's home run last night. I don't feel sorry for any of them. Did you see the Cardinals' reaction after the game last night? No celebrating. They simply shook hands and headed for the clubhouse. They know that they still have work to do, unlike the Astros after Game 4. That's why the Cards are the best team in baseball. :roll: I don't think the best team has yet been decided. At least not for this year. The Cards were the best team in the league this year. The playoffs decides who gets the championship, but it doesn't change the fact that STL was dominant for the regular season.

One kind of big difference: Lidge had a great postseason last year and has had a good one until that pitch this year. Farnsworth has imploded in his only two chances (Game 6 in 2003 and Game 4 this year). Kind of a big difference. Actually, Farnsworth has pitched in 10 postseason games, not just 2. That means he's had 10 chances to implode. In those other 8 outings: 9.2 IP, 3 ER, 6 H, 1 BB, 10 K, 0 HR, 2.79 ERA, 0.72 WHIP, 9.3 K/9, 10 K/BB

Actually, in the case of the CUBS you could make a reasonable argument that the pitching staff does perform slightly better when the CUBS score 1 or more runs in the first inning...... 04/04 - 10/02 IP H R ER BB K HR BB/9 K/9 HR/9 WHIP ERA CUBS zero runs 1120.0 1051 559 529 442 988 148 3.55 7.94 1.19 1.33 4.25 CUBS 1 or more 320.0 306 155 145 134 268 37 3.77 7.54 1.04 1.38 4.08 CUBS overall 1440.0 1357 714 674 576 1256 185 3.60 7.85 1.16 1.34 4.21 The ERA goes down some, but just about all the peripherals are slightly worse. There's basically no difference. I'd assume it's similar for just about every MLB team.

Clearly, you haven't been watching the games. Crede went 7 for 19 with 7 RBIs. He hit a game tying homer and twice drove in the go ahead/winning run. Pretty sure he's talking regular season.

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF. Patterson's a near 80% basestealer, that's pretty good. BK has pointed out in the past about Patterson's success with bunts. What stats are you talking about?

Yep. So many ways they can go. I would even try to trade Carlos Lee if I were them. I'd be thrilled if the Cubs had an OF like Lee and the Brewers might be able to trade him....that sickens me. Jealous and now sick. Lee's overrated. He racks up the triple crown numbers, but doesn't walk at all. He's the LH Garrett Anderson of 3 years ago. I thought he did have a decent OBP? .324 He had a pretty mediocre second half after an insane May and June.

It's comforting to know that you know exactly what Patterson's desires are, nevermind the fact that he's an excellent basestealer and a pretty good bunter as well.

Holtz is a moron? How so? Come on man. I'm sure you like Lou and that's fine, but he's just awful on TV. The fact that he's a ridiculous ND homer doesn't bother me that much. He just has no television presence, doesn't speak all that well and doesn't really add much insight. Doesn't speak that well? He has pretty bad lisp, but he is also on of the most requested motivational speakers. He is well known for his speaking abilities. I don't think a lisp takes away from what a person says. I personally enjoy watching him. I think he is hilarious, and he always has been. I have seen Holtz speak many times, and while he may not have television presence he is a very, very good speaker. And does being awful on TV make him a moron? Obviously Holtz isn't literally stupid, and neither is Mark May, or Joe Morgan(wait...).

That is the most ridiculous trade proposal I think you've ever made. Why would the Red Sox give up on their most promising young pitcher, an OBP Machine who will probably take over at third next season, AND Hanley Ramirez for two guys who are overrated? Overbay is overrated? The guy is an OBP machine too, and a great defensive 1B. Clark may fall of this year's numbers, but he's not a terrible(especially considering cost) replacement to Damon. I didn't think the proposal was that out of hand at all.

Go, then when something bad happens to the Sox, marvel at how well the play was executed. "Wow, nice location on that K.", "Man that was a screaming line drive, great bat speed there."

And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success. Actually, Podsednik's intangibles may include getting Sox pitchers to pitch better. Podsednik, the leadoff hitter, is a huge reason why the Sox were so successful scoring in the first inning, making early Sox leads commenplace. The starting pitchers were able to pitch with a lead quite regularly because of Podsednik's contributions, setting the tone for a well-pitched game. Is there a connection between scoring in the first inning and pitching well? Do the Sox score more in the first inning than anyone else?

Scotty

Labels are fun! Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles. I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success.

Neither of us can guarantee anything. It's called taking a gamble. If I had Hendry's job, I would gamble $4M over a 2 year period (paying $7M to Corey over 2 years vs. $11M to Preston over 2 years) that Wilson would outperform Patterson. You don't have to pay Patterson for 2 years.