Transmogrified Tiger

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.

So your statement is that the 03' Cubs, mid-90s Yanks, 03' Fish, and 04' Red Sox succesful playoff runs did not rely on or have anything to do with very good pitching and nearly error-free defense. I am sorry, but if that is your point, than I completely disagree. No, I'm not saying that they didn't do any of those things. I specifically mentioned before that quote that I was talking about Guillen's out-wasting antics on offense. Smartball is stupid, and I hate that it's receiving praise for relying on an unreal pitching staff to have success. I wish the Cubs had some 'smartball' in 2006 and so do you. Listen to many of the yahoos who don't want to trade Wood, CPat or anybody else. They want Dusty, Rothschild and Hendry back no matter what. For what? Another year of frustration. None of those things(sans Dusty, who I want fired) have anything to do with "Smartball". I certainly do not wish that the Cubs lose outs and possibly games because an overbearing manager thinks that he has to make things happen by bunting and stealing bases at a manic and wasteful pace.

Exactly my sentiment.

So your statement is that the 03' Cubs, mid-90s Yanks, 03' Fish, and 04' Red Sox succesful playoff runs did not rely on or have anything to do with very good pitching and nearly error-free defense. I am sorry, but if that is your point, than I completely disagree. No, I'm not saying that they didn't do any of those things. I specifically mentioned before that quote that I was talking about Guillen's out-wasting antics on offense. Smartball is stupid, and I hate that it's receiving praise for relying on an unreal pitching staff to have success.

No. Well, yes, but the team hasn't come close to playing a good full 4 quarters since week 1 against Ohio. The good thing is that since the secondary is going to give up big plays no matter what, they've vowed to at least be more physical. They really beat the snot out of some of the Purdue receivers. Of course, Stanton is actually a good QB, so that kinda changes things. But this offense can certainly compete with anyone in the Big Ten. Then again, just about anything can happen in the Big Ten this year. We should lose this week and again at Ohio State, but I don't see any reason why this team can't beat both Michigan and Iowa at home and Illinois on the road to finish 7-4 and 5-3 in the Big Ten. Of course, we're still just as likely to finish 4-7. Michigan State will win 87-84. Two crazy good offenses versus two crazy bad defenses.

Yes, more rumors with Milton Bradley please. After Giles, he's number one on the list.

Dusty doesn't do that every time. He's done it before sure, but it's not even close to the scale in which Guillen wastes outs.

I wish the Cubs could play this brand of baseball well enough to make it to the World Series. I am NOT advocating small ball, but if the Cubs went that route, and made it to the WS, then hooray hooray! I agree that I'd take it any way I get it, but when it's not us then it really upsets me because it gets celebrated. Now that's sour grapes. They are winning the same way the Cubs did on 03': great pitching, "timely" hitting, good defense. Funny, but that's how the best Yankee teams won (see: Brosius, Scott and O'neil, Paul), how the 03' Marlins won, how last year's Red Sox won...are we seeing a pattern here? Baseball isn't all about stats: sometimes things just have to go your way. Frustrating, but true. No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Guillen's obsession with wastes like sac bunts and excessive SB attempts, or "Grinderball". It's stupid baseball, and it's part of the reason they didn't score as many runs as it is. Any postseason success shouldn't change this fact. I'm not talking about pitching and defense. It most certainly isn't the way the Cubs won in '03, and not the way any of the teams you mentioned did it either.

I wish the Cubs could play this brand of baseball well enough to make it to the World Series. I am NOT advocating small ball, but if the Cubs went that route, and made it to the WS, then hooray hooray! I agree that I'd take it any way I get it, but when it's not us then it really upsets me because it gets celebrated.