Mizzou

Guys, you can also just copy and paste the address into a new window.

Where do you go to get into the virtual waiting room? Or do you just have to click on the game you want on the schedule?

God I can't believe I'm up this early on a Friday. I'll be happy if I simply get tickets to one Cubs-Cards game, but I'm hoping for much more.

Definitely Lee then Ramirez. I think Jones will start the year hitting 5th. After he sucks for two months, Baker will move Murton there.

I love this thread.

Do they not consider Murton a prospect, or are they just not that fond of him?

I love watching Big Z pitch, but after Google guided me to the beauty of the Dahm triplets, I'd have to say I'd choose them, without a doubt.

I know ERA+ accounts for park factor, but does it account for leagues too? Even if not, the difference is still huge. Maddux has a 140 point edge in ERA+ in both 94 and 95. His edge in 96 was about 40 points. 97 and 98 each player had about a 30 point edge one year, so we can toss that out. Then in 99, Pedro had about a 120 point edge. I don't know if this is entirely illogical, but... through those years, that gives Maddux a cumulative edge of about 200 points in ERA+.

Pedro Martinez was hands down, the best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not even close. Look at his numbers in that decade. I don't think that's true. I think Maddux was much better in the 90's. Pedro didn't become a starter until 1994, as well. I don't know, for me, after looking at their stats, it's almost too close to call. Pedro became a starter in 1994, so let's compare the two's ERA+ year-by-year. Year - Maddux - Pedro 1994 - 273 - 123 1995 - 259 - 120 1996 - 162 - 117 1997 - 191 - 221 1998 - 191 - 160 1999 - 122 - 245 Personally, I'd give the edge to Maddux. He was by far the better pitcher two of the six years, a good amount better in two of the four years, and Pedro was by far better one year and marginally better the 6th year. Look at their respective peaks and tell me who was better... Well, we were talking about best pitcher of the 90's, so I only used Maddux's numbers beginning with the time Pedro became a starter. But if you want to look at the whole decade, Maddux was real good in 90 and 91 and great in 92 and 93. I'd say Greg would get the award for pitcher of the decade. In response to your edit... I wont argue that Maddux was better through the late 90's and into the 2000's. He was the best pitcher of the 90's though, IMO.

Pedro Martinez was hands down, the best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not even close. Look at his numbers in that decade. I don't think that's true. I think Maddux was much better in the 90's. Pedro didn't become a starter until 1994, as well. I don't know, for me, after looking at their stats, it's almost too close to call. Pedro became a starter in 1994, so let's compare the two's ERA+ year-by-year. Year - Maddux - Pedro 1994 - 273 - 123 1995 - 259 - 120 1996 - 162 - 117 1997 - 191 - 221 1998 - 191 - 160 1999 - 122 - 245 Personally, I'd give the edge to Maddux. He was by far the better pitcher two of the six years, a good amount better in two of the four years, and Pedro was by far better one year and marginally better the 6th year. Edit: Also, a quick look appears that Greg's K:BB ratio was about 7:1 during those years and Pedro's was around 5:1. Edit again: Looks like Greg had the better WHIP too. Yeah, I'd definitely say that Maddux was the best pitcher of the 90's.

Pedro Martinez was hands down, the best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not even close. Look at his numbers in that decade. I don't think that's true. I think Maddux was much better in the 90's. Pedro didn't become a starter until 1994, as well.

I'm surprised that there was virtually zero interest in him all offseason.

I'm going for tickets to the April 8th game against the Cards. After that, I'll try for one of weekend July games against St. Louis. If both of those fail, I'll settle for any random weekend game during the first two months.

What happened to the picture of the girl and the bong that you just posted?

Three year splits aren't really valid in this instance because Crawford has significantly improved each of the last three years, while Patterson has gotten much worse in his last three years. So three year splits are very misleading. You're probably right in that it would cost too much to get Crawford, but to even place him in the same sentence as Patterson in terms of comparison is way off IMO.

:shock: Crawford is a WHOLE lot better than CPat. From an offensive standpoint, Crawford is to Patterson, as Miguel Tejada is to Neifi. Regarding the original topic of the thread, I don't see Hendry doing it. I'd be pretty pissed if he did.

What an attention whore.

Agreed. I hate it when people overreact like this.

Damon reported to NY camp early too. I think a lot of players on new teams do this.

Anyone have a breakdown of the numbers?

Sure it is. To use an extreme example, if they raise the mound 5 inches next year, and only two players hit above .250, wouldn't it be a great year if you hit .255, even if you averaged .300 prior to that? Obviously there's no one thing to point to, nor is the change that drastic, but with steroid testing and other factors, offense was down this year. Comparatively speaking, Tejada was better in '05 than in '04. I don't buy that. In 2004, he had more HR's, RBI's, Runs, Hits, total bases, Walks, fewer K's, a higher average, higher OBP, and a higher SLG. He was better in 04. If you want to factor in the rest of the league, then maybe he was relatively better in 05. But he was better in 04.

2004 was a career year for Tejada. OPS+ is good for comparing different eras, but I don't think it's useful in comparing a player's consecutive seasons.

The fact that I didn't even know that they played today speaks volumes about how crappy this team is right now.

Wait... are you saying it's not his fault that he gets injured all the time? how would it be his fault? if his mechanics are causing the injuries, it is the job of the coaching and training staff to fix it. that's not the responsibility of a 25 year old who has never coached nor gone to college. if rothschild came out and said 'we've been telling him to change his motion for three years, and he refuses to make adjustments' then that would be wood's fault. but that apparently isn't the case. why would kerry be asked to do the job of the pitching coach and the trainer? Do you really think that no coaches, trainers, or doctors have talked to Kerry and gave recommendations as to how to not get hurt every two weeks? I think it's pretty safe to assume that Kerry has been given plenty of advice over the past few years. It's his own fault that he hasn't followed it. safe to assume? you have NO evidence whatsoever that wood has been given instruction and refused to follow it. with the way the cubs have been willing to throw their own under the bus lately, do you really think they'd have missed a chance to wash their hands of responsibility for wood's injuries? give me a break. if he was so uncoachable and difficult, why'd they give him a three year extension? I think you need to slow down and read my post again. I never said he was uncoachable or difficult. And I didn't say it was safe to assume he refused to do anything. I did say that it was safe to assume that his coaches had given him plenty of advice. And it is. That's their job.

I'm interested, sign me up.