Warren Brusstar

Way to slay the strawman. Care to link me to a single post in the history of this board where someone opined that experience is irrelevant? All other things being equal, I'll take the more experienced guy. But major league baseball teams generally overemphasize "experience." So when there's actually a decision between an experienced guy and an inexpercinced guy, rarely are "all other things equal." (If they were, the inexperienced guy wouldn't even be considered) And I'll take the more talented, inexperienced guy every.single.time.

Actually, I think you should try to have a little fun and not take things so seriously.

It can be changed with each step: division, championship series, world series. No. That's just flat wrong.

Yes. Typo.

What makes you think it will be announced at 4? In Olney's chat today, he said he got an email from an MLB exec stating that game times would be announced by 4 PM EST. (It's not 4:15 EST)

I have the same feeling, and it pissees me off. If Monroe isn't the starting CF v. LHP, he's pointless.

sample size :lol: LOL

this team is far superior to 98. that teams pitching was total crap, and it's offense one guy. they are also facing a much lesser opponent, than that 1998 team. I think this team is about as good as the 1989 team, but again, they will be facing a lesser team. the 'lesser' is not meant to detract from the DBacks. that 98 Braves team was incredible, and the 89 Giants were very very good. In case anyone has forgotten how bad that rotation was in '98, let me remind you that Mark Clark started game 1 of the NLDS. Their only halfway decent pitcher, Kevin Tapani, almost stole game 2 and then they brought back Kerry Wood with his elbow held together most likely with duct tape because even by game 3 they had no one else halfway decent to throw out there. Yeah. Wood was the only pitcher on the staff with an ERA+ over 100. Having said that, Tapani's ERA that year is a little misleading because he had games in which he allowed 7, 8, and 9 earned runs.

this team is far superior to 98. that teams pitching was total crap, and it's offense one guy. they are also facing a much lesser opponent, than that 1998 team. I think this team is about as good as the 1989 team, but again, they will be facing a lesser team. the 'lesser' is not meant to detract from the DBacks. that 98 Braves team was incredible, and the 89 Giants were very very good. The pitching on this year's team is clearly better. You're underrating the '98 team offensively. FWIW, team OPS+: '98 Cubs 104 '07 Cubs 97

The key will be not letting Z throw too many pitches in Game 1 (Dusty Baker just fainted BTW) if it's not necessary. Get him out of there with under 100 pitches if it's possible that way if we need him to go in Game 4, he won't be gassed. If they think Z can go on three days rest in Game 4, there's no reason for Marquis to be on the roster for this series. Lilly would still have four days rest for Game 5

No.

You're still missing a pretty important guy. Think crazy.

Since Arizona has a bunch of speed, I'm guessing Soto does get the start. There's more there too. Basically, Lou said that Murton will play RF and Jones CF v. Davis in Game 2.

Like I said, people always look for reasons why a certain team may be an exception. I look at that lineup and pitching staff, and I don't see a 90 win team. I look at their overall numbers, I don't see a 90 win team. Then I see the run differential, and I sure as hell don't see a 90 win team. Pythag wins has proven to be a pretty good metric time and again. Does anyone really think the D'Backs would win 90 games if they played 162 games again? Or, better yet, does anyone think they'll win 90 games next year if they trot out that same team? Maybe if the young players continue to make strides..but certainly not at the level they performed at this year. another stat (god forbid I "defend" them): 1-run games: 32-19, but only a +13 run differential blowouts (5+ runs): 20-26, with a -62 run differential in other words, their bullpen really helped them in 1-run games, as they won way more than they should have given the differential. there's something to be said about a bullpen that good, however By definition, a team that is 13 games over .500 in one games is going to have a +13 run differential in those games. So I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

How many months of premium are you willing to bet on that? None. I'm not really interested in making bets this postseason, I just want to enjoy the ride. After looking at the Diamondbacks roster and the pitching matchups, how can you not see a sweep? The only game that we might not win is the first one, just because Webb is so good. But with the way Sori, Lee, and Ramirez are hitting, I think we'll take that one too. We should easily win game two with Lilly going against Davis. And Livan Hernandez just isn't a good pitcher at all, so if Rich has his curveball going on Saturday, that should be an easy victory. I could be wrong, maybe it will take four games to win the series, but I think we're going to sweep. The DBacks just aren't that good. Can I see it? Sure. But the sample size is so small that this thing could go either way pretty easily. In any event, I'm glad we're playing the D'backs and not the Phillies.

My guess is that the first two days will go like this: Weds, October 3rd: 12:30 Rockies/Padres @ Phillies 4:00 Red Sox @ Angels 7:30 Cubs @ D'Backs Thurs, October 4th: 2:30 Rockies/Padres @ Phillies 6:30 Yankees @ Indians 9:30 Cubs @ D'Backs That's the most ratings friendly schedule given where the series are being played. + 1 (maybe switch the BOS/LAA and CHC/ARI games around on Wednesday, but otherwise, looks about perfect from this angle) Exactly what I was thinking... although will MLB be hesitant to put the Rockies/Padres in the 1st game considering they have to play tomorrow? I see your reason for hesitation, but would you punish either of BOS/LAA or CHC/ARI by having them start at 10:30a locally?? Its a bind, but the only thing makes sense is to make the SD (or COL)/PHI series kick it off; it'd be 1:30p local time in Philly. Moreover, I suspect the Cubs/D'backs is a better TV draw than the Red Sox/Angels. I'm not sure about that... I think the Cubs & Red Sox are pretty much a wash, but the Angels will draw more viewers than the Dbacks. It could go either way though. In 2003, the networks went out of their way to get every Cubs game in primetime, even moving the Yankees to a day game. There's a reason for that. The Cubs are a HUGE draw in the playoffs

It all depends if the team wants to go with 4 starters or not. If there's only 3, they won't put Marquis on as a reliever. If 4, he'll be the 4th guy. Remember also that the roster can change from round to round so if the Cubs want to use 4 starters in one round and then 3 the next, they always could bring Marquis for one series and leave him off of another. I was going to say the same thing. If Lou chooses to us a four man rotation, who do you start for Game 4 if it's not Marquis? Steve Traschel? Basically what the decision is going to come down to for Lou is who he thinks will be more effective in Game 4: Z on 3 days rest or Marquis/Traschel/?. Why does everyone forget about Sean Marshall? I would definitely choose him over Marquis or Trachsel. Exactly!!!!! Free Marshall So would I, but I highly doubt he's being seriously considered. The Cubs preferred to start the corpse of Steve Trachsel over Marshall down the stretch. I doubt they're suddenly going to give him a playoff start.

My guess is that the first two days will go like this: Weds, October 3rd: 12:30 Rockies/Padres @ Phillies 4:00 Red Sox @ Angels 7:30 Cubs @ D'Backs Thurs, October 4th: 2:30 Rockies/Padres @ Phillies 6:30 Yankees @ Indians 9:30 Cubs @ D'Backs That's the most ratings friendly schedule given where the series are being played. + 1 (maybe switch the BOS/LAA and CHC/ARI games around on Wednesday, but otherwise, looks about perfect from this angle) Exactly what I was thinking... although will MLB be hesitant to put the Rockies/Padres in the 1st game considering they have to play tomorrow? I see your reason for hesitation, but would you punish either of BOS/LAA or CHC/ARI by having them start at 10:30a locally?? Its a bind, but the only thing makes sense is to make the SD (or COL)/PHI series kick it off; it'd be 1:30p local time in Philly. Moreover, I suspect the Cubs/D'backs is a better TV draw than the Red Sox/Angels.

My guess is that the first two days will go like this: Weds, October 3rd: 12:30 Rockies/Padres @ Phillies 4:00 Red Sox @ Angels 7:30 Cubs @ D'Backs Thurs, October 4th: 2:30 Rockies/Padres @ Phillies 6:30 Yankees @ Indians 9:30 Cubs @ D'Backs That's the most ratings friendly schedule given where the series are being played. + 1 (maybe switch the BOS/LAA and CHC/ARI games around on Wednesday, but otherwise, looks about perfect from this angle) Exactly what I was thinking... although will MLB be hesitant to put the Rockies/Padres in the 1st game considering they have to play tomorrow? I doubt it. They've got a full day off in between.

My guess is that the first two days will go like this: Weds, October 3rd: 12:30 Rockies/Padres @ Phillies 4:00 Red Sox @ Angels 7:30 Cubs @ D'Backs Thurs, October 4th: 2:30 Rockies/Padres @ Phillies 6:30 Yankees @ Indians 9:30 Cubs @ D'Backs That's the most ratings friendly schedule given where the series are being played.

You might just get your wish. Padres are getting blown out by the Brewers. Just need Colorado to win today and then tomorrow in the playoff. It's probably Peavy v. Josh Fogg (unless they use Morales on three days' rest) :shock:

Yeah. Let's not look at splits at all because it's "intentionally shrinking the sample size". So when Lou makes his lineup out he should just put the best OPS guys in the lineup and not look up lefty/righty splits (based on the opponent's starting pitcher) because using the lefty/righty splits would be "intentionally shrinking the sample size". That makes sense. Where did I say to ignore splits? There's a reason why a hitter or pitcher would peform differently v. lefties or righties. There's absolutely no reason to explain why Dempster would perform differently in the 9th or 10th inning of a tie game than he would in the 9th inning with a one run lead. And you've yet to provide one. (Because, of course, there isn't one) Again, it just isn't the case that Dempster's poor performances have come in meaningless games that can be explained away by poor focus, etc. They've all come (except one) in extremely high leverage spots. It's simply nonsensical to ignore those games and focus only a subset of full performance record. Because it would be "Intentionally shrinking the sample size". You're ignoring the rest of the sentence. There's good reason to intentionally shrink the sample size to focus on splits; players perform materially different v. LHP than they do v. RHP. There isn't any good reason to focus and "save situations" and ignore other equally important, high leverage spots. There just isn't. It's like focusing on a player's performance with a full moon.

Assuming the Mets lose, a Rockies win + a Padres loss results in a one game playoff on Monday between the Padres and Rockies.

Yeah. Let's not look at splits at all because it's "intentionally shrinking the sample size". So when Lou makes his lineup out he should just put the best OPS guys in the lineup and not look up lefty/righty splits (based on the opponent's starting pitcher) because using the lefty/righty splits would be "intentionally shrinking the sample size". That makes sense. Where did I say to ignore splits? There's a reason why a hitter or pitcher would peform differently v. lefties or righties. There's absolutely no reason to explain why Dempster would perform differently in the 9th or 10th inning of a tie game than he would in the 9th inning with a one run lead. And you've yet to provide one. (Because, of course, there isn't one) Again, it just isn't the case that Dempster's poor performances have come in meaningless games that can be explained away by poor focus, etc. They've all come (except one) in extremely high leverage spots. It's simply nonsensical to ignore those games and focus only a subset of full performance record.

I'm sorry for having a correct opinion that people don't want to hear.