Warren Brusstar

I would hope that nobody is rooting against these kids. From the guy who can't wait to run over to NSBB and update everyone on Murton's, Patterson's, and Gallagher's struggles, that's rich. All he seems to be doing is reporting on how they are doing. He can't make them be successful. He didn't provide game-by-game updates on Gallagher during his first four starts. We did hear all about Murton's struggles during that time frame. And Patterson's. The first peep we heard from Pman about Gallagher was after he started struggling -- and all of sudden Peoriaman was all over him too. Excuse me if I think his suggestion that he "would hope that nobody is rooting against these kids" is disingenous.

I would hope that nobody is rooting against these kids. From the guy who can't wait to run over to NSBB and update everyone on Murton's, Patterson's, and Gallagher's struggles, that's rich.

Highly unlikely. They would need to have a lead of more than 10 games for that to be a meaningless game. I think a reasonable goal is to clinch near the end of the Cardinals series that follows.

Setting aside the fact that I don't know of any poster here that refers to him or herself as a SABR expert, I don't know any SABR expert that would look solely at OPS, let alone OPS w/ RISP, and make an absolute statement about which player has been more valuable in one season. Meh. I'm dumbing down the analysis. The point, of course, is that while performance in "clutch" situations has no predictive value, it absolutely does and should value when voting on things like the MVP award.

So-called sabr experts here who don't understand that while certain statistics (performance with men in scoring position, for example) have absolutely no predictive value, they have substantial retrospective value. Example: Player A has a career OPS of .700, a 2008 OPS of .800, and a 2008 OPS with men in scoring position of 1.100 Player B has a career OPS of .900, a 2008 OPS of .810, and a 2008 OPS with men in scoring position of .650. 1. Prospectively, I'll take Player B. He's the better bet going forward. 2. Retrospectively, there is absolutely no doubt that Player A has been more valuable in 2008. Many so-called SABR experts understand #1, but utterly refuse to acknowledge #2.

Kenny Williams has a great case too. Signed Linebrink and Dotel to make one of the worst bullpens in baseball in '07 a strength. Stole Carlos Quentin from the D'backs. Signed Alexei Ramirez for chump change. (The Swisher and Cabrera trades are probably neutral)

You sure about that, Clark? Pirates v. the Cubs: 4-9 Pirates v. everyone else in the NL: 41-40

Effing Rothschild! Screwing up Hill's mechanics from 1500 miles away!

Yeah, I think most people knew about the Chris/Christina thing, but I was surprised to learn that Silver is basically the CEO of BP. I was just under the impression that he did PECOTA and Lies, Damned Lies. He kinda seemed like a hired gun whos there pretty much just for the projection system, but pretty impressive that he runs the show as well. I was interested to learn that as well. I had been under the impression that Sheehan and Carroll were the primary guys.

Re Kahrl, yes.

Try perfect game Sorry, sportsline has the cubs down for an error I still don't think the pitcher should be punished for an error made by one of his fielders. Nine innings of no walks and no hits equals perfect game to me. Aram had an error in the first, but Keppinger was thrown out stealing.

Yes, but Fontenot would probably not put up those numbers as a starter. It always amuses me that NSBB favorites (i.e. Murton) are obviously impacted negatively by not playing better every day (and thus their numbers should be ignored), but players that are competing with NSBB (i.e. Fontenot with Cedeno) would obviously falter if given a chance to play everyday.

"ISONewSinglesHittingButcher"

It's exteremly tough to find that kind of data at rookie league games - MiLB.com lists it in their box scores for AAA and there are announcers and many fans at games at other levels who could keep track of that but that doesn't happen in the AZL. That info would have to come from the coaching staff, probably into a local Chicago rag's story on Hill. Or maybe AZPhil at the Cub Reporter could provide it, had he taken note of it. AZ Phil does a pretty good job reporting on such things. How do you know that? i'm assuming he can count. Have there been previous instances in which AZPhil has provided pitch counts? Was Vance there to validate the accuracy of the pitch counts? It just seems like an odd thing to say someone is good at. and i thought your previous arguments in this thread were pointless. Ditto, tough guy.

It's exteremly tough to find that kind of data at rookie league games - MiLB.com lists it in their box scores for AAA and there are announcers and many fans at games at other levels who could keep track of that but that doesn't happen in the AZL. That info would have to come from the coaching staff, probably into a local Chicago rag's story on Hill. Or maybe AZPhil at the Cub Reporter could provide it, had he taken note of it. AZ Phil does a pretty good job reporting on such things. How do you know that? i'm assuming he can count. Have there been previous instances in which AZPhil has provided pitch counts? Was Vance there to validate the accuracy of the pitch counts? It just seems like an odd thing to say someone is good at.

It's exteremly tough to find that kind of data at rookie league games - MiLB.com lists it in their box scores for AAA and there are announcers and many fans at games at other levels who could keep track of that but that doesn't happen in the AZL. That info would have to come from the coaching staff, probably into a local Chicago rag's story on Hill. Or maybe AZPhil at the Cub Reporter could provide it, had he taken note of it. AZ Phil does a pretty good job reporting on such things. How do you know that?

and i never said that. and it's not a meaningful analogy for the reasons i pointed out above. i've argued with lots of people about rich hill over the years, and, i have to say, you are one of the worst. and that's saying something. Awesome. Thanks for the personal attack. In kind, I take it as a compliment that one of Desipio's most oft-whipped NSBB posters doesn't like me. Question: Does the Triple A coach also suck for not fixing Rich?

How do you know this? Pitching coaches work with their pitchers on mechanics on a weekly basis. How do you know what Duncan was or wasn't telling Ankiel. Ankiel's collapse began during the playoffs. Do you think they were changing Ankiel's mechanics during the playoffs? It's certainly possible. I don't know one way or the other. (Nor do you) If a pitcher has a bad inning during the playoffs, do you think his pitching coach says NOTHING to him about his mechanics?

Your continued implication that none of this is Rich Hill's fault (and that big bad Lou Piniella and Larry Rothschild ruined poor Rich) is maddening. where did i say that none of this was hill's fault? clearly the problem snowballed and became mental when his mechanics got out of whack, and i'm sure a lot of that was hill's "fault." and i'm sorry i'm causing you so much mental distress. but if this whole ordeal doesn't make you question rothschild's competence, i don't know what to tell you. Was Rick Ankiel's meltdown Dave Duncan's fault? Is he incompetent too? no one was able to subsequently fix ankiel. Rich Hill is fixed? Wow. Talk about overreacting to a second-hand report from a rookie league game. he's certainly making vast improvments, which is more than he ever did under rothschild. Well, you've been hammering Larry Rothschild for screwing up Hill for months, long before Rich Hill had his single good performance against 18 year old rookie leaguers. Obviously your opinion doesn't depend on whether Hill *can* be fixed; you had blamed Rothschild before Hill made any progress at all. With that framework, is it Dave Duncan's fault that Rick Ankiel imploded? FOR THE 20TH TIME: NOT THE SAME FREAKING THING. I'm sorry that you don't like the answer, but it's a meaningful analogy and shows how absurd your argument is. Should Larry Rothschild share some of the blame? Of course. But the notion that poor Rich Hill would be mowing down majoe league hitters right now if Rothschild hadn't forced him to become bad is laughable.

How do you know this? Pitching coaches work with their pitchers on mechanics on a weekly basis. How do you know what Duncan was or wasn't telling Ankiel.

Your continued implication that none of this is Rich Hill's fault (and that big bad Lou Piniella and Larry Rothschild ruined poor Rich) is maddening. where did i say that none of this was hill's fault? clearly the problem snowballed and became mental when his mechanics got out of whack, and i'm sure a lot of that was hill's "fault." and i'm sorry i'm causing you so much mental distress. but if this whole ordeal doesn't make you question rothschild's competence, i don't know what to tell you. Was Rick Ankiel's meltdown Dave Duncan's fault? Is he incompetent too? no one was able to subsequently fix ankiel. Rich Hill is fixed? Wow. Talk about overreacting to a second-hand report from a rookie league game. he's certainly making vast improvments, which is more than he ever did under rothschild. Well, you've been hammering Larry Rothschild for screwing up Hill for months, long before Rich Hill had his single good performance against 18 year old rookie leaguers. Obviously your opinion doesn't depend on whether Hill *can* be fixed; you had blamed Rothschild before Hill made any progress at all. With that framework, is it Dave Duncan's fault that Rick Ankiel imploded?

If Rothschild gets the blame for Hill, does he get the credit for Dempster? how are those two even related? and anyway, dempster has had periods of success before. but i don't care if you want to give rothschild some credit for him. go nuts. doesn't change how he apparently whiffed on hill. I'm trying to keep up with this moving target so bear with me. Is Rothschild incompetent (in your view) because he "screwed up" Hill or because he couldn't fix him? You've seemingly taken the position that it's the latter because you're unwilling to blame Dave Duncan for Rick Ankiel's meltdown. Have I got that right?

Your continued implication that none of this is Rich Hill's fault (and that big bad Lou Piniella and Larry Rothschild ruined poor Rich) is maddening. where did i say that none of this was hill's fault? clearly the problem snowballed and became mental when his mechanics got out of whack, and i'm sure a lot of that was hill's "fault." and i'm sorry i'm causing you so much mental distress. but if this whole ordeal doesn't make you question rothschild's competence, i don't know what to tell you. Was Rick Ankiel's meltdown Dave Duncan's fault? Is he incompetent too? no one was able to subsequently fix ankiel. Rich Hill is fixed? Wow. Talk about overreacting to a second-hand report from a rookie league game.

Your continued implication that none of this is Rich Hill's fault (and that big bad Lou Piniella and Larry Rothschild ruined poor Rich) is maddening. where did i say that none of this was hill's fault? clearly the problem snowballed and became mental when his mechanics got out of whack, and i'm sure a lot of that was hill's "fault." and i'm sorry i'm causing you so much mental distress. but if this whole ordeal doesn't make you question rothschild's competence, i don't know what to tell you. Was Rick Ankiel's meltdown Dave Duncan's fault? Is he incompetent too?

Your continued implication that none of this is Rich Hill's fault (and that big bad Lou Piniella and Larry Rothschild ruined poor Rich) is maddening.