Bmr31 Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 By the way... Buehrle's numbers are better than Mulder's.... BUEHRLE = 610.0 IP, 3.73 ERA, 42-31, 344 K, 163 BB, 587 H, 1.229 WHIP, 2.110 K/BB MULDER = 691.1 IP, 3.88 ERA, 58-29, 462 K, 201 BB, 684 H, 1.280 WHIP, 2.299 K/BB But I can see how Mulder is a pretty darn good pitcher but Buehrle sucks. Paging the Flat Earth Society.... Id rather have Mulder, but you make an excellent point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Dont know about you but Id take the wins and Ks Mulder would give us. 14 points in ERA is irrelevant. As is .06 in WHIP. And these are career numbers. With this year, Mulder is much more consistently effective than Buehrle is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Wait a sec. The Cards are going to trade us an AS SS and a potentially awesome outfielder for an aging SS hitting .230 and a pitcher whos already lost ten games? Pass the bong please... There is no bong involved....no marijuana, no glue-sniffing, no alcohol, nothing illegal. The Cardinals have very little starting pitching(aside from Morris and Williams), but have a ton of offense. By trading Renteria and Drew, they are trading from something they have a lot of for something they don't have a lot of. It is called dealing from a strength. It is the second smartest way to get something you need in baseball, with the smartest being quanity for quality....trading Jeff Liefer, Rocky Biddle, Antonio Osuna, and Delvis Lantigua for Bartolo Colon falls under that category(or in other words, trading nothing for something). Trading Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, and Sean Lowe for Todd Ritchie does not....that trade falls under the category dumbass. The Cardinals get a SS who hits for power and plays very good fundamental baseball, other then having a bad glove. They get a starting pitcher who has a BRIGHT future ahead of him in Mark Buehrle. The White Sox get a GG SS who is good offensively, but also get a guy in JD Drew who is solid offensively. Atleast the Cards are getting two proven goods....the White Sox are getting 1 very good SS, and 1 player who is injured goods, but if he is ever healthy for a full year and ever figures s*** out, can put up big numbers. If you don't think Walt Jocketty would consider that trade....then I'm going to have to ask you to pass the bong. Also....one thing about what you have just said bugs the hell out of me. a pitcher whos already lost ten games You seem to have forgotten to mention how in the previous two FULL years before this, he won a combined 35 games with an ERA of under 3.50. If you tell me that a combined record of 35-20 with an ERA of under 3.50 sucks, I'm going to have to say that a season of .320 35 130 sucks too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Dont know about you but Id take the wins and Ks Mulder would give us. 14 points in ERA is irrelevant. As is .06 in WHIP. And these are career numbers. With this year, Mulder is much more consistently effective than Buehrle is... Extra wins he'd give us? I have to ask a question that clujer has already asked before....are you truly this stupid or are you just trying to be arrogant? Teams that Mark Mulder has pitched on in the past 3 1/3 years or so have won a combined total of 334 games. Teams that Mark Buehrle has pitched on in that same period of time have won a combined total of 291 games, a difference of 43 wins. What makes you think that Mulder would have won just as many games as he did in Oakland then he would have had he pitched the exact same in Chicago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 But another thing. I never said he sucked last year. In fact, I admitted to crying for him when he failed to win 20. I liked him last year, I really did. But then he had to start talking about St Louis and then he just started sucking and I couldnt put up with him anymore. I realize the whole dealing from strength idea but why would they do it? Buehrle has no future, would YOU want a guy whos on his way to 20 losses? Heck no! And Jose does hit for power but he also has a .230 BA! Thats pathetic. So youd do it and I wouldnt (well, if I was the Cards GM I wouldnt, if I was Kenny Id send Buehrle packing in a heartbeat)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Actually Buehrle is better for wins when you compare his individual W/L % to his team's and compare it against Mulder's... Since both were called up in 2000, the Athletics have gone 335-218 (.606 W%), yet Mulder's W/L % is .598 (-9%). Compare to Buehrle, who's White Sox have goner 294-263 (.525 W%), yet his career percentage is .575% (+50%). Wins and losses are a bad way to evaluate a pitcher taking them out of context of the team. (Also, all numbers are accurate as to June 17, 2003, which hurts Buehrle since he wasn't even around until the end of 2000, when the team played relative .500 baseball, so his number is probably a couple of points higher). Not saying I would definitely pick Mark B. over Mark M., but I think this should point out Roman's baseball intelligence (or lack thereof), if it hasn't been completely obvious yet. Go Sox! Go Mark! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Go Mark! :fyou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Actually Buehrle is better for wins when you compare his individual W/L % to his team's and compare it against Mulder's... Since both were called up in 2000, the Athletics have gone 335-218 (.606 W%), yet Mulder's W/L % is .598 (-9%). Compare to Buehrle, who's White Sox have goner 294-263 (.525 W%), yet his career percentage is .575% (+50%). Wins and losses are a bad way to evaluate a pitcher taking them out of context of the team. (Also, all numbers are accurate as to June 17, 2003, which hurts Buehrle since he wasn't even around until the end of 2000, when the team played relative .500 baseball, so his number is probably a couple of points higher). Not saying I would definitely pick Mark B. over Mark M., but I think this should point out Roman's baseball intelligence (or lack thereof), if it hasn't been completely obvious yet. Go Sox! Go Mark! Stats are fine, but Mulder is a better pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 I could be smart but I dont feel like it. Im actually very smart just dont want to be. I hate Mark Buehrle and right now I just want to shove his crappiness in everyones face... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Actually Buehrle is better for wins when you compare his individual W/L % to his team's and compare it against Mulder's... Since both were called up in 2000, the Athletics have gone 335-218 (.606 W%), yet Mulder's W/L % is .598 (-9%). Compare to Buehrle, who's White Sox have goner 294-263 (.525 W%), yet his career percentage is .575% (+50%). Wins and losses are a bad way to evaluate a pitcher taking them out of context of the team. (Also, all numbers are accurate as to June 17, 2003, which hurts Buehrle since he wasn't even around until the end of 2000, when the team played relative .500 baseball, so his number is probably a couple of points higher). Not saying I would definitely pick Mark B. over Mark M., but I think this should point out Roman's baseball intelligence (or lack thereof), if it hasn't been completely obvious yet. Go Sox! Go Mark! Stats are fine, but Mulder is a better pitcher. Buehrle is as good as pitcher as Mulder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 doub....for what it matters, I got us having a .533 winning percentage in the second half of 2000. If you want to re-evaluate your numbers or not is up to you....just tell you what I got for a number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 doub....for what it matters, I got us having a .533 winning percentage in the second half of 2000. If you want to re-evaluate your numbers or not is up to you....just tell you what I got for a number. Yes, but Mark wasn't called up at the start of the second half... IIRC, his MLB debut was against Anahiem either in late August or the end of the first week in September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Yes, but Mark wasn't called up at the start of the second half... IIRC, his MLB debut was against Anahiem either in late August or the end of the first week in September. I can't personally recall his debut, but I was at his first major league victory. Here's the boxscore Chicago White Sox 3, Minnesota Twins 2 Day Game Played on July 19, 2000 (N) at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome CHI A 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 3 9 2 MIN A 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 - 2 8 1 BATTING Chicago White Sox AB R H RBI BB K PO A Durham 2b 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 Graffanino ss 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 Thomas dh 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Ordonez rf 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Konerko 1b 4 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 Abbott cf 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Singleton ph,cf 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Lee lf 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 Perry 3b 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Fordyce c 4 1 3 1 0 0 7 0 Buehrle p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Simas p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foulke p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals 36 3 9 3 0 5 27 10 FIELDING - E: Durham (12), Graffanino (2). BATTING - 2B: Durham (20,off Milton). HR: Fordyce (4,2nd inning off Milton 0 on, 0 out). Minnesota Twins AB R H RBI BB K PO A Guzman ss 5 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 Hocking cf,2b 5 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 Lawton lf 5 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 Coomer 1b 4 1 2 0 0 0 8 0 Ortiz dh 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Canizaro 2b 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Koskie ph,3b 4 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 Allen rf 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 Jones ph,cf 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Maxwell 3b,2b 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 Cummings ph,rf 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Moeller c 3 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 Jensen ph,c 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wells p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 36 2 8 2 2 7 27 8 FIELDING - DP: 1. E: Guzman (13). BATTING - 2B: Ortiz (17,off Buehrle); Coomer (21,off Buehrle). 3B: Guzman (14,off Buehrle). HBP: Maxwell (1,by Buehrle). PITCHING Chicago White Sox IP H HR R ER BB K Buehrle W(1-0) 7 6 0 2 2 1 5 Simas 0.1 2 0 0 0 0 1 Foulke SV(17) 1.2 0 0 0 0 1 1 Totals 9.0 8 0 2 2 2 7 Minnesota Twins IP H HR R ER BB K Milton L(8-6) 7 9 1 3 3 0 5 Wells 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 9 9 1 3 3 0 5 HBP: Buehrle (1,Maxwell). Umpires: Phil Cuzzi, Paul Schrieber, Tim McClelland, Terry Craft Time of Game: 2:46 Attendance: 12494 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 I could be smart but I dont feel like it. Im actually very smart just dont want to be. I hate Mark Buehrle and right now I just want to shove his crappiness in everyones face... What you are shoving in everyone's face is your own misguided, idiotic lunacy. Sometimes it's better to say nothing and appear foolish, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 People have many different reasons to dislike players. Frank Thomas has arguably had a HOF career, yet people don't like him because of his yap. PK was an All-Star last year and has typically been a .285-25-90 player, yet people have no problem accepting the fact that he blows this year and should be gone. Why is MB immune to this phenomenon? Certainly he's said things off the field and performed poorly enough on the field to merit some enmity. I don't know if it's just because some people have gone entirely too far, but let MB take some of the written beatings he so richly deserves. He's no less deserving than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfaninbeverly Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Konerko has shown us once again what comes around, goes around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfaninbeverly Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 What you are shoving in everyone's face is your own misguided, idiotic lunacy. Sometimes it's better to say nothing and appear foolish, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. well put, YANSY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 You know what. I have been too hard on MB. I should lighten up, after all he did give us two pretty good seasons. I still dont like him for all his St Louis complaints, and I think if he keeps up this mediocre pitching, we should trade him while we still can, but I do wish him the best. Hopefully he can pull out of this slump. However, if he continues this way, I hope KW does not hesitate to trade him for prospects... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Pk has regressed worse than anyone I have seen in a year time something is really strange about whole deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 You know what. I have been too hard on MB. I should lighten up, after all he did give us two pretty good seasons. I still dont like him for all his St Louis complaints, and I think if he keeps up this mediocre pitching, we should trade him while we still can, but I do wish him the best. Hopefully he can pull out of this slump. However, if he continues this way, I hope KW does not hesitate to trade him for prospects... Sounds like you are starting to come around roman. Keep in mind that "all his St. Louis comments" consisted of two off the cuff comments at a sports writer's banquet IN St. Louis. I think he should be a bit more careful about what he says myself and I didn't agree with his latest comments, but I don't think he should be crucified either. The St. Louis comments, however questionable they may have been in judgement, are harmless because he is with the Sox through 2006 anyway. I know Mark enough to know that I can guarantee he would never let the idea of pitching in another city years down the road affect what he is doing now. I think he recent comments, although misguided, should be taken with a grain of salt since they were made out of frustration. As long as those type of comments don't become the norm, then I don't see a problem with Mark at all. I do think that Mark got screwed up in the head and that has been the bulk of his problems. The lack of run support and defense has made him change the way he pitches and that has snowballed. A guy like Mark, without overpowering stuff, has to be precise. Anyone that has ever pitched before knows that to be precise you have to be confident and be able to let it fly without reservations. If you try to guide or aim the ball, you will get nothing but bad results. I think Mark has lost confidence and subconsciously started aiming the ball, trying to be too perfect. It has resulted in more walks and more hittable pitches and teams have taken advantage. As Mark (and perhaps he already has) regains his confidence and can go out there and just throw like he can without anything else affecting his brain, then he'll be fine. The athlete's psyche is very fragile and anything from a lack of run support, to bad defense, to making a couple of s***ty pitches, to getting hit hard, to the burden of being an ace can screw things up when he is not going well. Most of the time the athlete doesn't even realize this whole process is happening and then, when he does, he finds that trying too hard to correct can magnify it, rather than fix it. In the end, I think you will see Mark be a solid pitcher for the Sox. Is he a potential 20-game winner every year? Maybe not Is he worth Zito type money? Probably not But I think Sox fans will be proud to have MB having been a pitcher for the White Sox when all is said and done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 ok so how did this go from bashing on paulies s***ty playing to being all about mark...........damn stick to the subject for once will ya guys.............. i have to agree with the writer of the article and say that paulie does in fact suck this year......its sad even watching him come to the plate... hes cut out half of his ritual and just gets up there and whiffs..........depressing.. simply depressing........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LauraJ14 Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Konerko has only struck out 23 times this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxRule Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Konerko gets booed after just about every plate appearance but you don't see him making stupid comments like "These fans must not know anything about baseball.....I'm trying real hard up there." I believe Paulie will turn it around and will always support him. I'm sure everyone here loved him last year when he was almost single-handedly winning games for us. Sure, he tailed off in the 2nd half but he did have an injury that contributed to that. This is the first year he's really off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Konerko has only struck out 23 times this year. That's true - what he seems to do A LOT is ground the ball weakly to second, flip his bat in disgust, shake his head dejectedly and trot down the first base line just in case the second baseman's arms fall off. It is truly amazing how PK's numbers ( and apparently his confidence ) just fell off the edge of a cliff around the All Star break last year. I honestly cannot recall anyone plummetting faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Mark Wohlers? Rick Ankiel? John Rocker? All pitchers yes, but I believe their descent was as fast as is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.