07-26-2010, 10:32 PM
<!--quoteo(post=108076:date=Jul 26 2010, 04:21 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 26 2010, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now you can argue with Hendry's evaluation of Zambrano's last 50 starts...To make a long story longer, you keep complaining because you feel that they yanked Zambrano after 4 bad starts, but that is pretty much the antithesis of what the Cubs did.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we're talking long view and we're really looking at last 50 starts, then you have to evaluate Zambrano's last 50 starts compared to Silva and Gorz's last 50 starts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you don't. Your complaint, the only reason why it's so insane that they took Zambrano out of the rotation, was because they only looked at the last 4 starts. They weren't looking at his history. That is not what they did. They very explicitly took his recent history into account. Therefore, if you complain that they shouldn't only be looking at the last 4 games, they weren't. If you are arguing they didn't take history into account, they did.
Now, the idea that, since the Cubs were prudent enough to take Zambrano's entire body of work over the last 2 years into account when they made this decision (which is, by the way, EXACTLY what you asked them to do), that they now have to take EVERYONE'S body of work over the last 2 years into account, is silly. Of course they don't. If Zambrano had been out of his head for the last 4 starts, the other 46 starts wouldn't have made a difference. Those average to bad 4 starts, IN ADDITION to mediocre to below average production over the last 2 years, is the reason they picked Zambrano. This was also combined with the fact that the other 4 pitchers were pitching MILES better than Zambrano at the time.
The only reason to NOT take Zambrano out of the rotation would be if his body of recent work showed he was good enough to ignore his slow start to 2010. According to the Cubs, it didn't.
If we're talking long view and we're really looking at last 50 starts, then you have to evaluate Zambrano's last 50 starts compared to Silva and Gorz's last 50 starts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you don't. Your complaint, the only reason why it's so insane that they took Zambrano out of the rotation, was because they only looked at the last 4 starts. They weren't looking at his history. That is not what they did. They very explicitly took his recent history into account. Therefore, if you complain that they shouldn't only be looking at the last 4 games, they weren't. If you are arguing they didn't take history into account, they did.
Now, the idea that, since the Cubs were prudent enough to take Zambrano's entire body of work over the last 2 years into account when they made this decision (which is, by the way, EXACTLY what you asked them to do), that they now have to take EVERYONE'S body of work over the last 2 years into account, is silly. Of course they don't. If Zambrano had been out of his head for the last 4 starts, the other 46 starts wouldn't have made a difference. Those average to bad 4 starts, IN ADDITION to mediocre to below average production over the last 2 years, is the reason they picked Zambrano. This was also combined with the fact that the other 4 pitchers were pitching MILES better than Zambrano at the time.
The only reason to NOT take Zambrano out of the rotation would be if his body of recent work showed he was good enough to ignore his slow start to 2010. According to the Cubs, it didn't.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.