Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Bucky Rules

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    415

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

News

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Bucky Rules

  1. Bucky Rules
    No... that would be a level of acceptability. Not bad, not good --- but mediocre. You have a different standard for good than I do -- which is fine, but arguing it isn't going to make me change my mind. There are four SPs (Sheets, Cappy, Yo, and Bush) on the Brewers roster that have met my criteria for good games since April -- and five (Vargas) if we accept 6 innings with 2 or less ERs (which I have already conceded). That's every SP on the roster except Suppan. Some of his starts have been acceptable. I wouldn't call any of them "good". Furthermore, there's only one pitcher (Vargas) who I would consider removing from the rotation before Suppan. The overall body of work from Suppan since May 1 has not been very good at all.
  2. Bucky Rules
    I'm talking about evaluating a single good start. There are plenty of pitchers that get good starts. I'm not sure what makes a 6 inning 3 ER performance a good one. Is a 4.50 ERA all of a sudden considered good? I'd call it mediocre. Maybe, I'd call a 6 inning / 2ER (or less) performance good. But Suppan hasn't had any of those since April either. And if you don't go at least 6 innings, you're likely burning 3 or 4 arms in the pen.
  3. Bucky Rules
    He's had a few mediocre starts since then, but I wouldn't call any of them good. To me, you don't get a good start unless you get thru 7 while giving up 3 or less ERs.
  4. Bucky Rules
    I would agree with that, and I would add in Dean Taylor for changing the focus of the organization. His shortcomings can certainly be argued. But, he came in with a plan to build the organization from the draft on up. He set it up. And we're reaping the benefits of that focus now. I would take Doug Melvin seven days a week over Dean Taylor, but Dean deserves some credit as well.
  5. Bucky Rules
    I think this was intended to read "with a runner at 1B".
  6. Bucky Rules
    How does Suppan escape your wrath, but Capuano doesn't. That doesn't make much sense to me. Suppan's last good start was April 30th.
  7. Bucky Rules
    I'm not sure that the Seligs would've even let him go.
  8. Bucky Rules
    You mention Suppan and Lee. From there we get Cordero and Mench. I'm not sure that we would've acquired Johnny Estrada and Vargas or signed Bill Hall. Jenkins and/or Mench (if acquired) would probably be gone. And we wouldn't have Counsell or Graffanino as veteran backups. We can't just assume that our payroll would've ballooned to $70mil when it barely ever saw the sunny side of 50 in the previous regime. Obviously the core of this team would be in tact. The place where we'll see an impact from the new ownership is probably going to be in how long we can keep this group together.
  9. Bucky Rules
    Capuano is the #2. I'm not sure he's a great #2. I wouldn't mind seeing an upgrade there -- and possibly Yo is the upgrade to make Cappy a 3. At least we've temporarily (for a season maybe) moved past the Capuano is more of an ace than Sheets discussion. That's progress in my mind.
  10. Bucky Rules
    I was in the mood for some comedy this morning, so I pop onto bfnet to read some "Yost must go" posts, only to find that I have to work much harder than I thought to find any. And now I'm giving up. I'm very disappointed in you guys.
  11. Bucky Rules
    Hit and Run with Jenkins? Huh? With Clark on deck the guy needs to be on 2nd base.
  12. Bucky Rules
    Actually, I meant in general - should Jenks' heroics lead to his return to the everyday lineup. Corey could then start in CF instead of Brady. That kind of hogwash belongs in the blind optimism thread.
  13. Bucky Rules
    Yeah... I can't prove it happens. But, it stands to reason that a team that is fighting for a playoff spot (or in the Brewers case, breaking a horrid streak of losing), would play with much more intensity and focus than a team that has run out of goals. Now maybe intensity doesn't account for as much in baseball as it does in other sports, but I'll believe that it creates an advantage until shown otherwise. If someone (much less lazy than mehttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif ) would like to take a stab at looking into that, it might be interesting.
  14. Bucky Rules
    that's true, but I think there might be a little off-season vacation planning for some of the Reds and Pirates. I think the Brewers are still focused on a legit goal. Unless I'm missing something Cincy and Pitt don't have much to play for --- except maybe Pitt doesn't want to be alone on the loser's (as in consecutive losing seasons) perch. Besides... Davis is only pitching one more game, so we're bound to score runs in the other six. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
  15. Bucky Rules
    For the third time this season, I am guaranteeing a Brewers win. For the record... I'm 2-0 in my previous two attempts on this board, and not coincidentally Ben Sheets pitched both of those games. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
  16. Bucky Rules
    Danzig -- I don't disagree with any of that. And I too, would have no problem if the HOF brought Simmons in. I just can't buy the argument that he's better than Fisk, so he should be in. Taking that logic (RBM's) to an extreme would suggest that any SS with better numbers than Ozzie or any 3B with better numbers than Brooks, should be in. I have a problem with that.
  17. Bucky Rules
    I hate the fact that I end up having to sound like I'm bashing Ted Simmons in order to make the point that I don't think he was as good as Carlton Fisk. I loved Simba. The guy always looked like he was drunk, but always sounded like a college professor. He and Sidney Moncrief were probably my two favorite interviews of all the local athletes. I just can't buy what you're selling. If two guys are comparable hitters at a prominent defensive position such as Catcher, I'll take the defensive guy every time. So, if I'd rather have Fisk on my team, it only stands to reason that if I had to choose one over the other for the HOF, I'd take Fisk.
  18. Bucky Rules
    Well... it was a coincidence that Vukovich and Rollie Fingers came over in the same off-season.
  19. Bucky Rules
    You quoted fielding % numbers as if that is some sort of complete analysis of a catcher's defensive ability. Please. If you can find one credible person anywhere (in print) to claim that Simmons was comparable defensively to Fisk, I will give up this argument. You won't, because anyone with any credibility knows that there was no comparison. Fisk was very good. Simmons was average to below average. And then you go on to continue to pound the Simmons was a better hitter drum... EARTH TO RBM -- I've conceded that point, as long as you're no longer attempting to say that he was Piazza-like better. He was marginally better, but still comparable. But, I do find it funny that I suggest you look at year to year OPS, and you ignore that and move right on to BARISP... that's very telling to me. Based on the debating tactics I've seen from you so far, my guess is that OPS figures don't support your argument.
  20. Bucky Rules
    I understand the temptation to look at those things when asking about Hall worthiness, but that can be a slippery slope. You can just as easily argue that Stargell and Cepeda shouldn't be in the Hall because they weren't better than Rice, as you could the reverse. I'm really torn on Rice. He had a few outstanding seasons in there, but I'm not sure he was elite for a long enough period of time, or had the overall effective longevity to warrant the invite. Like so many of the others we've discussed, he's really close. I think he was helped by being in a pretty darn good lineup throughout his career. But, at the same time, that might be clouding my mind some because I never viewed him as the most feared hitter in that lineup. I admit, that's a personal bias, not based on anything but my impressions of the Red Sox. Probably fostered by the fact that my dad -- who was/is a huge Sox fan, used to swear up and down about Rice... claiming that if the Green Monster was more than 200 ft away he'd never get his pop ups out of the park -- in between some profane outburst. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif Understandably so, considering the Sox record for frustrating their fans up until last season. He was a big Yaz and Lynn fan. So, it's probably no coincidence that Lynn was the guy that I feared the most. I was too young to appreciate Yaz's career.
  21. Bucky Rules
    I believe it's contractual. I think TMJ is obligated to broadcast the Packers -- preseason or not. If I'm wrong on that (which I don't think I am), then it would be ratings. And like it or not, the Packers are a cash cow.
  22. Bucky Rules
    No... I didn't. I addressed each and everyone of your points. And you continue to argue the same point over and over ad nauseam about their year to year/head to head stats, in spite of the fact that I conceded that point loooooooonnnnnnnggggggg ago. More often than not Simmons will win the head to head matchup of annual stats. As I said several posts ago, much of that has to do with the fact that Fisk had chronic knee problems that forced him to miss much more time than Simmons. Simmons had a pretty darn healthy career. If you wanted to look at hitting rates such as OPS as opposed to hits/HR/RBIs/etc, my guess is that Fisk would hold his own on a season to season basis. But, if I had the choice between a healthy Fisk and a healthy Simmons, I know my choice would've been Fisk. As I said in that same post, the difference is defense. While the hitting was comparable although marginally in Simmons favor, the defense wasn't. You're not going to change my mind on this. Especially since you're hell bent on repeating over and over the same point I conceded 15 posts ago. It's the most valid point you've had, but it still ignores many other pertinent factors. Either come up with a new argument - preferably something better than BB/K ratios and who led the league in switch-hitting HRs, or drop it.
  23. Bucky Rules
    RBM -- suffice it to say that your arguments haven't persuaded me. Actually walks and K's are closer to meaningless in and of themselves. It alone doesn't do much of anything to show you who the better hitter is. But you seem to be ignoring everything that I've said. Because I've already conceded the point that Simmons was probably a better hitter than Fisk (marginally). Yes, they do dominate Simmons. It's not even close. You want to compare the career numbers of a 21 year career vs those of a 13 year career, and say the numbers are close. That's very creative logic, but it doesn't fly with me. As I've said before, you're not helping your case by bringing Piazza into the equation. So the fact that you feel the games he caught took too long, is reason to question his worthiness of the HOF in relation to Simmons??? I don't get it. What's your point? In the context that I used it in, it means that - relative to Piazza's career - Simmons' career numbers only stack up, because he's had a career that spanned 8 additional seasons. I think that's fairly obvious to any unbiased observer. Great... and Carlos Lee leads all #45's in HRs this season. I don't want to be a smart ass here, but some of your points just don't mean all that much in terms of HOF consideration. When there's about 12 switch hitters in the NL at any given time, it's not necessarily a big deal to lead them in HRs. I've already given my thoughts on this.
  24. Bucky Rules
    I don't think that anyone who was around to see these two players in the '70s and '80s would argue that Simmons was in the same area code of Fisk as a defensive catcher. You can dig up any selective statistics to try and demonstrate their comparability -- it will not convince me. They were not close. At that point in their life, Simmons had played five more seasons than Piazza. That goes under the category of compiling. I'm pretty confident that if you gave a young Piazza five seasons, he would've been able to surpass those 500 hits and 160 RBIs fairly easily. Never mind the HUGE disparity in power. Think about it this way. You're trying to compare Simmons who was a very good hitting Catcher to Piazza who was one of the best hitters PERIOD in baseball. There really isn't much comparison. I appreciate your point of view, and I agree that Simmons should be much closer than the 17 votes he got. But you're not going to win points arguing that he was comparable defensively to Fisk or offensively to Piazza. I just can't buy it. I think it's much closer to say he was comparable to Fisk OFFensively and Piazza DEFensively. That's not giving Simba enough credit, but it's closer than the other way around.
  25. Bucky Rules
    RoseBowl -- You're probably going to win that comparison, due in no small part to the fact that Simmons was able to stay healthy and on the field more than Fisk. But, IMO it's not quite as simple as that. When they both were healthy, I would take Fisk over Simmons. This is just my opinion... but, I think they were comparable hitters -- with an edge towards Simmons, and Fisk was the far superior defensive catcher. Ted Simmons was a liability behind the plate (although his reputation for calling a good game should be considered). At a position like catcher, defense must be considered high up the list of priorities. Now, if Simba had hit like Piazza, I would be willing to let that slide. Piazza makes the HOF as a hitter at any position, I would think. Simba wouldn't. As I said, though... it's very close. I wouldn't be screaming outrage if Simmons makes it. And I agree with those that said he deserved more consideration than he got.
×
×
  • Create New...