Pads taking a huge chance...

[SuperHornet]

...but are in line for some major dividends.

The San Diego Padres have signed injury-plagued Cubs star Mark Prior to a one-year deal in his hometown. This means that the Pads, if healthy, will have a four-deep rotation of Cy Young-winner Jake Peavy, 347-
game-winner Greg Maddux, 6'10" Chris Young, and Prior.

Prior has shown spurts of greatness, including coming THIS close to singlehandedly getting the Cubs into their first WS since 1945 back in '03.

Given that the Pads came VERY close to their third consecutive playoff appearance last year, this addition bodes well IF Prior rehabs from his most recent surgery. Another very big if is offensive production. The last two managers have tried to force traditional AL ball in a decidedly NL park (the current Giant manager in particular). If Bud Black wises up as he seemed to at the end of last year and starts running the bases with wild abandon a la Rickey Henderson instead of waiting for bombs that just don't seem to happen in Petco Park, perhaps the Pads will have a shot at a WS. This rotation seems to be almost HOF-calibre (assuming they don't get a horrible 5th starter like SD is prone to do).

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

Prior has shown spurts of greatness, including coming THIS close to singlehandedly getting the Cubs into their first WS since 1945 back in '03.

Prior was phenomenal that year but it wasn't quite singlehanded. THe cubs got great production from lofton, Alou, randall simon and aramis ramirez coming down the stretch. Cubs also got help from wood in the rotation.

 

[Swillbury]

Hard to believe that a pitcher can single handley lead a team in a series given they will only be on the hill one or two games.

 

[SuperHornet]

1. Try a little proofreading before you post, Swilly. You lose street cred if nobody can understand what you're saying.

2. Red Sox pitcher George Ruth pretty much singlehandedly won the last Boston WS before the drought. Anyone who says different doesn't know baseball.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

1. Try a little proofreading before you post, Swilly. You lose street cred if nobody can understand what you're saying.

2. Red Sox pitcher George Ruth pretty much singlehandedly won the last Boston WS before the drought. Anyone who says different doesn't know baseball.

Swilly's right. Pretty much.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

1. Try a little proofreading before you post, Swilly. You lose street cred if nobody can understand what you're saying.

2. Red Sox pitcher George Ruth pretty much singlehandedly won the last Boston WS before the drought. Anyone who says different doesn't know baseball.

Keep in mind that was back when there were like 3 and 4 man rotations and relievers were rarely used. Plus he did it at the plate as well. I believe Ruth only won like 15 games that year anyway.

 

[SuperHornet]

Sure, the times were different, Dahlberg. But Swilly seemed to be making a blanket statement that it was flatout IMPOSSIBLE for a pitcher to do that.

If a pitcher can choke away a Series by himself a la Williams and Rivera, then it stands to reason that a pitcher can ALSO shut the door on one by himself, as well.

Hershiser comes to mind as a more recent example. Winning Game 6 and coming back the next night for the save is something not many pitchers will even think about doing, yet he pulled it off.

Since when has Swilly EVER been right? He's so young that I wouldn't be surprised if he was, like, "Ruth, who?" Guys like that are of the persuasion that if a player isn't playing NOW, then by definition he must suck.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Sure, the times were different, Dahlberg. But Swilly seemed to be making a blanket statement that it was flatout IMPOSSIBLE for a pitcher to do that.

If a pitcher can choke away a Series by himself a la Williams and Rivera, then it stands to reason that a pitcher can ALSO shut the door on one by himself, as well.

Hershiser comes to mind as a more recent example. Winning Game 6 and coming back the next night for the save is something not many pitchers will even think about doing, yet he pulled it off.

Since when has Swilly EVER been right? He's so young that I wouldn't be surprised if he was, like, "Ruth, who?" Guys like that are of the persuasion that if a player isn't playing NOW, then by definition he must suck.

Far be it from defending Swilly's rightness or wrongness in a general sense, but I'm pretty sure that age has nothing to do with whether or not somebody has heard of Babe Ruth. It's not like we are talking about a player that any of us actually saw ourselves here.

And, frankly, Babe Ruth WOULD suck if he played today, as would most all of the players from that far back.

 

[SuperHornet]

You assert that as if it were axiomatic, BAC. I don't necessarily buy it. Would a Ruth generate the stats he did back in the day? Perhaps, or perhaps not. But to flat out state that he would suck and be dogmatic about it? No, I don't buy that at all.

For Dahlberg: you are correct (roughly) re Ruth's 1918 record. He was 13-7. But one must also take into consideration that that year Ruth led the league in HRs (though it was only 11; it was still the "dead ball" era), extra-base hits (48), slugging percentage (.555), and OPS (. 966). His fielding over at least three positions (P/OF/1B) was outstanding (.949). His 66 RBI was good for third in the league. Combined with his 2.22 ERA for the year and outstanding WS record vs. the Cubbies (2-0 1.06 ERA over 17 IP with a triple at the plate) sounds pretty dominating to me. Ruth's pitching performance was even better two years earlier when he was 23-12 with a league-leading 1.75 ERA, AL-best 9 shutouts, and his 6.4 hits/9IP was tops as well during a prior WS run (over Brooklyn). I understand that NY may have been trying to "protect" Ruth somewhat in making him RF-only, but in doing so, they eliminated one of the best pitchers in history. The Yanks let him start four games and end another in 15 years. He won every single one of those games, even after a nine-year pitching layoff. To me, it's incredibly insane not to take advantage of that.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

You assert that as if it were axiomatic, BAC. I don't necessarily buy it. Would a Ruth generate the stats he did back in the day? Perhaps, or perhaps not. But to flat out state that he would suck and be dogmatic about it? No, I don't buy that at all.

He wouldn't be a major league player today.

He might not "suck," but he wouldn't be anything special, especially if he had the same habits today as he did back then.

And at least I'm not being "dogmatic" in favor of an argument that one pitcher can "pretty much" singlehandedly carry a baseball team. I think my dogma is on a little less shaky ground.

 

[SuperHornet]

I really think Ruth COULD make an ML roster today. Especially given his versatility. We haven't seen that since, at least until Ankiel, though I'd never put him in Ruth's category. (I'd be more likely to categorize Ankiel with Steve Sax, if you know what I mean.)

You do have a point about Ruth's personal life. He got away with some real cr@p back then because the press didn't pry like they do now.

You seem to take my statement that a pitcher could dominate to the degree of "singlehandedly" winning as an assertion that it's a common, everyday occurrence. Far from it. I'd probably take, perhaps, Ruth, Vandermeer, Larson, Ryan, and Hershiser in that category. Over the entire span of baseball, that's not all that many. And Ruth, Ryan, and Hershiser were the only ones to do it over a long span. Vandermeer only had the back-to-back no-hitters, and Larson only had that one WS game. Not that many. I'm just saying that it's POSSIBLE.