Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **Bas** » Thu May 12, 2005 11:59 pm

Your right i guess Hudson and Mulder are washed up.

by **beltrans_boy** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:01 am

Bas wrote:Your right i guess Hudson and Mulder are washed up.

I never said they were. But they certainly didn't help "lead the charge" in the 2nd half like your post implied.

by **George_Foreman** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:03 am

also:

[i tried formatting the stats on here for like 20 minutes, and i just couldn't get it. here are links istead]

hudson 2004 splits
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlbpa/players/6245/splits?year=2004&type=Pitching
mulder 2004 splits
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlbpa/players/6393/splits?year=2004&type=Pitching

both were worse in the 2nd half, posting fewer starts, higher ERAs, lower wins, higher BAA, etc.

sure is a good thing oakland had them last year to lead them in their 2nd half charge.... :-°

by **Bas** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:04 am

Guess i need to go read my post again because i dont recall saying they lead the charge last year. You can bet they wont see the postseason again this year though.

by **beltrans_boy** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:06 am

Bas wrote:Guess i need to go read my post again because i dont recall saying they lead the charge last year. You can bet they wont see the postseason again this year though.

You didn't say it? Oh, ok. I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension.

Oakland lived off their second half comebacks for years now. Well guess what Hudson and Mulder arent there to lead the charge anymore.

by **George_Foreman** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:07 am

how about i just quote it for you:

Oakland lived off their second half comebacks for years now. Well guess what Hudson and Mulder arent there to lead the charge anymore.

if you wern't refering to their "second half combacks", what "charge" were you referring to that mulder and hudson were there to lead?

by **Bas** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:09 am

Lol i guess you really do if you still read that as saying the 2004 season. Maybe i am mistaken and the word years means 2004 season. Kind of odd i always thought it was plural for the word year.

by **George_Foreman** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:14 am

or maybe your blanket statement doesn't hold in all cases? maybe oakland has proved that they are capable of winning with hudson out for a good long while and mulder posting an ERA in the 6s (over twice, FWIW, blanton's thus far :-°

).

you want to know who led the "charge" last year? it was a fellow named harden, and he's still around. and if you don't think their offense this year is at least as good as it was last year, you're too far gone for help. i'm not really sure how you can assume that the As won't make the playoffs this year given that they've proven they can win without mulder and hudson playing well/at all and that they have upgraded their offense.

by **Bas** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:23 am

Guess Harden pushed them so far they went deep in the playoffs. Oh wait thats right they didnt make the playoffs. Without Mulder and Hudson the A's miss the playoffs and it wont even be close. If im wrong plz remind me in September.

by **reynolds80** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:39 am

Bas wrote:Guess Harden pushed them so far they went deep in the playoffs. Oh wait thats right they didnt make the playoffs. Without Mulder and Hudson the A's miss the playoffs and it wont even be close. If im wrong plz remind me in September.

What, you mean the team with the 2nd lowest payroll in baseball won't make the playoffs? Who is in charge of that team - he needs to be fired.

Come on.

Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

Billy Beane is no genius

Who is online