Bundy vs. Duffy

[Frobby]

This thread is prompted by what I read in this morning's box scores:

Bundy 7 IP, 6 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 3 BB, 7 K's, 2.92 ERA

Duffy 7 IP, 6 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 3 BB, 7 K's, 2.92 ERA

Not only the same line last night, but the same season ERA in the same number of innings over the same number of starts.    

Here are their season lines:

Bundy 64.2 IP, 55 H, 21 R, 21 ER, 19 BB, 46 K's.

Duffy 64.2 IP, 60 H, 21 R, 21 ER, 21 BB, 52 K's.

[clapdiddy]

OK...you've convinced me.   Let's trade for Duffy!

[sea lion]

Bundy has a secretary named Duffy. Duffy has a secretary named Bundy.

[Going Underground]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

This thread is prompted by what I read in this morning's box scores:

Bundy 7 IP, 6 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 3 BB, 7 K's, 2.92 ERA

Duffy 7 IP, 6 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 3 BB, 7 K's, 2.92 ERA

Not only the same line last night, but the same season ERA in the same number of innings over the same number of starts.    

Here are their season lines:

Bundy 64.2 IP, 55 H, 21 R, 21 ER, 19 BB, 46 K's.

Duffy 64.2 IP, 60 H, 21 R, 21 ER, 21 BB, 52 K's.

Bundy is great.Duffy is not.Signed Mike Bordick  

[webbrick2010]

and I have them both on my fantasy team

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

Bundy is great.Duffy is not.Signed Mike Bordick  

Duffy's pretty darned good.   Like Bundy, Duffy had his career temporarily derailed by TJ surgery.   In Duffy's case, it cost him most of the 2012 season after a pretty solid start to his year, and then he got into only a handful of major league games in 2013.    During 2014-16, he was used mostly as a starter, but also some as a reliever each year -- I wonder if that was an attempt to manage his innings. Duffy the last three years threw 149, 136 and 179 innings.   This year, like Bundy, he's on pace for 210-215.

[glenn__davis]

30 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

Bundy is great.Duffy is not.Signed Mike Bordick  

I don't know, Duffy does have 6 more punchouts.

[glenn__davis]

1 hour ago, sea lion said:

Bundy has a secretary named Duffy. Duffy has a secretary named Bundy.

I was totally going to make this joke but you beat me to it.

[Frobby]

19 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

I was totally going to make this joke but you beat me to it.

I need it explained to me.    What's that from?

[SteveA]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I need it explained to me.    What's that from?

There's a list of "coincidences" about the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.   Some of them are a stretch, but when all listed together they seem kind of spooky.

One of them is that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp

 

[OFFNY]

11 minutes ago, SteveA said:

 

There's a list of "coincidences" about the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations. Some of them are a stretch, but when all listed together, they seem kind of spooky.

One of them is that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln.

 

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp

 

o

 

They are all facts, with the exception of their respective secretaries warning the Presidents not to attend the respective events where they were killed. That is the only claim that cannot be proven, or disproven.

Also, both Presidents were not necessarily "concerned" about Civil rights as much that Civil rights just happened to be a hot topic while they were each in the White House, and so they both had to deal with said issues.

 

o

[SteveA]

13 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

They are all facts, with the exception of their respective secretaries warning the Presidents not to attend the respective events where they were killed. That is the only claim that cannot be proven, or disproven.

Also, both Presidents were not necessarily "concerned" about Civil rights as much that Civil rights just happened to be a hot topic while they were each in the White House, and so they both had to deal with said issues.

 

o

Snopes says Lincoln did NOT have any secretary named Kennedy.

And that the one that says Booth was born in 1839 and Oswald in 1939 isn't true either (Boothe was born in 1838).

See my link.

[OFFNY]

38 minutes ago, SteveA said:

There's a list of "coincidences" about the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.   Some of them are a stretch, but when all listed together they seem kind of spooky.

One of them is that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp

 

 

26 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

They are all facts, with the exception of their respective secretaries warning the Presidents not to attend the respective events where they were killed. That is the only claim that cannot be proven, or disproven.

Also, both Presidents were not necessarily "concerned" about Civil rights as much that Civil rights just happened to be a hot topic while they were each in the White House, and so they both had to deal with said issues.

 

o

 

12 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Snopes says Lincoln did NOT have any secretary named Kennedy.

And that the one that says Booth was born in 1839 and Oswald in 1939 isn't true either (Boothe was born in 1838).

See my link.

o

 

I didn't see the Oswald/Booth birthdate one, which as you pointed out, is incorrect. Sorry about that.

The secretaries are still under the same category in which I acknowledged is/was questionable. Everything else is factual, however dubious some of them may seem (such as Oswald and Booth having the same number of letters in their combined names, but not in their individual names when broken up.)

 

o