5-6 Cubs (Marshall) @ Padres (Peavy) 9:05 CT WGN TV

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

On a side note, Nomar with the game winning hit in the ninth for the second night in a row.

 

At least it beats Milwaukee for whatever that is worth.

[stitchface]

 

actually, it does. of course, you still have to get a hit.

 

Do you have numbers for that?

 

BP did a study that showed pretty conclusively that the only good times to sac bunt when playing for one run are 1) when there are no outs and a runner on second and 2) when the pitcher (or someone who hits just as poorly as a pitcher - Neifi Perez for example) is batting.

 

Same study shows that bunting a runner to second with not outs increases your chances to score one run slightly. You generally don't want to do it because it significantly decreses your chances to score more than one.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2851

 

Numbers in this study show pretty conclusively that it's a very good idea to bunt when playing for one run with a runner on second an no outs. It's usually a bad idea to sac bunt with a runner on first with no outs, even when playing for one run.

 

If you've got a different study that shows bunting a runner from 1st to 2nd raises probability of scoring one run, I'd genuinely like to see it. It's something that interests me.

I am going off the strict odds of scoring situationally.

[CubfaninCA]

start the pie countdown

 

cedeno

walker

lee

aram

jones

murton

pie

barret

 

hell with that! get JONES out of that lineup. not pierre.

 

they just need a platoon partner for jones. be fair now.

[oldstyle81]

There is no way that Hendry gives up three pitchers for Pierre only to bench him in early May. The pitching decisions (except for Rusch) have worked out for the most part. Almost all the blame belongs to the outfield acquisitions.

 

if Pie was good and he cared about winning, pierre would be benched and or dealt somewhere

[CubfaninCA]

start the pie countdown

 

cedeno

walker

lee

aram

jones

murton

pie

barret

 

He's not ready. I'd rather see him work on his plate discipline, power and baserunning at AAA than come up with holes in his game and struggle.

 

i'd like to see him up by august. gotta have him ready for next year. cedeno looks like a sufficient top of the order guy, so pierre's not needed as much.

[cheapseats]

 

actually, it does. of course, you still have to get a hit.

 

Do you have numbers for that?

 

BP did a study that showed pretty conclusively that the only good times to sac bunt when playing for one run are 1) when there are no outs and a runner on second and 2) when the pitcher (or someone who hits just as poorly as a pitcher - Neifi Perez for example) is batting.

 

Same study shows that bunting a runner to second with not outs increases your chances to score one run slightly. You generally don't want to do it because it significantly decreses your chances to score more than one.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2851

 

Numbers in this study show pretty conclusively that it's a very good idea to bunt when playing for one run with a runner on second an no outs. It's usually a bad idea to sac bunt with a runner on first with no outs, even when playing for one run.

 

If you've got a different study that shows bunting a runner from 1st to 2nd raises probability of scoring one run, I'd genuinely like to see it. It's something that interests me.

I am going off the strict odds of scoring situationally.

 

Maybe your odds are based on different numbers than the one in that article.

 

Even when playing for just one run, unless the hitter has an average below .236, the article shows there's a greater chance of scoring one run if the hitter doesn't bunt.

 

For those that don't have access to BP premium stuff, the article isn't an anti-bunt article. It does try to find situations in which a bunt might be helpful:

 

"There appear to be a few select game situations in which [a sacrifice bunt] remains a better option than swinging away. However, those situations are almost entirely limited to when there is a runner on second and no outs."

[CubfaninCA]

There is no way that Hendry gives up three pitchers for Pierre only to bench him in early May. The pitching decisions (except for Rusch) have worked out for the most part. Almost all the blame belongs to the outfield acquisitions.

 

i didn't say bring him up now. pierre's track record shows he can do much better, but if he's still struggling by july, they gotta start thinking about bringing up pie.

[wastra]

This team has got worse every year for the past 3 now.

 

I cannot understand for the life of me how most of our management is still employed.

 

still employed WITH A DAMN EXTENSION

 

 

Now you're just depressing me.

[UMFan83]

That's 4 runs in 66 innings.....

[cheapseats]

There is no way that Hendry gives up three pitchers for Pierre only to bench him in early May. The pitching decisions (except for Rusch) have worked out for the most part. Almost all the blame belongs to the outfield acquisitions.

 

i didn't say bring him up now. pierre's track record shows he can do much better, but if he's still struggling by july, they gotta start thinking about bringing up pie.

 

A lot of baseball analysts say the Cubs do plan to bring him up around the all-star break. Either:

 

1) Those analysts are wrong.

2) One of our present outfielders gets benched, at least part of the time. Being as Pie has the most value as a centerfielder, it would make sense for Pierre to get benched.

 

Personally, I don't see Pie getting much time with the major league club unless one of our OF's gets traded.

[CubfaninCA]

On a side note, Nomar with the game winning hit in the ninth for the second night in a row.

 

At least it beats Milwaukee for whatever that is worth.

 

should have kept nomar and let ronnie play Triple A ;)

[wastra]

That's 4 runs in 66 innings.....

 

In almost every other organization, heads would be rolling.

[oldstyle81]

That's 4 runs in 66 innings.....

 

In almost every other organization, heads would be rolling.

 

imagine if this were the yankees

 

there is a reason htey have 26 rings and we dont have one in 100 years

[CubfaninCA]

That's 4 runs in 66 innings.....

 

In almost every other organization, heads would be rolling.

 

imagine if this were the yankees

 

there is a reason htey have 26 rings and we dont have one in 100 years

 

Yes, 200 million reasons.

[YearofDaCubs]

That's 4 runs in 66 innings.....

 

In almost every other organization, heads would be rolling.

 

imagine if this were the yankees

 

there is a reason htey have 26 rings and we dont have one in 100 years

 

Yes, 200 million reasons.

Yes, I'm sure they have always had a payroll of 200mil. :roll:

[hawkcub]

Getting sick of this lack of an offence. It is just ridiculous. It's almost like they have given up already and it's only May 6th. Sad, very sad.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

That's 4 runs in 66 innings.....

 

In almost every other organization, heads would be rolling.

 

imagine if this were the yankees

 

there is a reason htey have 26 rings and we dont have one in 100 years

 

Yes, 200 million reasons.

 

And we have 100 million reasons for our 13 rings. Oh, wait...

[CubfaninCA]

That's 4 runs in 66 innings.....

 

In almost every other organization, heads would be rolling.

 

imagine if this were the yankees

 

there is a reason htey have 26 rings and we dont have one in 100 years

 

Yes, 200 million reasons.

Yes, I'm sure they have always had a payroll of 200mil. :roll:

 

when didn't their payroll not dwarf the rest of the league??

[cheapseats]

It's almost like they have given up already and it's only May 6th.

 

Who isn't putting forth effort? They're trying to win. They're just not a very good baseball team.

[hawkcub]

It's almost like they have given up already and it's only May 6th.

 

Who isn't putting forth effort? They're trying to win. They're just not a very good baseball team.

 

OK maybe I typed that out of anger. But without Lee there really are no players to be feared on this team. All you have is a bunch of complimentary type players. Lee was the player that allowed the others to play there complimentary roles.

[E.J.]

It's just becoming funny at this point. 1 run? 1 stinking run? What a joke.

[Guest]

It's just becoming funny at this point. 1 run? 1 stinking run? What a joke.

Hey, the good news is that the Cubs' scoreless streak was halted at a measly 28 innings. Even if you were to ignore Maddux' RBI walk that broke up the previous drought the streak would have only come to 41 innings, well shy of the MLB record of 48 innings.

 

The bad news is that because they're the Cubs, they were chasing their own record. That's right, as near as I can figure the longest any team has gone without scoring in the modern era is 48 dismal innings the 1968 Cubs endured from June 15th-21st. (Though they share that dubious honor with the Phillidelphia A's of late September 1906.)

[B]

That's 4 runs in 66 innings.....

 

In almost every other organization, heads would be rolling.

 

imagine if this were the yankees

 

there is a reason htey have 26 rings and we dont have one in 100 years

 

Yes, 200 million reasons.

Yes, I'm sure they have always had a payroll of 200mil. :roll:

 

when didn't their payroll not dwarf the rest of the league??

 

They haven't won a championship since their payroll surpassed 100 million.