Offensive questions

[Sammy Sofa]

"Heart" is for pansies, elves and hippies. Man up and play some damn baseball.

[Abe Frohman]

I really think that Leyland isn't getting enough credit. Look at the Tigers last year. That ought to say enough. JL has always been a great manager, and there is something he does that gets the best out of his players. Probably demands fundementals.

[BigbadB]

How many guys in the league have a batting average over .400?

How many guys in the league have an OBP over .400?

 

How many guys in the league have a batting average over .350?

How many guy in the league have an OBP over .350?

 

It's all about getting runners on base. Doesn't matter if it's a walk, error, hit or HBP. Get the guys on base, and you will increase your chances of scoring.

 

I asked the questions above because there is no one hitting .400. But, there are guys who get on base 40% of the time. Quite a few of them. It's not coincidental that guys who get on base at that rate score more runs than guys who do not get on base 40% of the time.

 

Same can be said about .350. Hardly anyone is hitting over .350, but tons of them are getting on base at 35% or better.

 

It's hard to string together a bunch of hits. The success rate is less than 30%. Because the success rate is so low, you have to use other means to get runners across the plate.

 

It's quite elementary. And one has to look no further than their own pitching staff to see what kind of damage a walk can do.

[Warpticon]

Asking a woman when she's due if you don't know for certain she's pregnant.

[imb]

hahah, dammit, I was coming in here to ask that

[johnnyba99]

If you look at all the teams in the National League offensive stats. Figure out what percentage of the baserunners scored for the season you'll see that the 29% is the lowest and 33% is the highest. The Cubs are the lowest, but if they only score 4% fewer baserunners than the best team why do they score so few runs? The Dodgers lead the NL in runs scored and their % of runners scored is 33%, they've scored 108 more runs than the Cubs because they've had 205 more baserunners.

 

The average number of walks per team in the NL is 277, the Cubs have 199 walks. The second worst walk total is 247.

 

Somebody may be better at this stats stuff than I am, but these numbers seem to show the problem fairly clearly. NOT ENOUGH BASERUNNERS.

[USSoccer]

You guys might disagree with the "heart" comment, but the Tigers are doing a lot with a manager that demands guts and heart. The talent on that Tigers team didn't come through until they had Leyland.

 

Bad pitching, bad baserunning, bad hitting, all to an extent have something to do with the coaching...and not just the physical talent the players have.

 

The Tigers are winning with a pitching staff that is what the Cubs staff was supposed to be post 2003, and with guys who murder the ball and get on base.

 

Having Leyland demand "guts" and "heart" means nothing. Going into this season, IIRC he had a sub .500 winning percentage.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

IIRC he had a sub .500 winning percentage.

 

1069-1131 (.486) -- Only 5/14 seasons over 500.

[BigbadB]

If you look at all the teams in the National League offensive stats. Figure out what percentage of the baserunners scored for the season you'll see that the 29% is the lowest and 33% is the highest. The Cubs are the lowest, but if they only score 4% fewer baserunners than the best team why do they score so few runs? The Dodgers lead the NL in runs scored and their % of runners scored is 33%, they've scored 108 more runs than the Cubs because they've had 205 more baserunners.

 

The average number of walks per team in the NL is 277, the Cubs have 199 walks. The second worst walk total is 247.

 

Somebody may be better at this stats stuff than I am, but these numbers seem to show the problem fairly clearly. NOT ENOUGH BASERUNNERS.

 

I think you did a pretty good job with this. It's all about baserunners.

[CuseCubFan69]

You guys might disagree with the "heart" comment, but the Tigers are doing a lot with a manager that demands guts and heart. The talent on that Tigers team didn't come through until they had Leyland.

 

Bad pitching, bad baserunning, bad hitting, all to an extent have something to do with the coaching...and not just the physical talent the players have.

 

The Tigers are winning with a pitching staff that is what the Cubs staff was supposed to be post 2003, and with guys who murder the ball and get on base.

 

Having Leyland demand "guts" and "heart" means nothing. Going into this season, IIRC he had a sub .500 winning percentage.

 

With teams that got rid of all their players. I don't think you can make a blanket statement like his record until you look at what he had to deal with. He won when he had players and when he lost the two teams Pitt and Florida had fire sales.

[USSoccer]

You guys might disagree with the "heart" comment, but the Tigers are doing a lot with a manager that demands guts and heart. The talent on that Tigers team didn't come through until they had Leyland.

 

Bad pitching, bad baserunning, bad hitting, all to an extent have something to do with the coaching...and not just the physical talent the players have.

 

The Tigers are winning with a pitching staff that is what the Cubs staff was supposed to be post 2003, and with guys who murder the ball and get on base.

 

Having Leyland demand "guts" and "heart" means nothing. Going into this season, IIRC he had a sub .500 winning percentage.

 

With teams that got rid of all their players. I don't think you can make a blanket statement like his record until you look at what he had to deal with. He won when he had players and when he lost the two teams Pitt and Florida had fire sales.

 

He dealt with 1 season's worth of fire sale at FLA and had stacked teams in the late 1980's/early 90's with Pittsburgh. T

 

The fact that he can only win with stacked teams and struggles with lesser talent means there's not much to his "hustle and heart" attributes. It means that he's subject to the team around him. And I don't think you can understate his career record when evaluating his effectiveness as manager.

[Careless]

There is plenty of talent on this team.

 

No, there really isn't. Our outfield (overall) is pathetic, our infield is average at best, and our pitching is absolutely atrocious. A handful are having down years, but most of what's happened is because we do not have enough talent in those positions.

Lee/walker/cedeno/ramirez would be above average if ramirez was playing up to standards. That infield looks good on paper.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

You guys might disagree with the "heart" comment, but the Tigers are doing a lot with a manager that demands guts and heart. The talent on that Tigers team didn't come through until they had Leyland.

 

Bad pitching, bad baserunning, bad hitting, all to an extent have something to do with the coaching...and not just the physical talent the players have.

 

The Tigers are winning with a pitching staff that is what the Cubs staff was supposed to be post 2003, and with guys who murder the ball and get on base.

 

Having Leyland demand "guts" and "heart" means nothing. Going into this season, IIRC he had a sub .500 winning percentage.

 

With teams that got rid of all their players. I don't think you can make a blanket statement like his record until you look at what he had to deal with. He won when he had players and when he lost the two teams Pitt and Florida had fire sales.

 

He dealt with 1 season's worth of fire sale at FLA and had stacked teams in the late 1980's/early 90's with Pittsburgh. T

 

The fact that he can only win with stacked teams and struggles with lesser talent means there's not much to his "hustle and heart" attributes. It means that he's subject to the team around him. And I don't think you can understate his career record when evaluating his effectiveness as manager.

 

Plus, he went 72-90 in Colorado. He didn't even have the "heart" to stick around for another season with that team.

 

He had Blanco and Neifi on that team. :shock:

[Electron Blue]

You guys might disagree with the "heart" comment, but the Tigers are doing a lot with a manager that demands guts and heart. The talent on that Tigers team didn't come through until they had Leyland.

 

Bad pitching, bad baserunning, bad hitting, all to an extent have something to do with the coaching...and not just the physical talent the players have.

 

The Tigers are winning with a pitching staff that is what the Cubs staff was supposed to be post 2003, and with guys who murder the ball and get on base.

 

Having Leyland demand "guts" and "heart" means nothing. Going into this season, IIRC he had a sub .500 winning percentage.

 

Personally, I agree with the logic behind what you're saying - it's the players that make the most significant difference in the standings. But it doesn't really matter. Frankly, it could be the renewed sense of guts and heart in the clubhouse that is causing the players to play so well. It's a circular argument that I try to care too much about.

 

Whoever manages the Cubs should get them to play fundamental baseball, hit and pitch competently, make logical strategic decisions and, ultimately, look respectable. Motivator or not; Players' Manager or not; guts and heart or not.

[Pinktermite]

Wait a second, on the one hand some of you say that Leyland does best with stacked teams that have talent, and he does poorly when his teams have no talent (aka fire sale in Florida). So I take it he makes NO difference whatsoever in how his team does???!!!!!

 

On the other hand, alot of you guys say that Baker needs to go because he's a poor manager. But wait, I thought you said that it matters the talent that he has to manage with? Well, one could argue that Baker has some pretty damn good talent on this team, and they suck.

 

So which is it? The manager matters or the manager doesn't matter?

 

It looks to me like the Tigers are mostly the same team as they were last year...and they are playing a helluva lot better and don't seem to be slowing down any at all!! So I stick to my previous argument that a fiery manager gets more out of his team than a California surfer boy like Johnnie B. Baker does complaining that things are "just not going our way".

[Magnetic Curses]

You guys might disagree with the "heart" comment, but the Tigers are doing a lot with a manager that demands guts and heart. The talent on that Tigers team didn't come through until they had Leyland.

 

Bad pitching, bad baserunning, bad hitting, all to an extent have something to do with the coaching...and not just the physical talent the players have.

 

The Tigers are winning with a pitching staff that is what the Cubs staff was supposed to be post 2003, and with guys who murder the ball and get on base.

 

Having Leyland demand "guts" and "heart" means nothing. Going into this season, IIRC he had a sub .500 winning percentage.

 

Personally, I agree with the logic behind what you're saying - it's the players that make the most significant difference in the standings. But it doesn't really matter. Frankly, it could be the renewed sense of guts and heart in the clubhouse that is causing the players to play so well. It's a circular argument that I try to care too much about.

 

Whoever manages the Cubs should get them to play fundamental baseball, hit and pitch competently, make logical strategic decisions and, ultimately, look respectable. Motivator or not; Players' Manager or not; guts and heart or not.

 

if your idea of "fundamental baseball" is getting on base a lot and driving the ball more then i agree.

 

make no mistake, dusty's shortcomings have nothing to do with his apparent willingness to field players who can hit and run, "catch the ball", bunt the ball, and give 110%. dusty's problem is that his staff (by which i mean clines) is telling hitters to "just put the ball in play and good things will happen". this is so transparently obvious when looking at team stats that it's almost humorous.

 

"just putting the ball in play and good things will happen" is a gutless philosophy that leads to losing. "just putting the ball in play....", despite assertions to the contrary by baseball dinosaurs, puts NO pressure on the defense, puts NO pressure on the pitcher, puts NO pressure on anyone to do anything except OUR hitters to slap the ball harmlessly around the diamond.

 

the "just put the ball in play.." method of losing has 1. possibly ruined cedeno, and 2. might possibly ruin murton too.

 

fire dusty, but fire hendry as well, his paleolithic philosophies have opened the door for a new level of failure in chicago. dusty is just there to enforce them on the field. the game has passed them both by.

[thedaymen]

I think the philosophy of little ball is really pervasive on this team. Take (I think) the third inning of the game on Tuesday. Pierre leads off with a double. Neifi tries to bunt and fails, taps a two strike pitch to the right side, advancing the runner.

 

When Neifi gets back to the dugout, he's greeted with cheers, high fives, and back slaps! Hooray! You got out in a less damaging way then could be expected!

 

Next up is Lee with one out and a runner on third. I would have laughed (or cried) if they had walked him, depriving the Cubs of their best hitter with the go ahead run on third. How many times did we see that last season? A sacrifice to move a guy over ahead of Lee, then the Triple Crown candidate pad his OBP on four balls (be they intentional or para-intentional).

[Magnetic Curses]

I think the philosophy of little ball is really pervasive on this team. Take (I think) the third inning of the game on Tuesday. Pierre leads off with a double. Neifi tries to bunt and fails, taps a two strike pitch to the right side, advancing the runner.

 

When Neifi gets back to the dugout, he's greeted with cheers, high fives, and back slaps! Hooray! You got out in a less damaging way then could be expected!

 

Next up is Lee with one out and a runner on third. I would have laughed (or cried) if they had walked him, depriving the Cubs of their best hitter with the go ahead run on third. How many times did we see that last season? A sacrifice to move a guy over ahead of Lee, then the Triple Crown candidate pad his OBP on four balls (be they intentional or para-intentional).

 

i wouldn't care if we played "small ball more", but in order to play any kind of ball you must first get runners on base at a greater clip.

 

you can't even play baseball if there's no one on base, and that's what hendry and dusty seem content to do.

[USSoccer]

Wait a second, on the one hand some of you say that Leyland does best with stacked teams that have talent, and he does poorly when his teams have no talent (aka fire sale in Florida). So I take it he makes NO difference whatsoever in how his team does???!!!!!

 

On the other hand, alot of you guys say that Baker needs to go because he's a poor manager. But wait, I thought you said that it matters the talent that he has to manage with? Well, one could argue that Baker has some pretty damn good talent on this team, and they suck.

 

So which is it? The manager matters or the manager doesn't matter?

 

It looks to me like the Tigers are mostly the same team as they were last year...and they are playing a helluva lot better and don't seem to be slowing down any at all!! So I stick to my previous argument that a fiery manager gets more out of his team than a California surfer boy like Johnnie B. Baker does complaining that things are "just not going our way".

 

Fire has nothing to do with anything. Baker's shortcoming isn't that he's too laid back. It's that he's incompetent. He relies on cliches and idiotic logic and as a result has done less with more than any Cubs manager in 35 years.

 

Plenty of managers have success without being absolutely red-faced and yelling. Joe Torre comes immediately to mind. So does Tony LaRussa. The difference is that a manager needs to know how to put his players in the best possible position to succeed. Their method of motivation is secondary to how they actually manage lineups and matchups in a game. Being able to read a split sheet, or not relying on veteran has beens is a much more important factor in managerial success than yelling and screaming is. Knowing how to manage young arms and protect them from overuse when uneccesary is more important than throwing 2nd base into centerfield.

 

It comes down to being good tactically (in game management) and strategically (lineups, coaching, etc. ). If Baker were good at either, the Cubs would be abetter team, and he would be free to be laid back. But he's not, and that's why he needs to go. Not because of his personality, but because he's no good at managing.

 

And FWIW, again, the Tigers are pretty much the same team as last year, but the way they developed and treated their young pitchers is pretty much the opposite of what the Cubs did. Leyland is reaping the benefits of a really strong pitching staff, and not getting in the way of it too much. His early season comments ripping the team after a poor perfomance were well timed, but it's not like that's the sole reason they've maintained their high level of play.

[soccer10k]

There is plenty of talent on this team.

 

No, there really isn't. Our outfield (overall) is pathetic, our infield is average at best, and our pitching is absolutely atrocious. A handful are having down years, but most of what's happened is because we do not have enough talent in those positions.

 

On paper, don't you think we have talent? We never really had a true #5 hitter going into the year, and we knew the team was lacking in power - but we came into the year with a strong closer, bullpen, and pretty good defense. The hitting was improved for the most part (on paper), and the starting pitching, as far as we knew, was going to be above average (Zambrano, Maddux, Wood, Prior, and a few promising rookies contending with Rusch/Williams for the #5 spot).

 

Pierre/Walker/DLee/Ramirez/Jones/Barrett/Murton/Cedeno wasn't the WORST looking lineup pre-season. There is some talent in there.

 

And therein lies part of the problem: relying on Wood and Prior. The odds that both Wood and Prior would be completely healthy and make 30+ starts each this year was infinitely small. You have one ace, one average aging pitcher, two often injured pitchers, Gopher Ball, and a bunch of unproven rookies. That isn't an above average pitching staff.

[wastra]

Baker lamented continued failures to drive in runs with two out and the fact his pitchers keep handing out walks that lead to runs.

 

"Geez,'' he said in exasperation. "They got two-out hits, and we didn't get any. With all their runs, there were walks.''

 

He looks to be at the end of his rope.

He still doesn't get it.

 

Maybe not some of the times, but he's correct here, so what is he not getting this time exactly? Prior had 2 outs with nobody on base and gave away two runs by walking consecutive batters before a couple of ordinary singles. No walks and likely no runs. later in the game, it was the same story.

 

The problem is the staff continues preaching aggressive hitting, downplaying the base on balls all the while lamenting their fate from giving up too many runs via the base on balls. They continue to foolishly believe that "clutch" two-out hitting is the reason this team is not doing well offensively.

 

The problem is that the coaching staff only sees a walk as a pitcher's error born from lack of control. He doesn't see it as a function of the hitter, but sees it only as a function of the pitcher. In truth, NO pitcher will go a whole game without dishing out enough balls off the plate to put a couple men on. It takes someone with a good eye to not swing at them.

 

Baker doesn't understand that you don't need a "wild" pitcher to coax a walk- you need a hitter who isn't afraid to lay off a pitch 2-5 inches off the plate. You need a lineup of hitters who take lots of pitches so that they wear down the starter earlier AND see more of his "stuff" on that given day.

 

Baker is that old-school (read: terrible) type of manager who doesn't understand that walks can be "earned" by hitters. It's hitting skill as well as a pitching error.

[Mizzou]

The problem is that the coaching staff only sees a walk as a pitcher's error born from lack of control. He doesn't see it as a function of the hitter, but sees it only as a function of the pitcher. In truth, NO pitcher will go a whole game without dishing out enough balls off the plate to put a couple men on. It takes someone with a good eye to not swing at them.

 

Baker doesn't understand that you don't need a "wild" pitcher to coax a walk- you need a hitter who isn't afraid to lay off a pitch 2-5 inches off the plate. You need a lineup of hitters who take lots of pitches so that they wear down the starter earlier AND see more of his "stuff" on that given day.

 

Baker is that old-school (read: terrible) type of manager who doesn't understand that walks can be "earned" by hitters. It's hitting skill as well as a pitching error.

Great post.

[Magnetic Curses]

The problem is that the coaching staff only sees a walk as a pitcher's error born from lack of control. He doesn't see it as a function of the hitter, but sees it only as a function of the pitcher. In truth, NO pitcher will go a whole game without dishing out enough balls off the plate to put a couple men on. It takes someone with a good eye to not swing at them.

 

Baker doesn't understand that you don't need a "wild" pitcher to coax a walk- you need a hitter who isn't afraid to lay off a pitch 2-5 inches off the plate. You need a lineup of hitters who take lots of pitches so that they wear down the starter earlier AND see more of his "stuff" on that given day.

 

Baker is that old-school (read: terrible) type of manager who doesn't understand that walks can be "earned" by hitters. It's hitting skill as well as a pitching error.

Great post.

 

very true, i've often thought the same thing. it's all the pitcher's fault, the batter does nothing to induce BB's.