[CubColtPacer]

Without going into the question (which is too complicated for me tonight), Pierre is probably a bad example to use for this discussion for the fact that he has batted leadoff all this time, which limits the chances that he will come up with runners on. For example-Ramirez has had 192 AB's in those 4 situations this season, even though he has 80 less AB's than Pierre. Jones has 169 AB's in those situations in 445 AB's. To compare, David Wright has had 196 AB's in those situations out of 493 AB's overall.

 

Fair enough, but two things. 1.) Do you want a hitter of Aramis' quality trying to move runner over instead of drive them in, honestly? 2.) Aramis has had 110 opportunities (AB-SO-H). So one third of those could have came with less than 2 outs, 73 chances. Then ARam has 13 GIDP, giving him 60 chances. And again, we know he didn't do it every time.

 

51 total chances for David Wright

36 total chances for Jacque Jones

 

Honestly no, I don't want Aramis doing it. Personally, the hitters who would be the best at doing that this year for this team have all split at-bats (and I was too lazy to look at other team's players like this). I do believe that some players do this better than others-and that stats do not show this in a hugely effective manner, but I do agree that this happens at a small enough rate to not turn a terrible offensive player into a valuable one, for example. It's just a small factor that when combined with other factors that could turn into the tiebreaker between similar players.

[biittner77]

Jaxxradio wrote:

 

Guys that have great numbers but don't play the game hard are useless to me because they don't have a championship mentality. As much as I despise the Yankees, they win because they have guys that do the little things needed to be a champion. Derek Jeter is the best example of how a player should act both on the field and in the clubhouse

 

 

Leo Durocher said:

 

"You've brought me an all American boy. Now go get me a juvenile deliquent that can hit."

 

It's hard to dislike guys that try hard even if they aren't any good. But production trumps any other intangibles.

[jaxxradio]

kc, I meant team.. not player on the amount of times a runner moves up and it does matter. In fact, it's huge because moving a guy into scoring position dramatically improves the odds of scoring on a hit, wild pitch, sac fly, etc. I'm going to plead ignorance, but what kind of math are you using? I don't understand the numbers. I DO understand that if a player has put a runner into scoring position so the next guy up can drive him in, that player has done his job. We agree to disagree on chemistry.. but I will say that there is alot more communication on the baseball field than you think. I'd like to take in a game with you and some of the other folks on the website and see what everybody watches. I'm always fascinated by what people see when they watch a baseball game.

 

US, dude if you want to ask all those questions then lets turn the tables. Have you seen every inning of every game this season? Has Jacque spiked EVERY throw from right into the ground? Has he been picked off EVERYTIME he strays from second base?

 

If you want to be picky, I can do that. BTW, if you want my answers, I'll be glad to give them to you. How do I know Aramis isn't a hustler? From the MANY COACHES in the Cubs system that have told me so. No offense, but they know a hell of alot more than you do my friend. How do I know what kind of a person he is in the clubhouse? From the MANY PLAYERS I know that are in the clubhouse and oh, by the way, I'll know first-hand since I'll be up there to cover the team in mid-September. I'll send him your best.

 

Was he terrific in 2003? Absolutely. We're the Cubs unlucky in post-season? Dude, they were LUCKY to have been in post-season that year to begin with. The plan (and there was a plan in place) was to have the Cubs get in the post-season in 2004. It got moved up one year because everyone was relatively healthy and alot of the breaks went the Cubs way.

[stitchface]

djaxx - if these players are useless to you, that would imply that you think you could field a team of hustlers and win the world series. I tend to disagree. I would prefer players that hustle but production is far more important. There is value to playing hard and doing things right - no doubt about it. That won't win you any championships if you can't hit.

[USSoccer]

 

US, dude if you want to ask all those questions then lets turn the tables. Have you seen every inning of every game this season? Has Jacque spiked EVERY throw from right into the ground? Has he been picked off EVERYTIME he strays from second base?

 

If you want to be picky, I can do that. BTW, if you want my answers, I'll be glad to give them to you. How do I know Aramis isn't a hustler? From the MANY COACHES in the Cubs system that have told me so. No offense, but they know a hell of alot more than you do my friend. How do I know what kind of a person he is in the clubhouse? From the MANY PLAYERS I know that are in the clubhouse and oh, by the way, I'll know first-hand since I'll be up there to cover the team in mid-September. I'll send him your best.

 

Was he terrific in 2003? Absolutely. We're the Cubs unlucky in post-season? Dude, they were LUCKY to have been in post-season that year to begin with. The plan (and there was a plan in place) was to have the Cubs get in the post-season in 2004. It got moved up one year because everyone was relatively healthy and alot of the breaks went the Cubs way.

 

Talking down to me and refusing to actually address relavent points isn't going to prove me wrong. You are the person who stated that Jones hustles and does the litle things well. I've provided evidence that that is not the case. You then respond by asking if Jones spikes every throw, gets picked off every time he's on 2nd. Of course he doesn't. I didn't say it was all he did. What you offered was hyberbole, and dealing in absolutes is a dangerous thing. What I am saying is he's done it more than enough to show he's terrible at the precious little things that the Cubs organization hold dear. Hold everyone up to the same standard. Don't damn Ramirez and praise Jones, despite proof that Jones is worse fundamentally and provides poorer production across the board.

 

As far as Ramirez and his hustle, I never said he was a scrappy hustler. He's obviously not. What I am saying is just because he doesn't go 100% full bore throttle on every groundout doesn't make him an ineffective player, or someone without a championship mentality. He's a very, very good player, and one that is a huge key if this team wants to even sniff contention over the next 3 years.

 

The Cubs coaching staff can question Aramis and call him a loafer all they want. They've proven themselves to be completely clueless and incompetent as far as what they value in a player, and if they value hustle and heart more than talent and ability, as well as improvement (defensively), then that just cements my already poor opinion of the coaches in this organization. It's funny how you question his clubhouse demeanor, yet none of the beat reporters have ever reported Aramis having caused issues in the clubhouse.

 

Finally, let me offer you this: You have Jones and Ramirez. Let's say they are equal as far as fundamental skills go-all the little things, like baserunning, defense, hustle, etc. If they're equal, why would you favor the guy who's a .270 hitter, who is poor defensively, isn't that fast, can't hit for power, can't get on base and is 31 over the guy who's 27, is a .300 hitter, hits for power, gets on base, and plays good defense? Just because you think the .270 hitter cares more?

 

If your answer is Jones, and the Cubs' answer is Jones, then that's a pretty good reason we're 98 years removed from our title. They consistently value the wrong traits in players.

[Mephistopheles]

 

I used run expectancy. It's essentially how many runs a team scores in that situation.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=99956&PHPSESSID=d5a3ed184c06fd0fe500bdc08fcccd98

[jaxxradio]

Stitch, I couldn't field a team of all "over achievers" and win a World Series, much like you couldn't field a team of loafers that put up good numbers and win a World Series. Although if you go back to 1988, the Dodgers didn't have alot of talent offensively other than Gibson and they smoked a more superior Oakland team.

 

There are plenty of guys out there that play the game hard and put up solid numbers. All I am saying is that I can do without the guys that don't play this game (or any other professional sport) hard.

 

USSoccer, I didn't talk down to you at all. You're the one who asked why Jones can't keep from spiking EVERY THROW from right field (go back to one of your last responses). That's why I asked if you watched every inning of every game.

 

I'm not damning Ramirez at all. I think he has developed into a very good player. I'm just saying that I'd like to see the guy play the game a little harder.

 

Your opinion of the coaching staff is quite fascinating. If the coaching staff in the entire Cubs organization is "clueless and incompetent", please explain to me why the Cubs are consistently among the top ten minor league farm systems in all of baseball?

 

If I had to choose between Jones and Ramirez, I'm going to take Ramirez everyday of the week because of what he can do for me at third base and because we have a guy in Felix Pie that can move up and play the outfield. Now, if you ask me who I would rather have at third base Ramirez or Scott Rolen, I'll gladly take Rolen, his Gold Glove and his work ethic. It would be an upgrade.

 

I am curious USSoccer, what do you think a team needs in order to win a championship? How much does pitching fall into your equation? Do you feel you need to have solid defense to win? I'm curious to hear your opinion as well as everyone else's.

[jaxxradio]

kc, I don't see how you guys can read those numbers without getting a migraine.. lol

 

The next time you go to Wrigley or any other stadium, I want you to watch the bench's reaction when a batter moves a runner from second to third with a groundball to the right side of the infield or a long flyout. Chances are, the batter gets a pat on the back from his manager and a high five or two from his teammates for getting the runner over (as long as it's not an inning ending out).

 

It's interesting to see everyone's perspective on this. Since this discussion began, I have made it a point to ask other coaches, managers, scouts and broadcasters about moving the runners over like the example I just gave. Everybody I have talked to said that the batter did his job and would be commended.

[USSoccer]

Your opinion of the coaching staff is quite fascinating. If the coaching staff in the entire Cubs organization is "clueless and incompetent", please explain to me why the Cubs are consistently among the top ten minor league farm systems in all of baseball?

 

If I had to choose between Jones and Ramirez, I'm going to take Ramirez everyday of the week because of what he can do for me at third base and because we have a guy in Felix Pie that can move up and play the outfield. Now, if you ask me who I would rather have at third base Ramirez or Scott Rolen, I'll gladly take Rolen, his Gold Glove and his work ethic. It would be an upgrade.

 

I am curious USSoccer, what do you think a team needs in order to win a championship? How much does pitching fall into your equation? Do you feel you need to have solid defense to win? I'm curious to hear your opinion as well as everyone else's.

 

The Cubs minor league system has succeeded in developing tradable pitching talent. They have yet to develop a regular, solid positional player for the major league club. Part of the problem is an overreliance on toolsy players and an overaggressive coaching style that takes free swinging guys with talent and deemphasizes controlling the strike zone and being patience. Of the positional players in the system right now, there isn't a whole lot that jumps out at you and screams "big league star". Will we get a solid big leaguer out of that group? Maybe. I hope Pie is that guy, but until the focus moves away from raw "tools" and starts factoring in actual performance, we're going to have to hope that we get someone so talented, that they will succeed in spite of a flawed philosiphy. There doesn't seem to be any thought to minimizing risk with our drafts. It's always tools and athletes. So we get these raw guys who are really good athletes, and instead of preaching patience, we're preaching aggressiveness, which plays into most of their weaknesses. That falls on the coaches. If you have free swingers, why on earth are you encouraging aggressiveness? Finally, I know that injuries to pitchers happen, but they happen to our pitchers quite frequently, and I think the coaches at all levels (particularly the ML level) need to figure out how to properly handle a pitching staff. The failure to not overwork pitchers has contributed directly to the current state of the Cubs.

 

As far as what I think it takes to win a championship, you need healthy, consistently good starting pitching, on base percentage + slugging and luck. Defense and intangibles (especially intangibles), in my opinion, are way in back of those first 2 things. You can't build a team like the Cubs have, around speed, defense and chemistry, and win. If I were to rank them percentage-wise, I'd put about 50% on pitching, 40% on on base + slugging, 5% luck and 5% defense. You can't have a team full of Manny Ramirez's out there, but you also can't afford to have 2 absolute offensive black holes in your lineup for defense's sake (as the Cubs do currently, with Izturis and Cedeno). Likewise, if you're going to have those 2 in the middle IF, you need to make sure you get good offensive production from your OF. Murton in LF is a good player, but Pierre and Jones can't be your CF and RF next season, particularly if Cedeno and Izturis are in your IF. You cannot afford to be so bad at getting on base from 4 of your 8 position players and expect to play consistent, winning baseball.

[stitchface]

moving a runner over is better than not moving a runner - but its not as good as not making an out - not nearly as good. it should not be the batter's goal when he goes to the plate unless the situation specifically calls for a single run (example down one late with a runner on second). In the early innings, its generally a bad play. Now if you're facing vintage pedro and you are 0-30 lifetime, maybe that's a different story.

 

bottom line is a team of loafers who can hit is better than a team of hustlers who can't. you give me 8 ramirezes (manny or aramis) and I will outscore your pierres 100 out of 100 times. so when you evaluate who you want, you look at production first.

 

Let me ask you this, if you are Ken Macha, do you want Frank Thomas busting his butt to slide hard into second? I sure wouldn't due to the risk of injury. I agree that given the same production, I would take the hustler to the non-hustler, but production is far more important.

 

I really don't see any defense for Jones's baserunning - his head is obviously not in the game. to me that's even worse than not running out a groundball.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It's interesting to see everyone's perspective on this. Since this discussion began, I have made it a point to ask other coaches, managers, scouts and broadcasters about moving the runners over like the example I just gave. Everybody I have talked to said that the batter did his job and would be commended.

 

I'm trying to avoid this thread...but I have a question. Is the player supposed to move the runner over or is he trying to get a hit, and as he fails, he is still able to move the runner over?

[stitchface]

I don't think there is reason to avoid this thread at this point.

 

My general opinion is that announcers and many writers don't like statistics because they de-romanticize the game. The eliminate much of the managerial strategy. They are seen as boring. And they are probably right. And frankly, I don't care if the announcers ignore statistics. My problem is with the GM that does. No matter how much they make your head hurt, the numbers don't lie. With over 100 years of evidence, there is not really much grounds to argue.

 

Incidentally, BP just ran a series of articles on baserunning and its importance. It was a bit loose but interesting anyway.

[the splendid splinter]

BP's mvp Derek Jeter!!! 8) 8)

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I don't think there is reason to avoid this thread at this point.

 

I just don't want to get involved in a thread that might never end.

[jaxxradio]

Raisin, you bring up a good question.. okay, let me break down this situation even more. Let's say there is a right-handed hitter up with a runner at second and less than two outs.

 

There are some people that would say get a hit and without doubt that is the ultimate goal, but that batter had better not pull the ball to the left-side unless he is 100% sure he can get a hit. Otherwise there is a better than average chance that you got two outs and the runner stays at second.

 

Most managers, coaches and every other decision maker in this game will tell that batter to try and hit the ball to the right side. If the batter is successful in getting a hit, it's all good. If the batter grounds out or hits a fly ball deep enough to move the runner up, the runner goes to third base where a wild pitch, passed ball or a hit drives him in. The batter goes into the dugout knowing he has done his job.

 

Stitch.. we are in complete agreement that a hit is much better in this situation, but moving the runner over even if the batter makes an out is a good thing as long as it wasn't an inning ending out.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If you play for one run, then that's the most you're gonna get.

[stitchface]

Raisin, you bring up a good question.. okay, let me break down this situation even more. Let's say there is a right-handed hitter up with a runner at second and less than two outs.

 

There are some people that would say get a hit and without doubt that is the ultimate goal, but that batter had better not pull the ball to the left-side unless he is 100% sure he can get a hit. Otherwise there is a better than average chance that you got two outs and the runner stays at second.

 

Most managers, coaches and every other decision maker in this game will tell that batter to try and hit the ball to the right side. If the batter is successful in getting a hit, it's all good. If the batter grounds out or hits a fly ball deep enough to move the runner up, the runner goes to third base where a wild pitch, passed ball or a hit drives him in. The batter goes into the dugout knowing he has done his job.

 

Stitch.. we are in complete agreement that a hit is much better in this situation, but moving the runner over even if the batter makes an out is a good thing as long as it wasn't an inning ending out.

 

no, it isn't. the number of runs you will score if the batter makes an out if much less than if he doesn't. so, its not a good thing. in your scenario above, I would never want a pull hitter to try and hit to right because that will significantly lower his odds of getting a hit and thereby decrease the number of runs your team will score. furthermore, having a runner at 3rd with two out isn't much better than a runner at 2nd with two outs. like I said, 100 years of baseball games has shown that you will score fewer runs by giving up outs to advance runners. if people don't want to believe it, that's their choice - but it is a fact.

[jaxxradio]

Stitch, I don't like statistics because they aren't the end all on how to judge a player and more importantly from a radio broadcasters perspective the majority of fans listening in to the game don't want to hear what Aramis Ramirez average is while wearing purple underwear on a Tuesday night with clear skies and a full moon (BTW, he is 4-9 in those situations this season..).

 

If you were a GM and you were given the choice between a player who puts up MVP caliber numbers but isn't a team player and a player who puts up good, but not great, numbers who is considered to be a great teammate, who would you pick? If you choose the guy who puts up MVP numbers that isn't a team player, you wouldn't be making the right decision if you want to win a championship IMO.

 

Why do you think guys like Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas haven't won a ring yet?? They both belong in the Hall of Fame and in Bonds case, he's the greatest player I have ever seen and will probably ever see in my life. So, why do you think it is that these guys haven't won a ring??

 

Why did the White Sox happen to win it all last season, the first year after Thomas left? Because the clubhouse got a whole lot better chemistry wise without that pain in the arse in the clubhouse.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Frank Thomas was a White Sock last season (an injured one, but a White Sock all the same). And it wasn't the first season he's missed due to injury - but it was the first time the White Sox had won a World Series with him hurt. It probably had a lot to do with their fantastic starting pitching.

 

Stitch, I don't like statistics because they aren't the end all on how to judge a player and more importantly from a radio broadcasters perspective the majority of fans listening in to the game don't want to hear what Aramis Ramirez average is while wearing purple underwear on a Tuesday night with clear skies and a full moon (BTW, he is 4-9 in those situations this season..).

 

Stats like that are pointless. There are other stats that should be paid attention to because they have enough of a sample, can be used to predict things and are important to judge the player or team's play.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If you were a GM and you were given the choice between a player who puts up MVP caliber numbers but isn't a team player and a player who puts up good, but not great, numbers who is considered to be a great teammate, who would you pick? If you choose the guy who puts up MVP numbers that isn't a team player, you wouldn't be making the right decision if you want to win a championship IMO.

 

You are wrong.

 

Why do you think guys like Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas haven't won a ring yet?? They both belong in the Hall of Fame and in Bonds case, he's the greatest player I have ever seen and will probably ever see in my life. So, why do you think it is that these guys haven't won a ring??

 

They haven't won because the teams they have been on haven't been good or lucky enough. Should we make a list of all the really great teammates that haven't won a ring? It's a very, very poor argument.

 

Why did the White Sox happen to win it all last season, the first year after Thomas left? Because the clubhouse got a whole lot better chemistry wise without that pain in the arse in the clubhouse.

 

Thomas leaving was the reason? The White Sox won a bunch of games because they pitched out of their minds and clubbed a bunch of home runs. I'm extremely skeptical Frank Thomas no longer being around inspired Jon Garland to have a career year.

[jaxxradio]

I find it very hard to believe that a publication has 100 years worth of boxscores with the play-by-play of each inning attached to the boxscores.

 

I want to ask yourself a serious question. How did they get the information over the last 100 years of baseball? You can't use a regular boxscore because it doesn't have enough in depth information needed to get the numbers.

 

I'll give you the last 30-40 years, but enlighten me on how you can get that specific statistic from the early 1900's through the 1960's? The only possible way you could get that information is by getting a play-by-play report written of every game ever played and since the play-by-play sheet used today didn't come out until the last 30-40 years, I find it really hard to believe that they can get the information needed to support the theory.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Ron, did the Giants play Game 7 of the 2002 World Series extra bad because Bonds was on the team?

 

Did Felix Rodriguez and Tim Rodriguez perform poorly in the late innings of Game 6 of the 2002 World Series because of Barry?

[USSoccer]

Stitch, I don't like statistics because they aren't the end all on how to judge a player and more importantly from a radio broadcasters perspective the majority of fans listening in to the game don't want to hear what Aramis Ramirez average is while wearing purple underwear on a Tuesday night with clear skies and a full moon (BTW, he is 4-9 in those situations this season..).

 

If you were a GM and you were given the choice between a player who puts up MVP caliber numbers but isn't a team player and a player who puts up good, but not great, numbers who is considered to be a great teammate, who would you pick? If you choose the guy who puts up MVP numbers that isn't a team player, you wouldn't be making the right decision if you want to win a championship IMO.

 

Why do you think guys like Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas haven't won a ring yet?? They both belong in the Hall of Fame and in Bonds case, he's the greatest player I have ever seen and will probably ever see in my life. So, why do you think it is that these guys haven't won a ring??

 

Why did the White Sox happen to win it all last season, the first year after Thomas left? Because the clubhouse got a whole lot better chemistry wise without that pain in the arse in the clubhouse.

 

-The White Sox won that division last year in part because Thomas hit a bunch of HR's for them before he got hurt, which won them games that ended up helping them hold of Cleveland. They won the World Series because every pitcher on that staff had a career year and an amazing playoff run. Not because of clubhouse chemistry. Thomas travelled with that team. He was in the locker room, on the bench. Him not being on the playoff roster didn't make the White Sox champions. Just because he wasn't in uniform, did that make the White Sox instantly get along?

 

Bonds doesn't have a ring because his Pirate teams choked in the early 1990's, and because Dusty Baker got badly outmanaged in every postseason appearance with the Giants, and even then they should have won in 2002. Thomas has a ring. From the White Sox. Last season. When he was on their team. He left for Oakland this past winter.

 

If I were a GM, and the salaries or player costs were equal, and they played the same position, I will always take the MVP guy, because baseball is not a "team" game like the other major sports are. It's a game of individual matchups. I would be doing a disservice to the other 24 guys on the team if I didn't go with the best player. When I played soccer at the level I got to, I didn't get along with all of my team mates off the field. All I cared about was their performance and production in between the lines. That's it, and I'd wager 90% of big league ballplayers would tell the GM to pick the MVP, because most players would rather have the best chance to win, and not the happiest clubhouse in the league.

 

I don't like statistics because they aren't the end all on how to judge a player and more importantly from a radio broadcasters perspective the majority of fans listening in to the game don't want to hear what Aramis Ramirez average is while wearing purple underwear on a Tuesday night with clear skies and a full moon

 

That's a pretty insulting impression of what people who look at stats look for. That sort of overreaching, non-important stat is akin to the Jim Hendry quote for why he signed Jeromy Burnitz in 2006 ("he was 4 in the league in SLG% amongst guys who struck out 150+ times" or whatever it was). People use numbers because numbers don't care if a guy sprints out a routine out to 2B. They care that that same guy consistently puts up a .900 OPS, and therefore is a very, very productive player.

[Mephistopheles]

I find it very hard to believe that a publication has 100 years worth of boxscores with the play-by-play of each inning attached to the boxscores.

 

Have you ever seen retrosheet.org? It doesn't have every box score for the last 100 years. It has boxscores with play by play since like 1972, with a lot of box scores from before then. That's more than enough information to get run expectancy. In fact it's probably better to only use recent data because the run environment is similar.

 

http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B09140BSN1922.htm

 

It has quite a few boxscores from as far back as 1922 with play by play.

 

The next time you go to Wrigley or any other stadium, I want you to watch the bench's reaction when a batter moves a runner from second to third with a groundball to the right side of the infield or a long flyout. Chances are, the batter gets a pat on the back from his manager and a high five or two from his teammates for getting the runner over (as long as it's not an inning ending out).

 

I don't particularily care what the bench's reaction is. Just because they think it is good, it doesn't make it good. Yes, an out moving a runner over is better than making an out with moving the run over, as I demonstrated, such situations don't occur enough to make a difference.

 

Everybody I have talked to said that the batter did his job and would be commended.

 

I bet if you polled every manager in the American League Derek Jeter would end up getting voted as the one of the leagues top three defensive shortstops. This finding would get laughed at by the sabermetric community, in fact it happened: http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/majors/features/262142.html

[jaxxradio]

Thomas played in thirty-two games and hit 12 homers last season, not the kind of numbers that are going to make a huge difference one way or the other.

 

I suppose White Sox GM Kenny Williams, manager Ozzie Guillen and most of the clubhouse that commented on the chemistry being better in the clubhouse because Thomas isn't around isn't all that important. I mean after all, it's only the GM, Manager and the players that said it.

 

I guess having players congratulate a teammate for moving a runner over shouldn't have any bearing. I mean, it's only the guys that know more about baseball and have been in the game longer than me or anyone else in this forum.

 

USSoccer, baseball is so much more of a team game than you think. Is there a pitcher-batter matchup? Yes, but the batter isn't in that alone, nor is the pitcher. Who do you think tells the pitcher what pitch to throw?? The manager tells the catcher who tells the pitcher unless the manager completely trusts his catcher. Who do you think tells the hitter what to do? The third base coach by flashing those signs that you see. He isn't rubbing his hat, belly, arms for nothing.. it's called COMMUNICATION. Who do you think tells the infield and outfield where to play in certain situations?? The manager or the bench coach.. Who do you think sets up the defense with runners on?? The third baseman or the catcher after the manager flashes a sign to tell that player how to set up the defense. To say baseball isn't a team sport is ignorance.

 

Here's the bottom line without stepping on anyone's toes or offending anyone. Fans have numbers at their disposal and for the most part you stand by those numbers because that's the only thing you have. Sadly, fans aren't allowed to go into a clubhouse, interview players, get to know them on a daily basis, etc.. like myself and the rest of the media. I believe in the "chemistry breeds winning" theory because I know first hand that it works, much like you fans know that player A is a better hitter, defender, etc.. than player B because you have numbers to back it up.

 

I admit that there is truth to numbers, much like there is truth to what I have said.