He'll fit right in.

[CubmanPi]

Lou Piniella[/url]"]You need pitchers who can command the strike zone, you need defensive players who can catch the ball...

I'm not sure what took Hendry so long to hire someone who speaks his language.

[otis89]

Yes, you do need those two things. Of course, you also need power and good OBP.

[Jon]

You left out the best part, which came right after that:

 

"You need pitchers who can command the strike zone, you need defensive players who can catch the ball, and you would think in a ballpark like this that you need a lot of power, but you what you need is athleticism. You catch more baseballs. Singles stay singles, doubles stay doubles."

 

Yes, he's actually implying that defensive speed (not speed, but speed on defense) is more important than power on offense.

[Andy]

You left out the best part, which came right after that:

 

"You need pitchers who can command the strike zone, you need defensive players who can catch the ball, and you would think in a ballpark like this that you need a lot of power, but you what you need is athleticism. You catch more baseballs. Singles stay singles, doubles stay doubles."

 

Yes, he's actually implying that defensive speed (not speed, but speed on defense) is more important than power on offense.

Well, I do want singles to stay singles and doubles to stay doubles, but I'm a tad uneasy that he seemed to place so much emphasis on it.

[swordsman]

I hate to throw a wet towel drill on this pity party, but what was the context for this statement? What was the question he was answering or was he just muttering this under his breath wandering around Wrigley?

[SoonerCubFan]

I hate to throw a wet towel drill on this pity party, but what was the context for this statement? What was the question he was answering or was he just muttering this under his breath wandering around Wrigley?

 

Well put Swordsman. I didn't see ANY reference to offense mentioned, so to assume that what he said rules out offensive prowess does need some context. Seems like DLee and ARam have plenty of defensive athleticism and plenty of OPS. Since the singles and doubles reference ultimately points to the OF, guys like Soriano or AJones or Drew would also be decent prototypes for both sides.

Edited October 20, 2006 by SoonerCubFan

[CubColtPacer]

I just looked it up. Piniella was asked about managing at Wrigley. He was talking about the park, and I think he is referencing that at Wrigley the wind blows in more than it does out. Here is a quote right after the ones that have already been mentioned in this thread:

 

"When the conditions are right, anybody can hit a home run," Piniella said. "When the conditions aren't right, Babe Ruth can't hit a home run."

[bhogg]

I think he makes a good point. There are times when it really doesn't matter if you're Alber Pujols or Freddy Bynum --- get it in the wind and it's gone.

 

It's the games that you can't rely on the 3 run homer where a misplayed single can kill you.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Albert Pujols can hit a home run into the wind. Freddie Bynum cannot.

[Andy]

Albert Pujols can hit a home run into the wind. Freddie Bynum cannot.

I think Bynum's first homer this year against Washington was into the wind, for whatever that's worth.

 

I keed, I keed.

[kente777]

I think he makes a good point. There are times when it really doesn't matter if you're Alber Pujols or Freddy Bynum --- get it in the wind and it's gone.

 

It's the games that you can't rely on the 3 run homer where a misplayed single can kill you.

 

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation.

 

As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us.

 

Ken

[MPrior]

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation.

 

As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us.

 

Ken

 

And given that, on any given day, Wrigley can be either a hitter's park or a pitcher's park, the only way to consistently take advantage of our home field is to - gasp - get hitters who get on base a lot!

[goonys evil twin]

I think he makes a good point. There are times when it really doesn't matter if you're Alber Pujols or Freddy Bynum --- get it in the wind and it's gone.

 

It's the games that you can't rely on the 3 run homer where a misplayed single can kill you.

 

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation.

 

As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us.

 

Ken

 

Other teams didn't have problems launching HRs into the wind at Wrigley.

[Pinktermite]

Launching HRs into the wind at Wrigley was easy given our accomplished AA pitching staff.

[SoonerCubFan]

I think he makes a good point. There are times when it really doesn't matter if you're Alber Pujols or Freddy Bynum --- get it in the wind and it's gone.

 

It's the games that you can't rely on the 3 run homer where a misplayed single can kill you.

 

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation.

 

As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us.

 

Ken

 

I've long felt that the Cubs assembled teams too one-dimensional on the power side due to Wrigley. Then, occasionally, they try to go too far the other direction (1974, 2006) that also can't consistently win. Basically, a team of Dave Kingman's or a team of Juan Pierre's will neither one win. But a team full of Billy Williams', who can hit for power with contact and solid OBP would be ideal.

 

The good teams of 1967-1972 had a lot of power in the middle but lacked balance throughout. The very good 1984 team had the best combination of table setters at the top and power in the middle.

[Magnetic Curses]

this is so awesome. i can't wait to see what kind of terrible record we have next year. i, personally, am praying for a really really poor record with a 115 mil payroll, as opposed to a simply mediocre record where everyone keeps their jobs.

 

hendry will be gone, finally. then we can focus on getting better.

[Magnetic Curses]

I think he makes a good point. There are times when it really doesn't matter if you're Alber Pujols or Freddy Bynum --- get it in the wind and it's gone.

 

It's the games that you can't rely on the 3 run homer where a misplayed single can kill you.

 

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation.

 

As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us.

 

Ken

 

no, the problem in 2004 was that we sucked at getting on base.

 

i don't know how we use wrigley as "an advantage to us". other teams aren't building teams around wrigley field, in an effort to come into wrigley and beat us. what we need to do is get people who actually get on base and drive the ball. forget about "contact hitters", juan pierre is the perfect example of what's wrong with that myth.

[CubColtPacer]

I think he makes a good point. There are times when it really doesn't matter if you're Alber Pujols or Freddy Bynum --- get it in the wind and it's gone.

 

It's the games that you can't rely on the 3 run homer where a misplayed single can kill you.

 

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation.

 

As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us.

 

Ken

 

Other teams didn't have problems launching HRs into the wind at Wrigley.

 

That's not quite completely true. The Cubs did much better at keeping pace with the opponents when the HR's were into the wind than anywhere else.

 

This is my rough count of the number of HR's hit by each team in games where there was wind coming in, wind blowing out, or a crosswind. I didn't put the zeros into my number data, which is why you may see different amount of numbers for each one. BTW, as most of you probably know, the wind blows in many, many more times then it does out-or at least it did this year.

 

Wind Blowing In

Cubs-1,2,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1=30

Opp-1,1,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,2,2,2,1,3,2,1,2=37

 

Wind Blowing Out

Cubs-1,1,1,2,3,2,4,2,2,1,4,1,2,4,3,6,1=40

Opp-6,3,1,1,8,1,8,1,4,4,5,6,1,1,6,2,2=60

 

Cross Wind

Cubs-1,2,2,1,1,2=9

Opp-6,2,1,1,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,1,4=26

 

As you can see, HR's did not play a big factor in losing games for the wind blowing in. Also, there is a huge difference in the number of HR's per game with the wind blowing in and the wind blowing out. There are only 3 numbers above 2 HR's in a game with the wind blowing in (all from the Cubs opponents). With the wind blowing out, with several less games to work with, there are 15 of those 3 HR games or more for one team (6 for the Cubs, 9 for the opposition). Environmental factors do play a big difference at Wrigley.

 

I would agree with the solution though of getting more people on base to counteract that HR problem when the wind is blowing in.

[CuseCubFan69]

Albert Pujols can hit a home run into the wind. Freddie Bynum cannot.

 

If Hendry can get a couple of Pujols then I'm all for it.

[KurtEvans]

I am not and never will be a Lou Piniella apologist, but I get the feeling that you fine folks are misunderstand what I believe he was trying to say.

 

Piniella seems to have said at some point that the Cubs can't rely on homeruns to win. I see absolutely no problem in that opinion. Clueless to the end, Dusty Baker wanted a team that could hit more homeruns, but Wrigley Field is not a good ballpark for a team of players who rely on the longball. It seems to me that the team is better off with players who can hit, run, and work the count.

 

Over at Goat Riders the other day, one of my colleagues noted that Piniella's teams seem to have higher OBPs in the last year he managed the team than in the first, the Yankees being the only exception. While I see Lou as potentially being dangerously clueless, he seems to understand the importance of plate discipline and that alone makes him an improvement on Dusty. And if he actually tries to improve the team's approach by making them a group that does NOT rely on the long ball, then I'm all for it.

 

That said, I remain unconvinced that he was the best guy available. He's just not quite as bad as I originally thought he was.

[Jon]

He didn't say they can't rely on homeruns, but he did say that tracking down a handful of extra balls hit to the outfield and getting them back in quickly is more of a necessity in Wrigley than hitting HRs.

 

It's a Dusty-esque statement and, as if it needs to be said, also an absurd one. Wrigley Field ranked 5th in the majors in park factor for HRs, 6th in doubles, and 7th in triples. In 2005, Wrigley was 11th in HRs, 12th in doubles, and 12th in triples. In 2004, 2nd in HRs, 14th in doubles, and 15th in triples. And between 2001 and 2003, they were just below average in HRs. There is nothing to suggest that getting on base and hitting for power isn't a good strategy for Wrigley Field. It's just that they don't actually bother to try it out.

 

And yes, in 2004, the Cubs were only 7th in the NL in runs scored not because of being 1st in HRs and 2nd in SLG, but because they were 11th in OBP. OBP and SLG is always a great way to score runs regardless of the home ballpark. Finding outfielders with speed to get to the ball quicker isn't going to do that much in the grand scheme of things.

[Monco]

Finding outfielders with speed to get to the ball quicker isn't going to do that much in the grand scheme of things.

 

Especially when they can't hit the cutoff man properly.

[KurtEvans]

And yes, in 2004, the Cubs were only 7th in the NL in runs scored not because of being 1st in HRs and 2nd in SLG, but because they were 11th in OBP. OBP and SLG is always a great way to score runs regardless of the home ballpark. Finding outfielders with speed to get to the ball quicker isn't going to do that much in the grand scheme of things.

 

That's fine, sir, but I don't think that contradicts anything Piniella has said. Based on how he's managed his other teams, the Cubs may start playing the game with a more disciplined approach to hitting. That in itself is huge.

 

Something else to consider is that, while the Cubs can absolutely lead the league in homers at Wrigley Field on any given year, it probably becomes considerably more difficult to rely on the three-run homerun (or any kind of homerun) in the cold months of the season. And, regretably, it tends to be pretty cold in Chicago in late September and October. The notable exception to this was the playoff drive in 2003, when it was unusually warm in Chicago in October.

 

I'm just saying, if Piniella advocates winning with other means than the homerun, I'm all for it.

[frostwyrm]

You left out the best part, which came right after that:

 

"You need pitchers who can command the strike zone, you need defensive players who can catch the ball, and you would think in a ballpark like this that you need a lot of power, but you what you need is athleticism. You catch more baseballs. Singles stay singles, doubles stay doubles."

 

Yes, he's actually implying that defensive speed (not speed, but speed on defense) is more important than power on offense.

Well, I do want singles to stay singles and doubles to stay doubles, but I'm a tad uneasy that he seemed to place so much emphasis on it.

 

I'd like to hear his opinion on Pierre. Pierre has defensive speed but his arm rountinely makes singles into doubles and lets runners advance from 1st to 3rd, and then there's all those easy tag-ups on fly balls.