Lou on SportsCenter

[Mephistopheles]

I'm not one to PM someone and say I was a jerk. I'm admittedly a 'Richard' sometimes.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

I guess every single manager in baseball is doing his job wrong then.

 

any manager that doesn't simply perpetuate the company's philosophy on the field isn't doing his job right.

 

with the cubs, the company's philosophy is bad so it really doesn't matter what piniella does, it has to be better than what hendry wants, though.

 

No any GM that dosent get the people to fit the manager isnt doing his job right. The opposite is a GM who dosent hire a manager to use the people in place correctly.

 

Either way you get Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker.

 

i'm not sure exactly what you mean, do you mean that a team should be put together to suit a management style? that's absurd.

 

a team should be put together with pitching and production at the plate--the manager should be there to look wise and talk nice to the media. it should be a virtually meaningless job.

 

It is useless to assemble the Oakland A's and give them to Dusty Baker.

 

The manager on the field is the one using the parts he has been given. He can screw them up before the game even starts if he lacks the ability to see how they all fit together.

 

Using Baker as an example. When he had a veteran team he was more comfortable because the parts fit the manager. With the team that imploded last year he constantly said and did the wrong things because he wasnt comfortable with the team that was assembled.

 

Taking it a step further look at Macha last year. Lost his job because he was the "Beane manager" and couldnt/didnt communicate with the players.

 

You know the human element in the game.

[Rob]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

I guess every single manager in baseball is doing his job wrong then.

 

Earl Weaver was accused more than once of being a push-button manager. It works damn well if you know what buttons to push, as I think he showed.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

I guess every single manager in baseball is doing his job wrong then.

 

any manager that doesn't simply perpetuate the company's philosophy on the field isn't doing his job right.

 

with the cubs, the company's philosophy is bad so it really doesn't matter what piniella does, it has to be better than what hendry wants, though.

 

No any GM that dosent get the people to fit the manager isnt doing his job right. The opposite is a GM who dosent hire a manager to use the people in place correctly.

 

Either way you get Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker.

 

i'm not sure exactly what you mean, do you mean that a team should be put together to suit a management style? that's absurd.

 

a team should be put together with pitching and production at the plate--the manager should be there to look wise and talk nice to the media. it should be a virtually meaningless job.

 

It is useless to assemble the Oakland A's and give them to Dusty Baker.

 

The manager on the field is the one using the parts he has been given. He can screw them up before the game even starts if he lacks the ability to see how they all fit together.

 

partially right, imo. i disagree with the "fit together" part. baseball teams shouldn't "fit together", there is no real team dynamic in baseball. in a sport where there's no fluidity or meaningful interaction between players there's no need to see how a team fits together.

 

it's really useless to build a team based on chemistry or teamwork, as chemistry and teamwork are teeny-tiny parts of the game. the only responsibility of the manager is not to get in the way of the talent on the team. getting in the way of talent consists of things like making a good hitter sacrifice himself in a key situation, or running yourself out of a big inning, or hitting and running, or taking risks at all.

 

the manager should rely on the talent that he has on the field, unless he has none, in which case, all the small-ball in the world won't help him.

 

Using Baker as an example. When he had a veteran team he was more comfortable because the parts fit the manager. With the team that imploded last year he constantly said and did the wrong things because he wasnt comfortable with the team that was assembled.

 

making myself understood here, baker's problems started with the pitching staff and ended with his confusing policy in regards to OBP. in this case, he and hendry were on the exact same page. hendry gave dusty players that had little to no plate discipline but had the penchant for "just putting the ball in play" (albeit very weakly)--the exact type of players that dusty coveted.

 

it's my opinion that hendry was attempting to prove his own little theory on scoring runs: "minimizing strikeouts will lead to scoring runs". this failed fantastically, as strikeouts are not really bad outs in the grand scheme of things. teams that strike out a lot, generally walk a lot and see a lot of pitches per PA. this, in turn, wears down the opposing pitching staffs and leads to more PA's against bullpen pitchers, which is good.

 

Taking it a step further look at Macha last year. Lost his job because he was the "Beane manager" and couldnt/didnt communicate with the players.

 

this is a false notion. macha couldn't communicate with BEANE first and foremost, and he fell out of favor. beane, knowing that managers are easily replaceable, replaced him easily and the A's will continue to excell without macha because their organizational philosophy is one of a consistent winner. Beane knows that having happy players benefits the franchise, but he also knows that winning makes a team happy.

 

macha simply was more trouble than he was worth, this happens with the A's every once in a while. a manager, unhappy with his lack of control, will become rebellious in some way and outlive his usefulness, and i mean "usefulness" as "someone who does what he's told and is happy to do it".

[A New Era]

Can anybody tell me, what the heck are we talking about?

[Mephistopheles]

oh man i so knew beane was about to come up

 

the writing was on the wall, so to speak.

[CubColtPacer]

Can somebody help me out? My brain is very tired, and for some reason I can't get the numbers to work right now. Can you calculate the percentage that the team would need when trying to execute a double steal with 0 and 1 outs? Here is the relevant data:

 

0 outs

1st and 2nd: 1.573

2nd and 3rd: 2.052

2nd (1 out): .725

 

1 outs

1st and 2nd: .971

2nd and 3rd: 1.467

2nd (2 outs): .344

 

Thanks for any help you can give.

 

Assuming I did the math right, the numbers are accurate, and the number of double plays on double steals is insignificant, the break even points come out to 53.3% for double steals with no outs, and 79.1% for double steals with one out.

 

Thanks-so if that's correct, double steals with nobody out can be an effective weapon if you have a very good baserunner stealing 3rd and at least a decent basestealer stealing 2nd (making the catcher throw it to 3rd rather than 2nd)

 

So who's the very good basestealer on the roster?

 

Well, let's see, I only need a 53 percent break-even point for a double steal, so I just need a player who can steal 3rd 55 percent of the time or more. Soriano fits that bill:

 

2006-14 steals, 8 CS

2005-6 steals, 0 CS

2004-2 steals, 2 CS

2003-5 steals, 3 CS

2002-9 steals, 3 CS

 

That's 36 steals of 3rd in the last 5 years with 16 caught-that's 69.2 percent, which means that Soriano is breaking even on stealing 3rd with one out, and can be used as that front baserunner in the double steal attempt.

[CuseCubFan69]

What I'm willing to gamble is getting the runner to third when I see an opportunity to do so. I understand that percentages say this and they say that but I think knowing your team and certain aspects of what the competition is capable of increases the chances. Do I know the numbers no, so I can't prove it the way you want me to.

 

Also, if a pitcher and catcher never have to worry about a threat to steal it changes the dynamic of what can happen and what does happen. If I have a pitcher that is so worried about the hitter and I notice that, I take off. A good baserunner can notice these things. I'm still talking about stealing third.

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

Why do you equate not trying to steal third with having a manager who sits around and does nothing? You coach, you know that there is more to game decisions than just "should I steal or not". I want a coach to worry about lefty/right match ups, defensive positioning, pinch hitting, etc...not to attempt a steal when it's likely harmful.

 

But when you throw away a possible option you are limiting yourself and I just don't understand why you would make the opposing managers/teams job a lot easier. Again for the extremists....I'm not advocating to steal the whole time but to use it wisely and especially when you see a good matchup for success. I also don't understand the extremes of one way or another. You mix it up....maybe a slant one way or another but to say to steal all the time or to never steal is foolish to me.

[Bull]

*points to signature*

[Bull]

What I'm willing to gamble is getting the runner to third when I see an opportunity to do so. I understand that percentages say this and they say that but I think knowing your team and certain aspects of what the competition is capable of increases the chances. Do I know the numbers no, so I can't prove it the way you want me to.

 

Also, if a pitcher and catcher never have to worry about a threat to steal it changes the dynamic of what can happen and what does happen. If I have a pitcher that is so worried about the hitter and I notice that, I take off. A good baserunner can notice these things. I'm still talking about stealing third.

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

Why do you equate not trying to steal third with having a manager who sits around and does nothing? You coach, you know that there is more to game decisions than just "should I steal or not". I want a coach to worry about lefty/right match ups, defensive positioning, pinch hitting, etc...not to attempt a steal when it's likely harmful.

 

But when you throw away a possible option you are limiting yourself and I just don't understand why you would make the opposing managers/teams job a lot easier. Again for the extremists....I'm not advocating to steal the whole time but to use it wisely and especially when you see a good matchup for success. I also don't understand the extremes of one way or another. You mix it up....maybe a slant one way or another but to say to steal all the time or to never steal is foolish to me.

 

Any way to figure pitchers ERA with a basestealing threat on base vs their ERA without?

[Soul]

What I'm willing to gamble is getting the runner to third when I see an opportunity to do so. I understand that percentages say this and they say that but I think knowing your team and certain aspects of what the competition is capable of increases the chances. Do I know the numbers no, so I can't prove it the way you want me to.

 

Also, if a pitcher and catcher never have to worry about a threat to steal it changes the dynamic of what can happen and what does happen. If I have a pitcher that is so worried about the hitter and I notice that, I take off. A good baserunner can notice these things. I'm still talking about stealing third.

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

Why do you equate not trying to steal third with having a manager who sits around and does nothing? You coach, you know that there is more to game decisions than just "should I steal or not". I want a coach to worry about lefty/right match ups, defensive positioning, pinch hitting, etc...not to attempt a steal when it's likely harmful.

 

But when you throw away a possible option you are limiting yourself and I just don't understand why you would make the opposing managers/teams job a lot easier. Again for the extremists....I'm not advocating to steal the whole time but to use it wisely and especially when you see a good matchup for success. I also don't understand the extremes of one way or another. You mix it up....maybe a slant one way or another but to say to steal all the time or to never steal is foolish to me.

 

I've never thought it was particularly useful to steal 3rd, but hey maybe in the right situation, you put a little extra pressure on the pitcher. I dunno.

 

Maybe if the pitcher throws a lot of sliders in the dirt or something. You steal 3rd to try to take that pitch away.

[imb]

What I'm willing to gamble is getting the runner to third when I see an opportunity to do so. I understand that percentages say this and they say that but I think knowing your team and certain aspects of what the competition is capable of increases the chances. Do I know the numbers no, so I can't prove it the way you want me to.

 

Also, if a pitcher and catcher never have to worry about a threat to steal it changes the dynamic of what can happen and what does happen. If I have a pitcher that is so worried about the hitter and I notice that, I take off. A good baserunner can notice these things. I'm still talking about stealing third.

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

Why do you equate not trying to steal third with having a manager who sits around and does nothing? You coach, you know that there is more to game decisions than just "should I steal or not". I want a coach to worry about lefty/right match ups, defensive positioning, pinch hitting, etc...not to attempt a steal when it's likely harmful.

 

But when you throw away a possible option you are limiting yourself and I just don't understand why you would make the opposing managers/teams job a lot easier. Again for the extremists....I'm not advocating to steal the whole time but to use it wisely and especially when you see a good matchup for success. I also don't understand the extremes of one way or another. You mix it up....maybe a slant one way or another but to say to steal all the time or to never steal is foolish to me.

 

I have admitted, in this thread even, that there are times when I'm not against an attempted steal of third. However, the times when it's a good idea is greatly outnumbered by the times people actually do it.

[CuseCubFan69]

What I'm willing to gamble is getting the runner to third when I see an opportunity to do so. I understand that percentages say this and they say that but I think knowing your team and certain aspects of what the competition is capable of increases the chances. Do I know the numbers no, so I can't prove it the way you want me to.

 

Also, if a pitcher and catcher never have to worry about a threat to steal it changes the dynamic of what can happen and what does happen. If I have a pitcher that is so worried about the hitter and I notice that, I take off. A good baserunner can notice these things. I'm still talking about stealing third.

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

Why do you equate not trying to steal third with having a manager who sits around and does nothing? You coach, you know that there is more to game decisions than just "should I steal or not". I want a coach to worry about lefty/right match ups, defensive positioning, pinch hitting, etc...not to attempt a steal when it's likely harmful.

 

But when you throw away a possible option you are limiting yourself and I just don't understand why you would make the opposing managers/teams job a lot easier. Again for the extremists....I'm not advocating to steal the whole time but to use it wisely and especially when you see a good matchup for success. I also don't understand the extremes of one way or another. You mix it up....maybe a slant one way or another but to say to steal all the time or to never steal is foolish to me.

 

I have admitted, in this thread even, that there are times when I'm not against an attempted steal of third. However, the times when it's a good idea is greatly outnumbered by the times people actually do it.

 

I agree.

[hardcorecubfan]

Its pointless. A man on second is going to score on a base hit as long as he isnt slow. And if he's slow, he shouldnt be stealing third in the first place.

 

Someone on second is already in scoring position, why risk the out just to get him more in scoring position? It's not worth it 99% of the time.

 

the 69 cubs lived on the sacrifice fly esp. with William and Banks able to drive it deep constantly, unlike our teams of the recent years

[USSoccer]

Its pointless. A man on second is going to score on a base hit as long as he isnt slow. And if he's slow, he shouldnt be stealing third in the first place.

 

Someone on second is already in scoring position, why risk the out just to get him more in scoring position? It's not worth it 99% of the time.

 

the 69 cubs lived on the sacrifice fly esp. with William and Banks able to drive it deep constantly, unlike our teams of the recent years

 

And what kind of success did that team have over the course of a season?

 

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

[Magnetic Curses]

Its pointless. A man on second is going to score on a base hit as long as he isnt slow. And if he's slow, he shouldnt be stealing third in the first place.

 

Someone on second is already in scoring position, why risk the out just to get him more in scoring position? It's not worth it 99% of the time.

 

the 69 cubs lived on the sacrifice fly esp. with William and Banks able to drive it deep constantly, unlike our teams of the recent years

 

santo had more sac flies than anyone on that team by far.

 

and they still lost.

[David]

Well, to be fair, the 69 team did win 92 games. They just didn't finish in first. And they didn't have the benefit of playing in a more inclusive playoff system like nowadays. It wasn't because they were great at sac-fly RBIs, though.

 

Still, it's pretty sad that Cubs fans still talk about the 69 team. At least as Bears fans we have 1985, which is at least under 3 decades ago. And they actually won a championship.

 

It's pretty crazy when you think about it... A team that started out hot and collapsed late in the season... Doesn't that happen all the time? Hell, in 2001 and 2004 it happened to the Cobs. Yet people still talk about that team all the time. I guess it's also because they had a few future HOFers. Still, I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm younger.

[USSoccer]

Well, to be fair, the 69 team did win 92 games. They just didn't finish in first. And they didn't have the benefit of playing in a more inclusive playoff system like nowadays. It wasn't because they were great at sac-fly RBIs, though.

 

Still, it's pretty sad that Cubs fans still talk about the 69 team. At least as Bears fans we have 1985, which is at least under 3 decades ago. And they actually won a championship.

 

It's pretty crazy when you think about it... A team that started out hot and collapsed late in the season... Doesn't that happen all the time? Hell, in 2001 and 2004 it happened to the Cobs. Yet people still talk about that team all the time. I guess it's also because they had a few future HOFers. Still, I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm younger.

 

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized.

 

The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well, to be fair, the 69 team did win 92 games. They just didn't finish in first. And they didn't have the benefit of playing in a more inclusive playoff system like nowadays. It wasn't because they were great at sac-fly RBIs, though.

 

Still, it's pretty sad that Cubs fans still talk about the 69 team. At least as Bears fans we have 1985, which is at least under 3 decades ago. And they actually won a championship.

 

It's pretty crazy when you think about it... A team that started out hot and collapsed late in the season... Doesn't that happen all the time? Hell, in 2001 and 2004 it happened to the Cobs. Yet people still talk about that team all the time. I guess it's also because they had a few future HOFers. Still, I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm younger.

 

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized.

 

The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous.

 

The reason why it's "romanticized" is because it was first time the Cubs were in the hunt for first place in many many years.

[USSoccer]

Well, to be fair, the 69 team did win 92 games. They just didn't finish in first. And they didn't have the benefit of playing in a more inclusive playoff system like nowadays. It wasn't because they were great at sac-fly RBIs, though.

 

Still, it's pretty sad that Cubs fans still talk about the 69 team. At least as Bears fans we have 1985, which is at least under 3 decades ago. And they actually won a championship.

 

It's pretty crazy when you think about it... A team that started out hot and collapsed late in the season... Doesn't that happen all the time? Hell, in 2001 and 2004 it happened to the Cobs. Yet people still talk about that team all the time. I guess it's also because they had a few future HOFers. Still, I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm younger.

 

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized.

 

The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous.

 

The reason why it's "romanticized" is because it was first time the Cubs were in the hunt for first place in many many years.

 

And yet there is one collapse and 2 playoff chokes that should be much more memorable that a team that faded with 2 months to go in the season.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well, to be fair, the 69 team did win 92 games. They just didn't finish in first. And they didn't have the benefit of playing in a more inclusive playoff system like nowadays. It wasn't because they were great at sac-fly RBIs, though.

 

Still, it's pretty sad that Cubs fans still talk about the 69 team. At least as Bears fans we have 1985, which is at least under 3 decades ago. And they actually won a championship.

 

It's pretty crazy when you think about it... A team that started out hot and collapsed late in the season... Doesn't that happen all the time? Hell, in 2001 and 2004 it happened to the Cobs. Yet people still talk about that team all the time. I guess it's also because they had a few future HOFers. Still, I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm younger.

 

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized.

 

The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous.

 

The reason why it's "romanticized" is because it was first time the Cubs were in the hunt for first place in many many years.

 

And yet there is one collapse and 2 playoff chokes that should be much more memorable that a team that faded with 2 months to go in the season.

 

I know the others were closer but this was the first for many many Cub fans and you never forget your first.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat.

 

A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie.

[David]

I dunno. My first really was 98. I was only 6 years old for 89. But I think about 2003 and 2004 a lot more than the 98 team.

 

The fact that the Cubs didn't really come close again after 69 until 84 plays a role, too, I suppose.

[USSoccer]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat.

 

A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie.

 

What kind of sense does that make? Yes, with 2 strikes and a guy on third, make contact, whatever, but there's no way you're going to tell me with a straight face that with a guy on 3rd and less than 2 outs the goal isn't to get a hit, but to hit a deep fly ball?

 

A deep fly is at least 5th in the order of preferred outcomes.

[Magnetic Curses]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat.

 

A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

btw- they're called "plate appearances", not "at bats". they only become at bats when the plate appearance is over and one of two outcomes did not happen.