Fire Lou Piniella

[Guest]

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

 

It might seem contradictory, but I think the greater the offensive catcher, the more you want to limit his starts. Catching takes a serious toll, and I think the point of diminishing returns, in terms of playing time, is much lower for that position.

 

Would 135 really be pushing it? That's still almost 30 starts off plus off days.

 

I don't know if there's a magic number, I'm just saying I have less of a problem with a strong hitting catcher having more rests. 135 starts would probably be fine, but now we're talking about the difference of a start every 2 weeks.

[Sammy Sofa]

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

 

It might seem contradictory, but I think the greater the offensive catcher, the more you want to limit his starts. Catching takes a serious toll, and I think the point of diminishing returns, in terms of playing time, is much lower for that position.

 

Would 135 really be pushing it? That's still almost 30 starts off plus off days.

 

I don't know if there's a magic number, I'm just saying I have less of a problem with a strong hitting catcher having more rests. 135 starts would probably be fine, but now we're talking about the difference of a start every 2 weeks.

 

15 games is pretty significant with a hitter this productive, especially when the alternative is usually really bad.

[KaiserCesar]

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

 

It might seem contradictory, but I think the greater the offensive catcher, the more you want to limit his starts. Catching takes a serious toll, and I think the point of diminishing returns, in terms of playing time, is much lower for that position.

 

Would 135 really be pushing it? That's still almost 30 starts off plus off days.

 

I don't know if there's a magic number, I'm just saying I have less of a problem with a strong hitting catcher having more rests. 135 starts would probably be fine, but now we're talking about the difference of a start every 2 weeks.

 

15 starts for a player of Soto's caliber would come out to something like half a win above replacement level, which Koyie HIll isn't even at.

[Guest]

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

 

It might seem contradictory, but I think the greater the offensive catcher, the more you want to limit his starts. Catching takes a serious toll, and I think the point of diminishing returns, in terms of playing time, is much lower for that position.

 

Would 135 really be pushing it? That's still almost 30 starts off plus off days.

 

I don't know if there's a magic number, I'm just saying I have less of a problem with a strong hitting catcher having more rests. 135 starts would probably be fine, but now we're talking about the difference of a start every 2 weeks.

 

15 games is pretty significant with a hitter this productive, especially when the alternative is usually really bad.

 

Even the most extreme example(Hill's .481 OPS v. Soto's .901) is a difference of about 8 runs, ignoring any defensive differences. Obviously you don't want to give that away, but if you play 80 day games a year, it's not so outrageous to think a good bit of that difference would be eroded by more Soto starts. To reiterate, I don't mean to say "way to go Lou, you played this one perfectly!", but I think the backlash has been a bit stiff. We want Soto to be productive for a long time, and if it means the backup plays a little more often than we like in order for him to be a great offensive catcher for 5+ years, then I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. That said, the backup needs to be better than Koyie Hill, because a sub-.500 OPS is unacceptable.

[Sammy Sofa]

Good points.

[TruffleShuffle]

Soto's on pace for 120 starts. Seems like that's pretty close to where he ought to be, give or take a couple games.

 

well yeah, that's because lou has caught up and been playing him consistently for a month. he wasn't on pace for 120 starts when he was practically platooning with koyie [expletive] hill

 

So you're upset because Soto's getting the appropriate playing time in the wrong order?

 

Comparing his starts by month, we're talking about the difference in less than 1 game a week here.

 

the stretch where lou was being a complete douche was may 17 to june 16. during that time the cubs played 27 games and geo started 16 of them. now since july 3rd, soto has started 24 of 27 games, and he missed two of those games because he fouled a ball off his foot. if you're trying to keep your good-hitting catcher fresh, why are you giving him lots of rest in the cooler time of the season and then working him like a horse when it's 90 every day?

[Tracer Bullet]

 

Even the most extreme example(Hill's .481 OPS v. Soto's .901) is a difference of about 8 runs, ignoring any defensive differences. Obviously you don't want to give that away, but if you play 80 day games a year, it's not so outrageous to think a good bit of that difference would be eroded by more Soto starts. To reiterate, I don't mean to say "way to go Lou, you played this one perfectly!", but I think the backlash has been a bit stiff. We want Soto to be productive for a long time, and if it means the backup plays a little more often than we like in order for him to be a great offensive catcher for 5+ years, then I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. That said, the backup needs to be better than Koyie Hill, because a sub-.500 OPS is unacceptable.

 

While that may all be true, I'd prefer to play Soto more earlier in the season when it's cooler and we're not out of it yet (and not bat him 7th or 8th). Especially in years like this, where the team is out of it in July, if not before, you start resting him more. Makes even more sense b/c of the heat of day games in July and August.

 

I think Lou pretty much F'd this up as best as he could without going to a strict platoon for 4 months of the year. It's pretty much what I expect from Lou at this point. His handling of Soto is a significant factor in my wanting him to have been fired for most of this season (if not before).

[flyseye]

 

Even the most extreme example(Hill's .481 OPS v. Soto's .901) is a difference of about 8 runs, ignoring any defensive differences. Obviously you don't want to give that away, but if you play 80 day games a year, it's not so outrageous to think a good bit of that difference would be eroded by more Soto starts. To reiterate, I don't mean to say "way to go Lou, you played this one perfectly!", but I think the backlash has been a bit stiff. We want Soto to be productive for a long time, and if it means the backup plays a little more often than we like in order for him to be a great offensive catcher for 5+ years, then I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. That said, the backup needs to be better than Koyie Hill, because a sub-.500 OPS is unacceptable.

 

While that may all be true, I'd prefer to play Soto more earlier in the season when it's cooler and we're not out of it yet (and not bat him 7th or 8th). Especially in years like this, where the team is out of it in July, if not before, you start resting him more. Makes even more sense b/c of the heat of day games in July and August.

 

I think Lou pretty much F'd this up as best as he could without going to a strict platoon for 4 months of the year. It's pretty much what I expect from Lou at this point. His handling of Soto is a significant factor in my wanting him to have been fired for most of this season (if not before).

 

I wish Lou would get fired too . That way they could bring in another great manager like the ones they have had in the past. You know, guys like Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, Jim Riggleman, Jim Lefebvre, or the king of the stats,and all around brainiac, Don Zimmer.

[NCCubFan]

 

Even the most extreme example(Hill's .481 OPS v. Soto's .901) is a difference of about 8 runs, ignoring any defensive differences. Obviously you don't want to give that away, but if you play 80 day games a year, it's not so outrageous to think a good bit of that difference would be eroded by more Soto starts. To reiterate, I don't mean to say "way to go Lou, you played this one perfectly!", but I think the backlash has been a bit stiff. We want Soto to be productive for a long time, and if it means the backup plays a little more often than we like in order for him to be a great offensive catcher for 5+ years, then I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. That said, the backup needs to be better than Koyie Hill, because a sub-.500 OPS is unacceptable.

 

While that may all be true, I'd prefer to play Soto more earlier in the season when it's cooler and we're not out of it yet (and not bat him 7th or 8th). Especially in years like this, where the team is out of it in July, if not before, you start resting him more. Makes even more sense b/c of the heat of day games in July and August.

 

I think Lou pretty much F'd this up as best as he could without going to a strict platoon for 4 months of the year. It's pretty much what I expect from Lou at this point. His handling of Soto is a significant factor in my wanting him to have been fired for most of this season (if not before).

 

I wish Lou would get fired too . That way they could bring in another great manager like the ones they have had in the past. You know, guys like Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, Jim Riggleman, Jim Lefebvre, or the king of the stats,and all around brainiac, Don Zimmer.

How could you forget the greatest of all, Jim Essian?

[flyseye]

 

Even the most extreme example(Hill's .481 OPS v. Soto's .901) is a difference of about 8 runs, ignoring any defensive differences. Obviously you don't want to give that away, but if you play 80 day games a year, it's not so outrageous to think a good bit of that difference would be eroded by more Soto starts. To reiterate, I don't mean to say "way to go Lou, you played this one perfectly!", but I think the backlash has been a bit stiff. We want Soto to be productive for a long time, and if it means the backup plays a little more often than we like in order for him to be a great offensive catcher for 5+ years, then I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. That said, the backup needs to be better than Koyie Hill, because a sub-.500 OPS is unacceptable.

 

While that may all be true, I'd prefer to play Soto more earlier in the season when it's cooler and we're not out of it yet (and not bat him 7th or 8th). Especially in years like this, where the team is out of it in July, if not before, you start resting him more. Makes even more sense b/c of the heat of day games in July and August.

 

I think Lou pretty much F'd this up as best as he could without going to a strict platoon for 4 months of the year. It's pretty much what I expect from Lou at this point. His handling of Soto is a significant factor in my wanting him to have been fired for most of this season (if not before).

 

I wish Lou would get fired too . That way they could bring in another great manager like the ones they have had in the past. You know, guys like Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, Jim Riggleman, Jim Lefebvre, or the king of the stats,and all around brainiac, Don Zimmer.

How could you forget the greatest of all, Jim Essian?

 

LOL. How about Tom Trebelhorn. Jim Frey was an idiot. Lee Elia. Herman Franks.

 

Lou may not be the greatest, but he is the best manager the Cubs have had in a really,really long time. Oh well, soon everyone will be able to chant RYNO RYNO again. That should make everybody happy.

[TruffleShuffle]

yes, because the cubs have had some lousy managers in the past, they should definitely keep around a guy who used to be a pretty good manager and now is inept and disinterested.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, all the people here who don't like Lou are just dying to have Sandberg as the manager. Good call.

[flyseye]

Insert Lee Elia tirade here.

 

http://www.leeelia.com/elia_tirade.html

[Tracer Bullet]

 

Even the most extreme example(Hill's .481 OPS v. Soto's .901) is a difference of about 8 runs, ignoring any defensive differences. Obviously you don't want to give that away, but if you play 80 day games a year, it's not so outrageous to think a good bit of that difference would be eroded by more Soto starts. To reiterate, I don't mean to say "way to go Lou, you played this one perfectly!", but I think the backlash has been a bit stiff. We want Soto to be productive for a long time, and if it means the backup plays a little more often than we like in order for him to be a great offensive catcher for 5+ years, then I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. That said, the backup needs to be better than Koyie Hill, because a sub-.500 OPS is unacceptable.

 

While that may all be true, I'd prefer to play Soto more earlier in the season when it's cooler and we're not out of it yet (and not bat him 7th or 8th). Especially in years like this, where the team is out of it in July, if not before, you start resting him more. Makes even more sense b/c of the heat of day games in July and August.

 

I think Lou pretty much F'd this up as best as he could without going to a strict platoon for 4 months of the year. It's pretty much what I expect from Lou at this point. His handling of Soto is a significant factor in my wanting him to have been fired for most of this season (if not before).

 

I wish Lou would get fired too . That way they could bring in another great manager like the ones they have had in the past. You know, guys like Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, Jim Riggleman, Jim Lefebvre, or the king of the stats,and all around brainiac, Don Zimmer.

 

You know that your post lacks any sort of rational logic whatsoever, so why would you type it?

[flyseye]

 

Even the most extreme example(Hill's .481 OPS v. Soto's .901) is a difference of about 8 runs, ignoring any defensive differences. Obviously you don't want to give that away, but if you play 80 day games a year, it's not so outrageous to think a good bit of that difference would be eroded by more Soto starts. To reiterate, I don't mean to say "way to go Lou, you played this one perfectly!", but I think the backlash has been a bit stiff. We want Soto to be productive for a long time, and if it means the backup plays a little more often than we like in order for him to be a great offensive catcher for 5+ years, then I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. That said, the backup needs to be better than Koyie Hill, because a sub-.500 OPS is unacceptable.

 

While that may all be true, I'd prefer to play Soto more earlier in the season when it's cooler and we're not out of it yet (and not bat him 7th or 8th). Especially in years like this, where the team is out of it in July, if not before, you start resting him more. Makes even more sense b/c of the heat of day games in July and August.

 

I think Lou pretty much F'd this up as best as he could without going to a strict platoon for 4 months of the year. It's pretty much what I expect from Lou at this point. His handling of Soto is a significant factor in my wanting him to have been fired for most of this season (if not before).

 

I wish Lou would get fired too . That way they could bring in another great manager like the ones they have had in the past. You know, guys like Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, Jim Riggleman, Jim Lefebvre, or the king of the stats,and all around brainiac, Don Zimmer.

 

You know that your post lacks any sort of rational logic whatsoever, so why would you type it?

 

My post is every bit as logical as your post proclaiming Lou's handling of Soto being a significant factor in firing Lou. Wanting to fire the best manager the Cubs have had in years over one thing you disagree with is past shortsighted, it is moronic. I would expect a much more intelligent post from a site moderator. Think before you type.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

My post is every bit as logical as your post proclaiming Lou's handling of Soto being a significant factor in firing Lou. Wanting to fire the best manager the Cubs have had in years over one thing you disagree with is past shortsighted, it is moronic. I would expect a much more intelligent post from a site moderator. Think before you type.

Sucking less is not the same as being good. He's mailing it in and doesn't deserve his job.

[javy knows my name]

If I know anything about GR, it's definitely that he can only find ONE reason why Lou should be fired.

[Rob]

Do Not Feed The Troll.

[flyseye]

Do Not Feed The Troll.

 

Calling everyone you are afraid to confront a troll is pretty easy to see through Rob. Besides, I thought you put me on "ignore".

 

To those who at least typed an intelligent response, I don't even like Lou Piniella that much. I was simply trying to point out that he really is the best manager the Cubs have had in years. I really dont think that is disputable. I think the fact that he doesnt throw his hat, or kick dirt on the umpires anymore is mistaken for him " mailing it in" . Oh well, it has been yet another tough season to be a Cubs fan, so I guess the blame needs to land somewhere.

 

At least go up a few posts and click the link for the Lee Elia tirade.

 

" Eighty-five percent of the f in' world is working. The other fifteen percent come out here." Classic.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I was simply trying to point out that he really is the best manager the Cubs have had in years. I really dont think that is disputable.

 

It's also entirely irrelevant. The Cubs aren't competing against previous versions of the Cubs, and their assets should not be compared as such.

[flyseye]

I was simply trying to point out that he really is the best manager the Cubs have had in years. I really dont think that is disputable.

 

It's also entirely irrelevant. The Cubs aren't competing against previous versions of the Cubs, and their assets should not be compared as such.

 

I think it is most certainly relevant in a thread proclaiming he should be fired.

 

But, lets assume you are correct. How about this, there is a very good chance he is a better manager than his soon to be replacement.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I was simply trying to point out that he really is the best manager the Cubs have had in years. I really dont think that is disputable.

 

It's also entirely irrelevant. The Cubs aren't competing against previous versions of the Cubs, and their assets should not be compared as such.

 

I think it is most certainly relevant in a thread proclaiming he should be fired.

 

But, lets assume you are correct. How about this, there is a very good chance he is a better manager than his soon to be replacement.

 

That's a much better argument. I don't know or care of it's correct or not, but at least it's in the realm of where the argument should be had.

[flyseye]

I was simply trying to point out that he really is the best manager the Cubs have had in years. I really dont think that is disputable.

 

It's also entirely irrelevant. The Cubs aren't competing against previous versions of the Cubs, and their assets should not be compared as such.

 

I think it is most certainly relevant in a thread proclaiming he should be fired.

 

But, lets assume you are correct. How about this, there is a very good chance he is a better manager than his soon to be replacement.

 

That's a much better argument. I don't know or care of it's correct or not, but at least it's in the realm of where the argument should be had.

 

Fine. I promise to let the sometimes ridiculous Lou bashing continue with no further input from me until Ryne Sandberg is officially named the new manager of the Chicago Cubs.

[17 Seconds]

So we should keep him because he's not as bad as the other crappy managers the Cubs made the mistake of hiring before him?

 

That's logical?

[Rob]

Do Not Feed The Troll.

 

Calling everyone you are afraid to confront a troll is pretty easy to see through Rob. Besides, I thought you put me on "ignore".

 

What can I say, I'm a humanitarian. I like to give people a second chance. Doesn't seem yours is going to last. I'm surprised you haven't been banned already for calling a mod moronic.

 

To those who at least typed an intelligent response, I don't even like Lou Piniella that much. I was simply trying to point out that he really is the best manager the Cubs have had in years. I really dont think that is disputable. I think the fact that he doesnt throw his hat, or kick dirt on the umpires anymore is mistaken for him " mailing it in" . Oh well, it has been yet another tough season to be a Cubs fan, so I guess the blame needs to land somewhere.

 

At least go up a few posts and click the link for the Lee Elia tirade.

 

" Eighty-five percent of the f in' world is working. The other fifteen percent come out here." Classic.

 

Lou being the best manager in recent history isn't something anybody is debating you on. This organization has been incompetent for most of it's history. Who gives a rat's ass how Lou compares to 100 years of crappy managers?

 

Managers can't win ballgames, but they can sure as hell lose them. And Lou loses plenty.