baker wants more walks???????

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I would agree with that if Baker's actions and decisions didn't support the supposed forgone conclusions that posters apparently twist his words to come to. It's one thing to interpret a Dusty quote to say "Dusty hates walks" or "Dusty hates kids". It's another thing to come to that interpretation after watching Bellhorn get run out of town, approaches like Neifi's continually rewarded, the PT situations of deserving young position players the last few years, etc. in addition to the supposedly twisted quote.

 

Excellent statement. In 2003, I ignored Dusty's ignorant ramblings for the most part. But after watching actions back up the worst possible interpretations of said quotes, it's hard to do so any longer.

I disagree. I don't think it is an excellent statement at all. I think it has a lot of holes in it.

 

As I stated in my post, I do think Dusty's approach to hitting has an adverse affect on a team's walk total and that he should be fired.

 

But it is unfair and inaccurate to say that he hates walks. He doesn't. No manager does. To say that he does is to also say that he is an idiot. He isn't. No manager is. To say that he hates playing rookies is also inaccurate. He plays the people he thinks give his team the best chance of winning. Sometimes, that happens to be a rookie. It is accurate to say that he values major league experience, and it is a very supportable opinion to say that he overvalues it.

 

But to take some not-so-carefully-chosen words and twist them to support your view that Dusty is an idiot who hates walks and hates rookies is simply inaccurate, disrespectful and letting your frustrations get the better of you.

 

I don't really think that anyone seriously thinks that Dusty HATES walks or young players, any statement like that is misguided or more likely, hyperbole. However, your statement about Dusty "valuing experience", seems to support my point. By saying Dusty "values experience", and way too much according to some, it seems to be a logical conclusion that he is predisposed against those "without experience"(which is obviously not their fault that they haven't made MLB before then).

 

On the topic of walks, Dusty has long voiced a preference for being aggressive, even showing a disdain for walking in some instances. His continued comments, some of which are pretty clear(see abuck's sig) would seem that he devalues walks. Furthermore, this conclusion is backed by the fact that the decisions he makes back this up. Dusty benched Bellhorn in lieu of Lenny Harris. He's had players like Perez and Patterson at the top of the order for extended periods of time. He campaigned for bringing back Randall Simon. All of these support the interpretations of his public words, which were interpreted that he devalues walks.

[KW34]

Are we referring to the same Belhorn who was just released by Boston? Come on, the guy was atrocious in 2003 (as he has been this year) - you cannot pin that on Baker.

 

Dusty has always made seemingly crazy statements to keep the spotlight off of the players and is a master at it. Look at the times he makes these statements and I think you'll find they coincide with a deeper issue that is being overshadowed. I find it funny that many claim to exaggerate in regard to Dusty while his statements are twisted as gospel that he firmly believes. I also find it funny that there are some who truly believe they would be a better manager than Dusty.

 

Let's face it, Dusty is indeed frustrating, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. I wouldn't be averse to a managerial change but have no problem with 2006 being a Baker led team.

[AAApittsburgh]

Are we referring to the same Belhorn who was just released by Boston? Come on, the guy was atrocious in 2003 (as he has been this year) - you cannot pin that on Baker.

 

Dusty has always made seemingly crazy statements to keep the spotlight off of the players and is a master at it. Look at the times he makes these statements and I think you'll find they coincide with a deeper issue that is being overshadowed. I find it funny that many claim to exaggerate in regard to Dusty while his statements are twisted as gospel that he firmly believes. I also find it funny that there are some who truly believe they would be a better manager than Dusty.

 

Let's face it, Dusty is indeed frustrating, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. I wouldn't be averse to a managerial change but have no problem with 2006 being a Baker led team.

He was better than Lenny freaking Harris.

[frostwyrm]

I believe Neifi will be back next year. That's fine _ if he's used right. Organization people are very high on Cedeno, though.

 

It was a bit funny yesterday when Dusty said that. But I also thought I had hit the jackpot because I knew how people would react to a quote like that.

 

Enjoy the game today.

 

I don't understand this. Organization people are very high on Cedeno, but they are bringing Neifi back? How could they not be aware that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of Cedeno starting over Neifi? Stuff like this makes me think the Cubs deserve to lose.

[KW34]

Are we referring to the same Belhorn who was just released by Boston? Come on, the guy was atrocious in 2003 (as he has been this year) - you cannot pin that on Baker.

 

Dusty has always made seemingly crazy statements to keep the spotlight off of the players and is a master at it. Look at the times he makes these statements and I think you'll find they coincide with a deeper issue that is being overshadowed. I find it funny that many claim to exaggerate in regard to Dusty while his statements are twisted as gospel that he firmly believes. I also find it funny that there are some who truly believe they would be a better manager than Dusty.

 

Let's face it, Dusty is indeed frustrating, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. I wouldn't be averse to a managerial change but have no problem with 2006 being a Baker led team.

He was better than Lenny freaking Harris.

 

They both sucked. Belhorn finished 2003 with a .646 OPS playing half the year in Colorado. Everyone's favorite whipping boy (Corey) is at .626 (just as bad) this year, and Neifi is at .702. Point being it wasn't Dusty's fault - Belhorn played until he became a liability and was gone. Harris was on the roster and given first chance to replace Belhorn. He failed also, hence Ramirez.

[KW34]

I believe Neifi will be back next year. That's fine _ if he's used right. Organization people are very high on Cedeno, though.

 

It was a bit funny yesterday when Dusty said that. But I also thought I had hit the jackpot because I knew how people would react to a quote like that.

 

Enjoy the game today.

 

I don't understand this. Organization people are very high on Cedeno, but they are bringing Neifi back? How could they not be aware that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of Cedeno starting over Neifi? Stuff like this makes me think the Cubs deserve to lose.

 

Neifi was the backup SS this year. Nomar went down, so Neifi starts. I think there's a very good chance of Cedeno being the starting SS next year, even with Neifi on the roster. Just curious, what would you do for a backup SS (with the assumption that it is possible that Cedeno might fail)?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Are we referring to the same Belhorn who was just released by Boston? Come on, the guy was atrocious in 2003 (as he has been this year) - you cannot pin that on Baker.

 

Dusty has always made seemingly crazy statements to keep the spotlight off of the players and is a master at it. Look at the times he makes these statements and I think you'll find they coincide with a deeper issue that is being overshadowed. I find it funny that many claim to exaggerate in regard to Dusty while his statements are twisted as gospel that he firmly believes. I also find it funny that there are some who truly believe they would be a better manager than Dusty.

 

Let's face it, Dusty is indeed frustrating, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. I wouldn't be averse to a managerial change but have no problem with 2006 being a Baker led team.

He was better than Lenny freaking Harris.

 

They both sucked. Belhorn finished 2003 with a .646 OPS playing half the year in Colorado. Everyone's favorite whipping boy (Corey) is at .626 (just as bad) this year, and Neifi is at .702. Point being it wasn't Dusty's fault - Belhorn played until he became a liability and was gone. Harris was on the roster and given first chance to replace Belhorn. He failed also, hence Ramirez.

 

Bellhorn had a roughly .680 OPS when he was benched. Harris in 2003? OPS around .480. That's not a typo.

[ConstableRabbit]

Are we referring to the same Belhorn who was just released by Boston? Come on, the guy was atrocious in 2003 (as he has been this year) - you cannot pin that on Baker.

 

Dusty has always made seemingly crazy statements to keep the spotlight off of the players and is a master at it. Look at the times he makes these statements and I think you'll find they coincide with a deeper issue that is being overshadowed. I find it funny that many claim to exaggerate in regard to Dusty while his statements are twisted as gospel that he firmly believes. I also find it funny that there are some who truly believe they would be a better manager than Dusty.

 

Let's face it, Dusty is indeed frustrating, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. I wouldn't be averse to a managerial change but have no problem with 2006 being a Baker led team.

He was better than Lenny freaking Harris.

 

They both sucked. Belhorn finished 2003 with a .646 OPS playing half the year in Colorado. Everyone's favorite whipping boy (Corey) is at .626 (just as bad) this year, and Neifi is at .702. Point being it wasn't Dusty's fault - Belhorn played until he became a liability and was gone. Harris was on the roster and given first chance to replace Belhorn. He failed also, hence Ramirez.

 

Bellhorn had a roughly .680 OPS when he was benched. Harris in 2003? OPS around .480. That's not a typo.

 

Yeah, I dont think you can even try and defend Harris. Sure, he's the career pinch hits leader, but he was sitting on the bench for all of those years for a reason.

[KW34]

Are we referring to the same Belhorn who was just released by Boston? Come on, the guy was atrocious in 2003 (as he has been this year) - you cannot pin that on Baker.

 

Dusty has always made seemingly crazy statements to keep the spotlight off of the players and is a master at it. Look at the times he makes these statements and I think you'll find they coincide with a deeper issue that is being overshadowed. I find it funny that many claim to exaggerate in regard to Dusty while his statements are twisted as gospel that he firmly believes. I also find it funny that there are some who truly believe they would be a better manager than Dusty.

 

Let's face it, Dusty is indeed frustrating, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. I wouldn't be averse to a managerial change but have no problem with 2006 being a Baker led team.

He was better than Lenny freaking Harris.

 

They both sucked. Belhorn finished 2003 with a .646 OPS playing half the year in Colorado. Everyone's favorite whipping boy (Corey) is at .626 (just as bad) this year, and Neifi is at .702. Point being it wasn't Dusty's fault - Belhorn played until he became a liability and was gone. Harris was on the roster and given first chance to replace Belhorn. He failed also, hence Ramirez.

 

Bellhorn had a roughly .680 OPS when he was benched. Harris in 2003? OPS around .480. That's not a typo.

 

Harris was around .600 at that time (I'm assuming you mean around May 24). Again, I'm not saying Harris was good, simply that Belhorn was bad and deserved to be benched. Harris got about 17 starts (by my crude calculation) before he was deemed inadequate as well. Either way in my opinion you can't say Dusty is a bad manager based on this particular situation.

[frostwyrm]

I think there's a very good chance of Cedeno being the starting SS next year, even with Neifi on the roster.

 

I can't find words to express how strongly I disagree with this statement.

[frostwyrm]

Harris got about 17 starts (by my crude calculation) before he was deemed inadequate as well.

 

26 starts, 146 PA.

 

In 2005 Jason Dubois got 35 starts and 152 PA before being dumped. A whopping 6 PA more than Lenny Freaking Harris.

[CubsWin]

I don't really think that anyone seriously thinks that Dusty HATES walks or young players, any statement like that is misguided or more likely, hyperbole.

Well, there sure are a lot of fans out there that write either exactly that or the equivalent whether they seriously think that or not.

 

However, your statement about Dusty "valuing experience", seems to support my point. By saying Dusty "values experience", and way too much according to some, it seems to be a logical conclusion that he is predisposed against those "without experience"(which is obviously not their fault that they haven't made MLB before then).

Your point is my point. Or was it my point first? Who knows? Who cares? We are in agreement on this.

 

Who I was disagreeing with was those who say that Dusty never plays rookies, hates rookies or is biased against them just because they are rookies. The evidence shows that he is trying to win but that he overvalues major league experience, in my opinion. And those last 3 words are very important. It is still just an opinion and not a fact. A very supportable opinion, but still just an opinion. Some fans lose sight of that fact and let their frustrations get the better of them when writing about Dusty.

 

On the topic of walks, Dusty has long voiced a preference for being aggressive, even showing a disdain for walking in some instances. His continued comments, some of which are pretty clear(see abuck's sig) would seem that he devalues walks. Furthermore, this conclusion is backed by the fact that the decisions he makes back this up. Dusty benched Bellhorn in lieu of Lenny Harris. He's had players like Perez and Patterson at the top of the order for extended periods of time. He campaigned for bringing back Randall Simon. All of these support the interpretations of his public words, which were interpreted that he devalues walks.

Well, thats my point. "Devalues" is a relative term. I would say it is accurate that Dusty devalues walks in comparison to how Billy Beane values them, yes. He probably devalues them in comparison to how a lot of other managers and GMs value the walk. If the fans I have been describing would have written that Dusty values the walk less than so and so, I wouldn't have a beef because I would agree. But these fans weren't saying that. What they were saying was stuff that was inaccurate, unfair and disrespectful. It was to those fans that I was responding.

[BigbadB]

Are we referring to the same Belhorn who was just released by Boston? Come on, the guy was atrocious in 2003 (as he has been this year) - you cannot pin that on Baker.

 

Dusty has always made seemingly crazy statements to keep the spotlight off of the players and is a master at it. Look at the times he makes these statements and I think you'll find they coincide with a deeper issue that is being overshadowed. I find it funny that many claim to exaggerate in regard to Dusty while his statements are twisted as gospel that he firmly believes. I also find it funny that there are some who truly believe they would be a better manager than Dusty.

 

Let's face it, Dusty is indeed frustrating, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. I wouldn't be averse to a managerial change but have no problem with 2006 being a Baker led team.

He was better than Lenny freaking Harris.

 

They both sucked. Belhorn finished 2003 with a .646 OPS playing half the year in Colorado. Everyone's favorite whipping boy (Corey) is at .626 (just as bad) this year, and Neifi is at .702. Point being it wasn't Dusty's fault - Belhorn played until he became a liability and was gone. Harris was on the roster and given first chance to replace Belhorn. He failed also, hence Ramirez.

 

What would happen if you put Juan Pierre in the clean up spot? Would you all of a sudden expect him to become a power hitter and sit back and watch his SLG approach that of other clean up hitters? Or would you call this experiment a complete failure because you can't change Juan Pierre's penchant to be a slap hitter.

 

If you agree with the above that it would be ridiculous to put Juan Pierre in the clean up spot, then why does everyone that bashes Mark Bellhorn's style of play bash him when it was clearly obvious that he wasn't used properly in 2003 as a Cub. Now, I'm not going to state that he is the greatest baseball player of all time, but he certainly proved he had value to this game if used properly. His resume' is all about plate patience and OBP. In 2002, as a Cub, Bellhorn's asset was recognized as a lead off hitter. Only about half way through the season, but it was finally recognized. And as a lead off hitter, he scored runs at an incredible pace. In 1/3 of a season's worth of plate appearances, he scored 48 runs. Isn't that a nice ratio for a lead off hitter?

 

How many times did Dusty Baker put Mark Bellhorn at the top of the order in 2003? 8 times. How many times did Bellhorn bat 7th where good OBP is wasted? 126 times. Tom Goodwin got 109 lead off at bats that year and provided a .318 OBP in that spot.

 

How many times did Dusty Baker put Mark Bellhorn in the #2 spot in the order in 2003? 0 times. How many at bats did Alex Gonzalez get in the #2 spot in 2003? 332 times and sported a .311 OBP.

 

In 2004, the World Series Champion Boston Red Sox put Bellhorn at the top of the order when Bill Mueller went down with an injury, and Bellhorn provided a very fruitful OBP and runs scored ratio when given the assignment at the top of the order.

 

Is it a fluke that Bellhorn stunk it up in 2003, or was he used improperly given his above mentioned talents? Boston found others this year to put at the top of the order and Bellhorn found himself without a job once again, because he does stink when put in RBI positions in the batting order.

 

Dusty doesn't and hasn't comprehended the importance of OBP at the top of the order. During his tenure, we have seen Alex Gonzalez, Tom Goodwin, Lenny Harris, Neifi Perez, Corey Patterson, Rey Ordonez, Damian Jackson and many other poor OBP guys at the top of the order. Yet, Bellhorn was converted by Dusty into a bottom of the line up RBI guy while Alex Gonzalez struck out time and again in front of our RBI guys.

 

I'm not forcing anyone to like Mark Bellhorn. But, you can't blame Bellhorn for his placement in the line up or the missed opportunity to continue doing at the top of the order what he did in 2002 and 2004.

 

Taking a lead off hitter out of his element and asking for results at something he has never been good at is really no different than taking David Eckstein and putting him in the bullpen and expecting results.

 

Now, we got Aramis Ramirez in 2003, so I'm cool. But, Bellhorn was not given the opportunity in 2003 to do what he did in 2002, and in the meantime, we had the horrible OBP Alex Gonzalez hitting up there instead, so I refuse to say Bellhorn sucked. We don't know what he might have meant to this team in 2003 if used in 2003 like he was used in 2002 and 2004.

 

Dusty's resistance to put good OBP guys at the top of the order is why this team suffers more than it really needs to. Go through the splits since he arrived in Chicago and see how many times horrible OBP guys got top of the order at bats. It's disgusting.

 

This year, while Bellhorn is being let go by teams, he's had a total of 28 at bats at the top of the order. Maybe I'm twisting stats to my liking, but it's the way I see it.

[Satch80]

First of all, I have NEVER heard a comment from Baker that said he HATED walks. I have heard him make comments that seemed to devalue walks. People hear what they want to hear and run with it. That includes players and message board posters.

 

A player naturally prefers to swing the bat. If they are playing for a manager that they feel values aggression they will tend to be more aggressive. But there's a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid and unfortunately the Cubs have crossed that line too often.

 

Dusty's recent comments about patience at the plate are not the first time he's made them in public. Search the archives during 2003 recaps during a bad offensive stretch and you'll find a rant from him about swinging at too many bad pitches. I remember that because it surprised me then.

 

If you look at Dusty's career you will see an aggressive swinger but not a stupid one. He took his walks. Unfortunately this is not translating well to his players. I agree that this has got to change. Players need to be more responsible about discipline and either Dusty or the hitting coach needs to enforce it. Maybe with the removal of Corey it will happen. He sets an unfortunate trend.

 

Dusty has a major flaw in regard to playing veterans. It has nothing to do with hating young players. It has to do with his hyper sensitive nature. He over identifies with the aging veteran because he went through being replaced by kids in Oakland before he thought he should have and was really hurt. LaRussa was the manager so their relationship has never been on strong footing.

 

Dusty also does not like to teach on the job. He has said more than once " you can't teach unless they make a mistake" and he doesn't like to deal with rookie mistakes when trying to win a game. Veterans usually don't make as many ( except for this year).

 

It is one thing to question Dusty's managerial ability based upon lineups, strategy etc. which I have done. I thought it incredulous that he would start a lineup with Corey and Nefi 1-2. The Hawkins fiasco was another, trying to force an issue that was obviously not working.

I think there are many better managers than Dusty Baker.

 

But this walk/don't walk stuff has gotten way out of hand. He never said walk . He never said don't walk. The art of listening seems to be a fading

ability.

[KW34]

What would happen if you put Juan Pierre in the clean up spot? Would you all of a sudden expect him to become a power hitter and sit back and watch his SLG approach that of other clean up hitters? Or would you call this experiment a complete failure because you can't change Juan Pierre's penchant to be a slap hitter.

 

I would expect him hit like Juan Pierre. I don't think a hitter should significantly change his approach based on batting order, therefore I would not expect a significant change.

 

If you agree with the above that it would be ridiculous to put Juan Pierre in the clean up spot, then why does everyone that bashes Mark Bellhorn's style of play bash him when it was clearly obvious that he wasn't used properly in 2003 as a Cub. Now, I'm not going to state that he is the greatest baseball player of all time, but he certainly proved he had value to this game if used properly. His resume' is all about plate patience and OBP. In 2002, as a Cub, Bellhorn's asset was recognized as a lead off hitter. Only about half way through the season, but it was finally recognized. And as a lead off hitter, he scored runs at an incredible pace. In 1/3 of a season's worth of plate appearances, he scored 48 runs. Isn't that a nice ratio for a lead off hitter?

 

How many times did Dusty Baker put Mark Bellhorn at the top of the order in 2003? 8 times. How many times did Bellhorn bat 7th where good OBP is wasted? 126 times. Tom Goodwin got 109 lead off at bats that year and provided a .318 OBP in that spot.

 

How many times did Dusty Baker put Mark Bellhorn in the #2 spot in the order in 2003? 0 times. How many at bats did Alex Gonzalez get in the #2 spot in 2003? 332 times and sported a .311 OBP.

 

In 2004, the World Series Champion Boston Red Sox put Bellhorn at the top of the order when Bill Mueller went down with an injury, and Bellhorn provided a very fruitful OBP and runs scored ratio when given the assignment at the top of the order.

 

Is it a fluke that Bellhorn stunk it up in 2003, or was he used improperly given his above mentioned talents? Boston found others this year to put at the top of the order and Bellhorn found himself without a job once again, because he does stink when put in RBI positions in the batting order.

 

Dusty doesn't and hasn't comprehended the importance of OBP at the top of the order. During his tenure, we have seen Alex Gonzalez, Tom Goodwin, Lenny Harris, Neifi Perez, Corey Patterson, Rey Ordonez, Damian Jackson and many other poor OBP guys at the top of the order. Yet, Bellhorn was converted by Dusty into a bottom of the line up RBI guy while Alex Gonzalez struck out time and again in front of our RBI guys.

 

I'm not forcing anyone to like Mark Bellhorn. But, you can't blame Bellhorn for his placement in the line up or the missed opportunity to continue doing at the top of the order what he did in 2002 and 2004.

 

Taking a lead off hitter out of his element and asking for results at something he has never been good at is really no different than taking David Eckstein and putting him in the bullpen and expecting results.

 

Now, we got Aramis Ramirez in 2003, so I'm cool. But, Bellhorn was not given the opportunity in 2003 to do what he did in 2002, and in the meantime, we had the horrible OBP Alex Gonzalez hitting up there instead, so I refuse to say Bellhorn sucked. We don't know what he might have meant to this team in 2003 if used in 2003 like he was used in 2002 and 2004.

 

Dusty's resistance to put good OBP guys at the top of the order is why this team suffers more than it really needs to. Go through the splits since he arrived in Chicago and see how many times horrible OBP guys got top of the order at bats. It's disgusting.

 

This year, while Bellhorn is being let go by teams, he's had a total of 28 at bats at the top of the order. Maybe I'm twisting stats to my liking, but it's the way I see it.

 

Bellhorn slugged .512 in 2002 and .444 last year. My contention is that this is the type of hitter clubs wanted him to be. They will accept the strikeouts and low average if he's walking and hitting for power. Take out the power part and it is unacceptable. That is why three teams have dumped him the past few years. While I'm not going to get into optimal lineup construction here, I don't think a player shouldn't cease being valuable simply because his spot in the batting order changes. The bottom line is that Bellhorn was bad in 2003 and if you want to blame Dusty and claim misuse that's your prerogative, but I just don't see it that way.

[BigbadB]

Bellhorn did have a decent slugging percentage in those odd years. But, in grading his value, I see a guy who has a high OBP, but doesn't typically hit for great power or high batting average.

 

If his greatest single asset is his ability to get on base at a .380 clip, and usually via the base on balls, then ideally he should be at the top of the order. His bad batting average makes driving in runs a weakness. Hitting 6th or lower in the line up should be a "good" BA/SLG moreso than a "good" OBP. The good BA/SLG will drive in your more productive hitters than drawing a base on balls. Also, the hitters below him aren't going to drive him in nearly as much because they are typically the worst hitters on the team.

 

In my opinion, he was used improperly. And honestly, In Boston, they had better options, so he was expendable. But, I can't help wondering what Bellhorn's OBP could have done in the #2 spot in the order in 2003 when Alex Gonzalez was getting all those at bats there.

 

The fact a manager would use Alex Gonzalez and his .311 OBP in one of the top spots in the order over someone who features a .375+ OBP is, IMO, a problem in and of itself. This is a team that has continued to struggle scoring runs. Gonzalez had a history of being a poor top of the order hitter before he ever arrived in Chicago. And Gonzalez isn't the only poor OBP guy Dusty has inserted at the top of the order.

 

All in all, this team/management has had a problem understanding the importance of getting good OBP guys at the top of the order on base for the likes of Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, and Sammy Sosa and Moises Alou. Sammy Sosa either has or is nearing the record for most solo home runs. This isn't because Sammy couldn't hit with runners on base. It's because the Cubs run horrible options out there at the top of the order day in and day out.

 

OBP isn't the be all-end all of baseball statistics, but to me it's the most important one when it comes to the top of the batting order.

[Magnetic Curses]

i think bellhorn is a low-talent, cerebral hitter, a guy who knows what he's doing and gets the most out of his talent. the anti-corey patterson. bellhorn had a higher OPS than the ultra-talented alfonso soriano last year. was he having a terrible year this year? of course and he paid for it with his starting job.

 

he was quickly snapped up by the yankees, who have many perrenial +.400 OBP guys, and are always successful.

 

our problem is that we don't draw walks, one in which the blame should beplaced on the coaching staff. it's dusty's fault our team IsoD sucks, it's his coaching staff which allows the lack of patience to continue. BBs are a very approach-controlled variable, one can be taught to take walks.

 

as for going up there looking for a walk, maybe we need to. I see plenty of teams do it against our pitching staff. the book on prior, zambrano, and wood is to make them throw a lot of pitches and get to them later. it's no coincidence that we rank high in our own starters' pitch counts and low in pitches seen per PA. we simply don't get the strategy involved with the game. there is more to game startegy than bunting with your #2 guy after a leadoff single, there's more to the game than hitting and running and taking unnecessary risks, more to strategy than giving the other team outs.

 

we should probably change our strategy to "make as few outs as possible per hitter", instead of playing "fundamental" ball.

[KW34]

i think bellhorn is a low-talent, cerebral hitter, a guy who knows what he's doing and gets the most out of his talent. the anti-corey patterson. bellhorn had a higher OPS than the ultra-talented alfonso soriano last year. was he having a terrible year this year? of course and he paid for it with his starting job.

 

he was quickly snapped up by the yankees, who have many perrenial +.400 OBP guys, and are always successful.

 

our problem is that we don't draw walks, one in which the blame should beplaced on the coaching staff. it's dusty's fault our team IsoD sucks, it's his coaching staff which allows the lack of patience to continue. BBs are a very approach-controlled variable, one can be taught to take walks.

 

as for going up there looking for a walk, maybe we need to. I see plenty of teams do it against our pitching staff. the book on prior, zambrano, and wood is to make them throw a lot of pitches and get to them later. it's no coincidence that we rank high in our own starters' pitch counts and low in pitches seen per PA. we simply don't get the strategy involved with the game. there is more to game startegy than bunting with your #2 guy after a leadoff single, there's more to the game than hitting and running and taking unnecessary risks, more to strategy than giving the other team outs.

 

we should probably change our strategy to "make as few outs as possible per hitter", instead of playing "fundamental" ball.

 

While I agree in principle with your statements, I don't agree that good patience can be taught (at least not at the major league level) with much success. With this said I believe the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of those who put the team together and not the manager.

 

The manager is like the person leading a team hacking through the jungle with a machete. They are just blindly cutting and chopping, making progress, and the manager's job is to most effectively lead the team through the jungle. It's the general manager's job to climb a tree and point out the direction in which to go. The manager may say "We're making great progress," and indeed they may be, but it's up to the GM to say "Yes, but the road is the other way!"

[CuseCubFan69]

You can never take anything thing Baker says out of context, it's hard enough to understand what point he's trying to make as it is.

[Magnetic Curses]

i think bellhorn is a low-talent, cerebral hitter, a guy who knows what he's doing and gets the most out of his talent. the anti-corey patterson. bellhorn had a higher OPS than the ultra-talented alfonso soriano last year. was he having a terrible year this year? of course and he paid for it with his starting job.

 

he was quickly snapped up by the yankees, who have many perrenial +.400 OBP guys, and are always successful.

 

our problem is that we don't draw walks, one in which the blame should beplaced on the coaching staff. it's dusty's fault our team IsoD sucks, it's his coaching staff which allows the lack of patience to continue. BBs are a very approach-controlled variable, one can be taught to take walks.

 

as for going up there looking for a walk, maybe we need to. I see plenty of teams do it against our pitching staff. the book on prior, zambrano, and wood is to make them throw a lot of pitches and get to them later. it's no coincidence that we rank high in our own starters' pitch counts and low in pitches seen per PA. we simply don't get the strategy involved with the game. there is more to game startegy than bunting with your #2 guy after a leadoff single, there's more to the game than hitting and running and taking unnecessary risks, more to strategy than giving the other team outs.

 

we should probably change our strategy to "make as few outs as possible per hitter", instead of playing "fundamental" ball.

 

While I agree in principle with your statements, I don't agree that good patience can be taught (at least not at the major league level) with much success. With this said I believe the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of those who put the team together and not the manager.

 

The manager is like the person leading a team hacking through the jungle with a machete. They are just blindly cutting and chopping, making progress, and the manager's job is to most effectively lead the team through the jungle. It's the general manager's job to climb a tree and point out the direction in which to go. The manager may say "We're making great progress," and indeed they may be, but it's up to the GM to say "Yes, but the road is the other way!"

 

I think in order to make a big league roster, you need to have the fast hands, good eyes, and excellent coordination that it takes to put the bat on the ball. If you can do this, you can shrink your strike zone down. yes, it must be taught system-wide, but I don't think it's too much to ask Corey to take a pitch with a 3-ball count and strike out looking if need be.

 

i think it would be interesting to see the numbers reflecting how many times Cubs batters have hacked away with a 3-ball count and how many times their opposition has. There are some Cubs that it's darn near impossible to walk, even at 3-0. the only reason they seem to take pitches is to get a pitch to hit later in the count, and regardless of whether they get a hitter's pitch, they BELIEVE that they absolutely will get one. and they always assume that they'll get a juicy fastball, so they're ever flailing away later in the count. I could be wrong on this one, though.

 

just take the pitch, walk on down to first and try to score some freaking runs.

[snoodmonger]

My question is this: how many players get up to the plate "looking for a walk." Sure, it happens in certain situations, but I can't think of one player who's overall approach is to hope for the walk (and not swing the bat.) you don't get to the majors if you're afraid to swing.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Dusty's lamenting a potential problem that doesn't exist--the possibility that his players will cease swinging the bat and go up there hoping for a BB. It won't happen.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm hoping that Baker is the one that walks.

[CubsWin]

I'm hoping that Baker is the one that walks.

I'll second that.

[BigbadB]

9-7 Cubs/Cardinals game. Mulder goes the distance, throwing 96 pitches and facing 34 hitters. Cubs pitchers (Maddux, Wuertz, Novoa, Dempster) go 9 innings and throw 144 pitches, facing 38 hitters.

 

Cardinal hitters see 3.7 pitches per plate appearance. Cubs hitters see 2.8 pitches per plate appearance.

 

Cubs won this game, but I think this information says a lot about where each team sits in the win column. Cubs starters can't get through 6 innings typically. The Cardinals starter breezes through the whole game and gets the bullpen plenty of rest.

[Magnetic Curses]

9-7 Cubs/Cardinals game. Mulder goes the distance, throwing 96 pitches and facing 34 hitters. Cubs pitchers (Maddux, Wuertz, Novoa, Dempster) go 9 innings and throw 144 pitches, facing 38 hitters.

 

Cardinal hitters see 3.7 pitches per plate appearance. Cubs hitters see 2.8 pitches per plate appearance.

 

Cubs won this game, but I think this information says a lot about where each team sits in the win column. Cubs starters can't get through 6 innings typically. The Cardinals starter breezes through the whole game and gets the bullpen plenty of rest.

 

thanks, B, that's a great illustration. over the course of the season, the team that sees more pitches, i'd imagine, would be more successful.