CubinNY

He's going to be the new Crash Davis. Speaking of.... How is Matt Craig doing?

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant. Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse?? This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores better. What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout. As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made. Page 9.

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play. Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not. yeah, and in the real world the guy who makes 100 outs by putting the ball in play hits sac flies, grounds home a runner from third, gets on base via errors and moves runners up. that outweighs the negative of the 2 times he rolls into a double play, and is more valuable than the 100 strikeouts from the other guy. Nice numbers there (especially the double play). I can do this too. The guy who ks 100 times hits 20 more HRs than the guy who grounds a runner home, hits the SF fly and is helped by the occasional error because he waits for a pitch to drive. Whose better, the Juan Pierre that rarely ks or the mythical Juan Pierre that ks almost every time he makes an out? The answer, is neither. But I'd rather have the mythical one because his OBP would likely be higher and he'd hit into less double plays. There an opportunity cost for every event. BTW> I've never heard of out expectancy before.

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play. Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant. Tim is exacly right on this one, if Dunn put the ball in play at a similar ratio as Ramirez, he'd be a much better hitter. People give Dunn all this credit for working the count and it has hurt him more than helped him. He is a poor two strike hitter and more than almost anyone in the game is hitting with two strikes. Unless he's amazing at fouling pitches off, he's been too selective, IMO. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Tim is exactly right on what? making an out on a ball in play is better than striking out? Or Dunn would be better if he put the ball in play more? I don't know how you can say "working the count" has hurt Dunn. Among power hitters, he's got one of the best OBP in all of baseball. I have to believe that putting the ball in play would negatively affect his OBP and his power numbers. It might help his BA though, but at what cost? As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't want 2 of our lower half hitters hitting 1-2. I'm fine with how the lineup is now. It's hard to screw up a lineup as consistent as we have. What does 'lower half hitters' mean? As in not one of the best 4 hitters on our team. Riot should hit either 1 or 2. He is a single machine. Not to mention he's our primary SB option. I don't want Theriot trying to steal under most circumstance. He's not good at it.

The only concern I have is the health of Rich Harden and Z. The Cubs are at or near the top in all the important offensive numbers in the NL. If the rotation stays intact I like their chances of making it to the WS.

I think many Rx drugs in America are OTC in the Caribbean.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant. Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse?? This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores better. What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout. As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

You know baseball history pretty well OMC....who was the first player (One that made it a habit) to do this? I've seen so much old footage of ballplayers and the earliest that I've ever seen someone do that is with Eddie Murray: http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/4/2/6/f_eddiemurraym_545e742.gif The Sultan of Swat used to admire his homeruns all the time.

I'm not justifying it but maybe Soriano's showboating had to do with the fact that they broke his hand last time he faced them. That makes sense to me. It doesn't make it right.

Great game. Now go out get them in the next one.

I think we know what the Braves though of Soriano's hustle.

Bob's a dick. He's all about that old school nonsense. yes nonsense like actually running when you hit the ball. It's a double header and he's getting a double or a HR. Big friggen deal. You really think what Soriano did is okay? No, it's not ok. But context is everything. Bob loves to make a point on the hustle stuff. i don't even think it was a hustle thing. soriano could have easily half-assed his way to second by jogging. hell, aramis does it all the time. but flat out walking and admiring the ball you just hit isn't the same as jogging to second on an easy double. I'm listening on radio so I didnt' see it. Otto and Pat didn't really make a big deal out it.

Bob's a dick. He's all about that old school nonsense. yes nonsense like actually running when you hit the ball. It's a double header and he's getting a double or a HR. Big friggen deal. You really think what Soriano did is okay? No, it's not ok. But context is everything. Bob loves to make a point on the hustle stuff.

Bob's a dick. He's all about that old school nonsense. yes nonsense like actually running when you hit the ball. It's a double header and he's getting a double or a HR. Big friggen deal.

Braun might get put on the DL. They'll make the decision at the end of the week. I'd like to see him stay off the DL and have the nagging injury bother him.

Bob's a dick. He's all about that old school nonsense.

Marquis has the luck of the Irish.

what's a BAYBUH?

So is Joe West.

Haha. Cox wants to grab a bite and take a nap between games.

Lou should use this opportunity to kick Marquis.

crap.