CubinNY

My Fav I don't know what he means by "instincts", but I like the other part.

This means either one of two things will happen: 1. The Cubs offense doesn't jump all over the Padres and the Cubs lose. 2. The Cubs offense does jump all over the Padres but Marquis has a horrible performance to blow the good show by the offense and the Cubs lose. Pick your poison. I'll take what's behind door #2 please. The Cubs should win 2 out of 3 against the Padres if their offense is decent.

All four articles were outstanding. This kind of got buried. Thanks 1908.

I don't agree with that. The Cubs this year are built to be a heavy slugging team that hopes to be middle of the pack in OBP. Their strength is their slugging-they just hope that their OBP is not a huge detriment. Before today's game, their OBP was 12th out of 30 teams. 12th-I know that may be hard to believe, but it's true. Obviously today's game will take that down, but I'm not sure how much. Their slugging was 15th-that is unacceptable for this team. This team is tied for 25th in home runs-this is a team that should be top 5 that is 1 home run away from being tied for last. OBP may end up being the worst area of this team, but it is not what it is right now. This team simply cannot hit home runs like they were supposed to do right now, and that is costing them. The middle of the league OBP is not. You can disagree all you want. The Cubs won't win on a consistent basis until they learn to quit swinging at junk.

I wouldn't worry about the lack of HRs, I would worry about the lack of OBP. It is once again killing the Cubs. It's particularly appearent when I watch other games during the free MLBEI week. JJ's AB with Soriano on third and Theriot on first was one of the worst ABs I've ever seen at the major league level.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Zambrano will not be pitching for the Chicago Cubs in 2008. If this happens there will only be one person to blame/credit Jim Hendry.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; Pat and Ron together are more than the sum of their parts. Pat is the best radio pbp guy in the business and Ronny makes him better. They are the most entertaining radio combo doing baseball, even if the listener doesn't know exactly what is going on all the time.

4A does it again.

Again, examples are easy. Were I properly motivated, I guarantee you I could find plenty of examples where this level of ptiching (even "high stress" pitching) did not result in injury. Interesting as they may be, examples are not useful data for understanding cause and effect. What the hell are you talking about? I just showed you 7 pitchers whose career were shortented or their effectiveness was lessoned, or were out of baseball at an early age after a) high innings and b) high pitch counts. Sonofsamiam just provided you with five more. You don't need to do regression analysis or complicated statistics to look at those data and be able to draw an inference. The obvious answer is that pitching all those IP and pitches per inning contributed to whatever results that occured. However, that doesn't rule out other factors too. Yet, it also doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to come to the conclusion that it's probably not a good idea to have a young pitcher throw when they are fatigued. No, what the hell are you talking about? You obviously have no understanding of inferential statistics. But thanks for posting the PAP data. It's nice that someone out there understands the kinds of data that are required to back a claim. Sheesh. I understand inferential statitics quite well. However, you don't use them to show a cause and effect relationship becuase in fact they cannot show a cause and effect relationship. Individual injuries after high pc over a prolonged period can show a cause and effect relationship although other factors cannot be ruled out. Using huge data sets like the study I referenced only hammer home the obvious. No, you don't understand inferential statistics. You don't seem to understand the meaning of "variable" or "effect." The analysis of the "huge data set" does much more than "hammer home the obvious." If you're convinced by a few memorable examples, that's your problem. Shall I reference peer reviewed scientific studies I've published? It's not about "being convinced by a few memorable examples". If it (whatever it happens to be) occurs once that's all the data one needs. Then one begins to ask other questions, like has it happend to anyone else? If it has, then you find out how many more. But 1 is all you really need. It's called induction and is a much more powerful method at discovering truth than hypothesis testing using inferential statistics. But like Bob Sanders just posted. In essence I agree with Mephistopheles, poor mechanics probably has a lot to do with arm injuries, but then you have to ask what causes poor mechanics. If it's fatigue born by high pitch counts then I would think that one would want to mimimize those instances.

Again, examples are easy. Were I properly motivated, I guarantee you I could find plenty of examples where this level of ptiching (even "high stress" pitching) did not result in injury. Interesting as they may be, examples are not useful data for understanding cause and effect. What the hell are you talking about? I just showed you 7 pitchers whose career were shortented or their effectiveness was lessoned, or were out of baseball at an early age after a) high innings and b) high pitch counts. Sonofsamiam just provided you with five more. You don't need to do regression analysis or complicated statistics to look at those data and be able to draw an inference. The obvious answer is that pitching all those IP and pitches per inning contributed to whatever results that occured. However, that doesn't rule out other factors too. Yet, it also doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to come to the conclusion that it's probably not a good idea to have a young pitcher throw when they are fatigued. No, what the hell are you talking about? You obviously have no understanding of inferential statistics. But thanks for posting the PAP data. It's nice that someone out there understands the kinds of data that are required to back a claim. Sheesh. I understand inferential statitics quite well. However, you don't use them to show a cause and effect relationship becuase in fact they cannot show a cause and effect relationship. Individual injuries after high pc over a prolonged period can show a cause and effect relationship although other factors cannot be ruled out. Using huge data sets like the study I referenced only hammer home the obvious.

I'll simply provide the definition for you: PAP^3 is the name for the new system for measuring pitcher abuse via pitch counts introduced in Baseball Prospectus 2001.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1480 PAP study done in 2002 But pitchers are not all created the same.

You are such a word smith. Group research is only useful for making generalizations about a population. The fact that arm injuries occur after high innings pitched is not a group design question. Arm injuries are an individual phenonenon.

Again, examples are easy. Were I properly motivated, I guarantee you I could find plenty of examples where this level of ptiching (even "high stress" pitching) did not result in injury. Interesting as they may be, examples are not useful data for understanding cause and effect. What the hell are you talking about? I just showed you 7 pitchers whose career were shortented or their effectiveness was lessoned, or were out of baseball at an early age after a) high innings and b) high pitch counts. Sonofsamiam just provided you with five more. You don't need to do regression analysis or complicated statistics to look at those data and be able to draw an inference. The obvious answer is that pitching all those IP and pitches per inning contributed to whatever results that occured. However, that doesn't rule out other factors too. Yet, it also doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to come to the conclusion that it's probably not a good idea to have a young pitcher throw when they are fatigued.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/brogler01.shtml (Brogleio) 60s http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/koufasa01.shtml (Kaufax) 60s http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fidryma01.shtml (Fidrych) 70s http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hamptmi01.shtml (Hammpton)90s http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/millewa04.shtml (Miller) 90s http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martira02.shtml (Martinez) 90s http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/boydoi01.shtml (Boyd) 90s That's all I could come up with in a spare five minutes

Instead of adding to the irrelevent post counts in this thread you could have just as easily sent a pm to a mod. Exactly how long did it take you to find the date of the posts? 10 seconds. You must have a very busy life. Oh, the irony. :lol: Indeed :D

Instead of adding to the irrelevent post counts in this thread you could have just as easily sent a pm to a mod. Exactly how long did it take you to find the date of the posts? 10 seconds. You must have a very busy life.

ibl viewtopic.php?t=39655&start=120

When is the Trib finally going to put a different reporter on the Cubs beat? They used to rotate them regularly, but we've been saddled with him for a heck of a long time. I know. I miss the days of Teddy Greenstein. I guess he was too good.

Harang is still ugly as all get out and there is no way he can pitch as well as he did last time. Go Cubs!

What's the point of releasing Prior? He's under contract and the Cubs probably can't get anyone for him until he shows he can pitch. I'm putting him out of my thoughts until he starts pitching in games either in the minors or majors.

Exactly.

If Soriano isn't seeing any pitches then the manager should have a hart to hart about swining at junk. That's the problem.

I'm neither pro nor con Cuban. I think it's really silly to be make declaritive statements when Cuban hasn't said he's interested and the Cubs haven't been put up for sale yet. Cuban is a smart guy. My guess is that if he's interested he'll get his ducks in a row and make a good case and a good offer. Whether its accepted probably has more to do with what other offers are on the table then it has to do with Jerry F. Rinsedorf.

I guess you don't understand the business of baseball then. Just because all of you think Cuban is the solution and want him to buy to Cubs, it doesn't mean that MLB and the owners agree. He has no chance. Do you have inside information? If so please share. If not, your post is very presumptive.