CubinNY

Rusch started 3 days ago because of one "good" outing in relief where he gave up four runs in four innings.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, none. Hill has not had near enough oppportunity to show what he can do. I said it before and I'll say it again, jerking a pitcher from starting in the minors to relieving in the majors, to starting in the minors, to spot starting in the majors, to relieving in the majors, to starting in the minors, to starting in the majors is not the way to develop a pitcher. Each time Hill has started in the majors his "life" was on the line. Not everyone is Wood or Prior. Hell, Baylor could decide if Z was a starter.

Great game by Z =D> =D> =D>

I don't think the Cubs will trade Maddux unless they can get something back in return. They don't really need to dump salary and he's not really blocking anyone. My guess is he doesn't get traded unless a team thinks they are a decent 4th or 5th starter away from a title and are willing to mortage the future for the present. I don't see that happening.

It all comes down to the granularity and reliability of the data. The analysis should shift to the pitch-by-pitch data. This would actually have a direct benefit to the hitter/pitcher, as how they approach each PA is hugely dependent on the count. Carlos Delgado said that he keeps a log of every one of his PAs. I'd love for every pitcher and batter to do the same, log where they were trying to throw, where the batter was looking for the pitch. It's these things that would make for the holy grail, and give us the ultimate. But, these secrets are important to the pitcher and batter. So, if the Delgado's can donate their diaries after their careers are over, we can gain a huge insight into pitchers and batters. The other area would be fielding, and positioning. Capturing the ball game in 4-D (including a time component), we can know where a fielder and ball is at all times, and how, and how fast, the fielders move towards a ball. The problem here is that this data will be the province of 30 teams instead of 1000 analyst. And the giga or terra bytes of data will be so overwhelming. Frustrated? No. Annoyed maybe. And not at the "traditionals", but also to the "new guard". Everyone wants to have their opinions heard, and the look into the forest for whatever numbers support them. Some people do a great job at it, and some don't. I would much prefer if people voiced their opinions separate and exclusive of numbers. One thing that we really hit hard in The Book is that numbers require alot of interpretation and a margin for error, since performance stats are just samples of something true. And all samples have margins for error. In short, the numbers don't necessarily tell you what you think they tell you. But, what your eyes see gives us great insight that can be used to pair up with the numbers. That's why I love the Fans' Scouting Report. Exactly, Stats don't replace judgment, they aid in judgment. They potentially validate or invalidate judgment. But there always is a confidence factor that has to be taken into account. Thanks, This chat has been great.

Better hitting prospect than Harvey?

I think Drabeck had some sort of an issue with alcohol during his playing days, but I could be mistaken.

Listening to Brenly reminds me why he is in the booth and not in the dugout.

So they're tougher to pitch to but easier to get out? that seems utterly nonsensical. The definition of "tough to pitch to" should be "difficult to keep off base" Question: Where did I write that they are "tougher to picth to". You seem to be having trouble understanding my thesis, so let me simplify it: 1) Minor league hitters are not as good at hitting as MLers; 2) Minor league hitters also have a different approach (i.e., mental approach) to hitting than do MLers; 3) ML pitchers are more accustomed to pitching to ML hitters, and thus are more familiar / comfortable with their approach; 4) Therefore, minor league hitters present a special "problem" for ML pitchers b/c they take a different approach to hitting. This approach does not make up the gap between MLers and minor leaguers (obviously), but perhaps it causes some problems for longtime ML pitchers who find themselves on rehab assignments. I think your entire thesis rests on point #2. For evidence against that I present Corey Patterson as a specific case in point to suggest that what you write is not the case. In addition, in general minor league numbers are a pretty good predictor of major league numbers. Somebody else mentioned Jeff Francour as having success when he first came up. Well, he had a ridiculous BABIP but his approach is pretty much the same as it was in the minors, swing early and swing often. However upon further reflection, I can understand what Dusty and Bruce are saying in some respect. Major league pitchers might not know the tendencies of minor league hitters. There also may be some difficult to quatify variables in play as well.

If the theory is: Minor league hitters are more dangerous then major league hitters, becuase they don't think, they just hack. Then, I would have to disagree with Dusty and Bruce. It presuposes a number of things, the two most important being; 1. Minor league hitters have no discipline. This might be true of the Cubs, but not necessarily true. 2. If a guy doesn't know he's being set up, he can't be set up. Awareness of being set up is the very thing that would make setting up someone impossible. To me this is either an excuse for poor performance or conventional baseball wisdom passed down from old-timers. I wouldn't call it dumb though. If a pitcher is hitting the corners (i.e, staying away from the middle of the plate) and has good movement on his breaking pitches he will get guys out more often then not regardless of what level of competition he is facing.

I am on record NOT wanting Furcal in the worst way. He is one of the most over-rated players in baseball. And that is saying something.

I THINK THE dh FREES UP GM'S AND MANAGERS TO THINK ABOUT THEIR LINEUPS AND POS PLAYERS AS HITTERS FIRST How so? They still play defense in the AL don't they?

The DH does not make AL teams inherently better. It makes them different. The DH Acutally penalizes AL teams in two ways 1) It makes the bench shorter (i.e, less bench players) and 2) Pitcher's don't hit until the World Series. If the AL seems to be a stronger league it's b/c the better teams with the better players are in the AL. During much of the 1970s and 1980s the NL dominated the AL in the all-star game and I think lead in WS victories. With the rise of the Yankees in the 90s the ballance of power switched.

Managing in the AL is much easier than managing in the NL. The WS were extremely lucky last year in terms of the health of their team. I give Williams credit for brining in a lot of those players but they already had a pretty good nucleous of talent to begin with. Making stupid comments in the press and yelling obsenities doesn't make one a good manager.

Mods please dismemeber and burn this thread. I hate the DH. It's not baseball, it's basebally. There are more than enoug crappy fielders who can hit to go around.

Is that so? His W-L was 3-5 in April/May 2005, his ERA was 3.71 (a 3.71 ERA would have been good enough to be in the top 20 starters in the NL in 2005) Through the end of May 2005 Pettitte allowed 26 ER in 63 IP Through the end of May 2006 Pettitte has allowed 45 ER in 71-2/3 IP If a 3.71 "wasn't very good", what exactly do you call a 5.65? BTW 1st half generally refers to pre ASB, Pettitte had a 6-7 record at the ASB break with an ERA of 3.09 NSBB is the only place where one can read a Cardianl fan evisorate the argument of an Astros fan on a Cubs board. This place is great. Thank you Tim. Sign of for Premium folks.

It seems as if the Cubs have a lot of "soft" players. Len was questioning Hill's toughness last night. It is never the coaching or usage patterns, it's always the players.

Is anyone in this thread saying that it is? Yes. And more than once. I never said this was a terrible move or one that shouldn't be done. To me it is a so what trade at best, and a what were they thinking trade at worst. But he comes cheap and if he helps the bench great, but the Cubs could have used the help about 8 weeks ago. It makes the team better. Isn't that the bottom line? And if so, why complain??? It's obviously not some sort of blockbuster deal, but it gives them a better chance to win from here on out. Sometimes the nitpicking gets old. You know what gets old, having to repeat one's self for those that come to a thread late and fail to read any posts before the one they are responding to. Who is nitpicking? The bench has been putrid for a number of years. Lee went down six weeks ago. Hendry is just now dealing with it. Someone wrote that getting Nevin is a big deal. Then there was the suggestion to look at the number of ABs by the bench. Given current trends Nevin's @ 1.93 ABs per game off the bench doesn't really help that much.

Is anyone in this thread saying that it is? Yes. And more than once. I never said this was a terrible move or one that shouldn't be done. To me it is a so what trade at best, and a what were they thinking trade at worst. But he comes cheap and if he helps the bench great, but the Cubs could have used the help about 8 weeks ago.

Got to love the over-managing lefty/righty match ups. It's LaRussa like.

c'ya Matty. In light of the fact that Dusty has had ample opportunity to bench Matt already and has not done so, I'm taking a wait and see approach. Murton has been hot lately. Let's see how this plays out. I like this move. Nevin can play first until Lee returns and then gives use RHed pop off the bench, and hopefully a platoon partner for Jones. Exactly who was going to replace Mutron? Bynum? Restovich? the dearly departed JH Jr? It could be that Murton wasn't replaced becuase there was no one to replace him. But as you and Tim pointed out, we shall see. Although having a viable option on the bench is great, I fail to see how this move makes the Cubs appreciably better. Look at the number of at bats by the bench so far and the cumulative OPS of the bench players. Improving the bench is a very big deal. The Cubs have 1703 ABs. Of those 350 are "bench" ABs. Neifi has the most with 93 or 26%. If we exclude his ABs (He has been the primary 2nd baseman) the number goes down to 257. That is right at 15 % of the ABs. If you take out Blanco (43) who rarely if ever PH, the number goes down to 12.5% or 214. As of tonight the Cubs are averaging a pathetic 33 ABs/game. Using these numbers that gives us 3.96 ABs per game by the bench. For argument sake let's say that Nevin takes the lion's share of the bench ABs (say 33%) that gives him a grand total of 1.3 ABs per game. I reiterate, I fail to see how this makes the Cubs appreciably better. 1) those ab's are likely to be high leverage and we're not putting an absolutely atrocious hitter in play there 2) I don't think you can just exclude Neifi's AB's from the calculation entirely. When he's not starting, he's Dusty's "big bat" off the bench. I am not saying this makes the team a lock for the WS, I'm just saying that it improves the team and is therefore worthwhile. Are you trying to say the Cubs are worse off with this move? If not, why complain about it? What I'm saying is that trading for Neivin to improve the bench is not a very big deal. This trade is classic Hendry. Too little, too late. If Dusty uses Nevin as a platoon partner with JJ, I will be extremly surprized and extremely pleased. If he uses Nevin as a replacement for Murton I won't be happy at all, but will be less surprized. If he uses Nevin as the primary bat off the bench, I think that is great, but not a big deal at all.

Milton has a good move to first and Bynum is fast enough to score on a gapper. I hope he stays put.

It's a good thing you don't care.

Who doesn't love JJ?

I agree. He was the whipping boy last year. It's a shame, but I am happy for Corey. Why must I hate the team I love?