CubinNY

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9433155 Seems as though he and Murry had a real good time in San Deigo.

Isn't that the same guy that said, "this isn't a 6th place team" and proved it by finsihing 8th. :D The Cubs have been blessed with great managers over the years. Who is for digging up Cap Anson's bones and putting them in the dugout? :help:

I liked everything Dusty said in that piece. I wish he were better at his job though.

It's like finding out after a root canal that you are being audited by the IRS after getting fired from your job. It's that much fun.

That's not the point. It may not have made a difference today, but on an everyday basis, it will cost you a ton of runs because you have the pitcher and not an RBI guy hitting behind your highest OBP guy. It's the kind of dumb thing that Dusty seems to do on a regular basis with no rhyme or reason that makes most of us insane. I didn't realize .326 was a good OBP on a regular basis. On this team it is. But really, Murton is perhaps the most patient hitter on the team. I don't think putting him one spot ahead of the pitcher is a good idea.

I know. It's real, real, bad baseball strategy. I cannot believe even Dusty would do that. It's almost like he is trying to get fired. I just don't get it. EDIT: You are being sarcastic, aren't you?

I think he will last at least as long as it takes Wood and Prior to pitch 3 or 4 times. I guess that would make his date for termination around the trade deadline. I just think Hendry will want to let him give it a shot with the big guns pitching.

you've returned to this a couple of times in the conversation, and it's rather absurd. what is being discussed here is pitches on the corner. painting the black. those pitches that when called strikes, Joe Morgan calls them "acceptable" strikes, aka pitches that are balls, but close enough to being strikes that Questech will register it as the proper call, even though it is not. the pitches...or is it pitch?...called on Bonds was unquestionably a strike. even Bonds knew it, just dropping his head and walking back. you are trying to use one pitch that was rightfully called a strike as evidence that Barry Bonds does not get favorable treatment. we are not talking about never having a strike called. we are talking about a trend we see in officiating, the same trend you see in other sports, but for some reason are unwilling to impute to baseball. furthermore, labeling what people are discussing as a conspiracy is a non-sequitor. nobody said these people got together to plan to give Barry a better strike zone. I've never seen it as a conspiracy. perhaps a bit of group think, but conspiracy or not, it happens. obviously you feel strongly about this, but your arguments, from what you said Questech proved, to using one strike called on Barry Bonds, to screaming 'prove it' like a petulant Missourian, are rather weak. Groupthink? Is that your answer to everyting. Because I know you've accused members of this borad of groupthink. Questech has shown that the umpires are correct @90% of the time. At least that is the acceptable rate to stay in the bigs. I guess they are only off for the top 5% or pitchers and 5% of hitters. Aren't you the one who continually harps on consipricies against the Cubs. Whether it be the schedule maker or the umpires?

Please, not the gacha statements. Of course I've see basketball games. Perhaps I should have written I don't really like the NBA and could care less about the sport. Basketball and baseball are only similar in the respect that they are both played with a ball that is round.

No that is absurd because I beleive in the integrity of the umpires. All this stuff is sour grapes fueled by ex-ballplayer sprotscasters.

Is absurd to think an umpire would call balls all over the place strikes because of a pitchers reputation. It is absolutely not absurd to think that he would give borderline calls to a pitcher who has a reputation of being a control pitcher that he might not give to a pitcher who has a reputation of being wild. Well, not anymore absurd than thinking a manager's hissy fit is impacting the strike zone. I said it could. I didn't say it does. You really think umpires care who is pitching? Does your theory only apply to managers with a reputation of being good or have a certain amount of career wins?...is it only for fiery managers?.....because that's the kind of manager the Cubs need. If we had a manager that could influence the umpire to make even one key call in our favor every game just by being mad at him, then that would be one hell of an advantage. If you've read my posts you would have noticed that I think a manger does his team a disservice by griping at the umpire. But again, I would think that might occur very rarely.

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely? It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question. Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not. People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place. Baseball is not basketball. Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing. What is so wild about it. That umpires have inegrity or that they are human? It's funny that you are definitively defining what emotionally effects an umpire and what doesn't. You completely dismiss one emotional factor while accepting another. It's great. It's wild speculation on both sides of the issue but for some reason you laugh at one and deem it to be ridiculous. I'm not sure how you can assume, to the extent that you do, that umpires operate like robots in one situation but become emotionally fragile in another. It really makes no sense. I don't think they operate like robots. But in general, I think they operate like everyone else in society. If a person is driving and someone in a Mercedes passess him going 100 mph it is no big deal. He might notice how nice the car is but he won't get emotional about it. But if the person in the Mercedes cuts him off while they pass him, he might get upset and do something stupid. If an umpire is behind the plate in a Braves/Mets game crica 1995 and Maddux is living on the corner strike. He will call it a strike. He might make a mistake here and there . But I don't think it is the case that automatcially the umpire says to himself, "hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners". Now if Cox starts griping he might get upset and intentionally call a close pitch a ball. How do you know an umps call would be affected by a manager instead of a pitcher? Prove it. I don't know that it does as I've said in the above posts. Three times. I said it could. And the umpire could be affected by who is getting on his case the positon of the person on the team is irrelevent. Let me try this again. You guys are saying that before the first pitch the umpire decides how he will call the entire game based on who is on the mound or in the batter's box. And that is always the case. I am saying that their could be factors during the game where an umpire might not give the benefit of the doubt to a pticher or a batter for one pitch or perhaps one at bat. But that is not always the case

Is absurd to think an umpire would call balls all over the place strikes because of a pitchers reputation. It is absolutely not absurd to think that he would give borderline calls to a pitcher who has a reputation of being a control pitcher that he might not give to a pitcher who has a reputation of being wild. Well, not anymore absurd than thinking a manager's hissy fit is impacting the strike zone. I said it could. I didn't say it does. You really think umpires care who is pitching?

I have trouble with the inconsistency of your argument. Here you are stead-fastly refusing to acknowledge that an umpire's strike zone can be influenced within a game, but then readily admitting that an umpire's strike zone changes (noting your 'high strike zone' comment). If they are automatons as you suggest, there would not exist this 'high strike zone' you mention. You are also willing to grant an umpire the ability to make mistakes because he's human, but not be affected by other human elements of the game, such as reputation. A clear example of how they are influenced by reputation is the quickness with which an umpire will issues warnings when a notoriously hot-headed pitcher beans someone. Maddux might not get that same warning in that situation. This entire argument aside (and to bring the topic back to point), if Zambrano is going to keep walking people at his curent rate, performances like the last two will be rare. I'm rooting for him to get his command together because I dig Zambrano the most. Unless I am missing something, what you are arguing is that umpires are affected by the reputation of a player. And will call a completely different game based on who is ptiching and/or batting. That is absurd. What I am arguing is that they make mistakes and can be inconsistent, but overall they do their best to be an impartial judge. The impartiality can change due to emotional factors such as a manager or player complaining. And I am not saying that is always the case either. Umpires change on a game by game basis. Zambrano will likely not have the same guy behind the plate in his next start. Unless there is some cabal of umpires text messaging each other, his last start should have no effect on the umpire in his next start.

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely? It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question. Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not. People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place. Baseball is not basketball. Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing. What is so wild about it. That umpires have inegrity or that they are human? It's funny that you are definitively defining what emotionally effects an umpire and what doesn't. You completely dismiss one emotional factor while accepting another. It's great. It's wild speculation on both sides of the issue but for some reason you laugh at one and deem it to be ridiculous. I'm not sure how you can assume, to the extent that you do, that umpires operate like robots in one situation but become emotionally fragile in another. It really makes no sense. I don't think they operate like robots. But in general, I think they operate like everyone else in society. If a person is driving and someone in a Mercedes passess him going 100 mph it is no big deal. He might notice how nice the car is but he won't get emotional about it. But if the person in the Mercedes cuts him off while they pass him, he might get upset and do something stupid. If an umpire is behind the plate in a Braves/Mets game crica 1995 and Maddux is living on the corner strike. He will call it a strike. He might make a mistake here and there . But I don't think it is the case that automatcially the umpire says to himself, "hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners". Now if Cox starts griping he might get upset and intentionally call a close pitch a ball.

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely? It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question. Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not. People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place. Baseball is not basketball. Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing. What is so wild about it? That umpires have integrity or that they are human?

So basketball refs have a vested interest but baseball umps don't? I have no doubt that Bonds gets a small zone. No it can't be proved, but Zambrano striking him out looking does not disprove that claim either. I don't think it is fair to compare baseball or basketball. I don't know why professional basketball is refereed the way it is. It's one of the reasons why I don't watch. To me it is illogical to think that Bonds has a smaller zone than the average ballplayer. This is a guy that almost no one likes but the umpires? And if last night is any indication, it is at least not always the case. And if it is not always the case, how often is it the case? Obviously, umpires are human they will make mistakes. But unless I am missing something here, people are suggesting that umpires intentionally call the game differently based on who is ptiching and who is batting. What happens if Bonds is batting against Glaven? I suppose by that logic the strike zone is called fairly?

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely? It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question. Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not. People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place. Baseball is not basketball.

One thing that is true that any ballplayer will say is that as long as the zone is consistent they are fine. If the umpire is calling a high strike zone then they want them to call that all game. It is when the strike zone is inconsistent that people complain.

To me it is just ridicilous to assume 1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting 2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game. That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called. But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

Glavine Link That proves nothing. Here is a whole bunch of untrue things said by a former ballpayer http://firejoemorgan.blogspot.com/

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is. The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners. I don't think this is true. Then you're wrong. prove it. Prove what you're saying is true, you're so adamant in your wrong stance. I can safely say from watching many games over the 90's that that call was given to all of the Braves pitchers. If you choose to be ignorant to what happened, then I can't help you. You cannot say anything sitting in your house watching a game on TV. The camera angle even when behind the pitcher is off ether to the left or to the right. Its a fools errand to try to call balls and strikes through that method. But more importantly, you are saying that the umpires and MLB conspired to cheat for the Braves over the better part of a decade. I guess they just wanted them to make it to the WS and not actually win it. Here are some other myths: the Yankees bought their pennants (most of the players where homegrown) The Braves get the benefit of the Doubt because well, they're the Braves

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is. The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners. I don't think this is true. Then you're wrong. prove it. At some point in our lives we all have to wake up a question if what we are told is true. Then again maybe it is only some people that do that.

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is. The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners. I don't think this is true.

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is.