CubinNY

How about Bozo T. Clown, Jon Cusack, Billy Coragan, Bill Murry, Denis Farina, Denis Franz, or Gary Sinece? They all know Chicago and have name recognition. They'd have to be good.

You are correct sir! :wink: Well congratulations to us then. Isn't Albert GREAT?! Puts a smile on my face just saying the name. I know you also post on CardsTalk, correct? I post there frequently. Why don't you go back to Cardstalk and leave us alone to wollow in our misery. Mods please lock this thread and ban this guy. This is trollery (is that a word?) and its lowest.

It's embarrassing, damned embarrassing. Baker has to go now.

I suspect that Jones is sitting today because of his groin. Either it's bothering him, or Dusty is just being a little cautious due to the rain. Or the crowd.

If I want to see a Bufoon I'll watch Sean Hannity on Fox News. I wish they would put people on who could analyze games and tell us things we don't know. Instead the show is 18 minutes of garbage and 12 minutes of crappy Coors light comercials. On a tangent. I wish Pete Coors would stop trying to be a polititian, at least his adds can be entertaining even if his beer is terrible.

Neifi's about as quick as Ron Coomer. What do you mean? Those toothpick legs can pick em up and put em down. Those toothpick legs are being relied on to carry a gargantuan cranium about. I'm not kidding, that boy's head's like Sputnik. Looks like a coconut on a toothpick.

Neifi's about as quick as Ron Coomer. What do you mean? Those toothpick legs can pick em up and put em down.

Why not put Murton in the 3 slot? It looks like Dusty is going with the speed at the top philosophy today?

How is the weather in Iowa?

Two words: Cable TV

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.