CubinNY

IMO Aramis needs to take a walk with pride. Right now no one is pitching to him and he is getting himself out.

That was the best sound clip I've ever listened to. Better the Elia because when you filter out the colorful language he is right on the money.

This has been going on for three years now. They are a hacking mass. I really don't want to hear anyone blame Lee's absence as the cause of all this either. One guy should not make that much of a difference in terms of runs scored. If he does, the team is not very good.

What percentage of times do you think JJ has swung at the first pitch? It has to be way over 50%.

Twenty minute top half. Guz is overthrowing that's why everything is up. If the Cubs can score a few runs here I thik he will be ok. He just needs to settle down.

Wouldn't that be true of most teams? No, not necessarily. Perhaps I should have changed the wording from blowout to something less dramatic, like 3+ runs. My primary point is that it is not easy to have a winning record with a negative run differential, which makes it vital that the team thrive in close game situations, which it has. Many of us knew this team would have to win a lot of 4-3 or 3-2 type games. And the fact that they are leads me to believe the "good sign" line. But unless the Cubs can do something about the run differential, over the long haul, the future, she ain't so bright.

That's why we call him Slappy. But really, he has the most amazing ability to make contact without ever hitting the ball hard. It's that Pierre Flair I guess?

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second. No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out. Outs are precious and should be treated as such. That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out? I don't know. Hopefully Bob's Keeper comes across this thread. I am almost positive he will have an answer. But I would bet that runner on second and no outs beats a runner of thrid and one out.

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second. No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out. Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

Haven't we had this conversation before? Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time. I'll see if I can simplify it. Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better. What do you do? If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward. allow me to preface by saying that I think Dusty prefers vets over younger players. however, I think it is quite overblown. when time after time it turns out Dusty was right, ie. the younger player doesn't develop into anything, don't you think he may be on to something? I wanted to see Choi get the PT, but Karros and Simon did well. I wanted to see Bobby Hill be the starter, but Grudz had a great year. I wanted to see more of DuBois, but he's back down in AAA, and Hollandworth again is getting his PT. none of these guys amounted or will amount to much. so when does it get to the point where some of us are willing to admit our expectations might have been wrong, and Dusty was right that the young player would not be an asset to the team? if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year. in other words, your assumption of "Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now" is just that, an assumption. if you want to decide who the better player was at a given time, you can stick with your opinion no matter how false it turned out to be, or you can look at how the players actually performed. What are you talking about? That was a hypothetical. Hollandsworth over Dubois and Grudz over Hill are but two examples. And again it does not matter that Hollandsworth or Grudz might have better careers than Dubios or Hill. What matters is that at the time of the decision, playing the vet over the rookie was made even though the numbers for the vet were putrid. what matters is whether Dusty chose to play the better player, and hindsite has proven over and over again that he made the right choice, which to me indicates that maybe Dusty has a little better foresight than people are willing to give him credit for. people really should get off the Dubois and Hollandworth thing. the plan all along was to use him in a platoon, and after April 2005, Dubois proved pretty much overwhelmingly that he couldn't hit major league lefties, much less righties. as for Grudz over Hill, go back in time and look at how Hill lost the starting job in ST. that's right, how Hill lost it. the plan was for him to be the everyday secondbaseman, but he played so terribly in ST the Cubs had little choice but to go with Grudz. then look how Grudz performed in the early part of that year and how Hill did down in Iowa. tell me you wouldn't have made the same decision. We all know the importance of spring taining numbers. Look at Cedeno and Rameriz. The other aspect which is difficult if not impossible to quantify is the pressure put on the young player to produce immediately or get demoted. The vet never has that pressure. I'm just glad Cedeno started out well, b/c if not I'm sure Neifi would be getting plenty of time at SS. But really, I'm glad that the young guys are doing well. I hope Dusty and Hendry learn something from this experience.

Zambrano. Great Stuff. Check. Prior. Great Stuff when healthy. Check Wood. Great Stuff when healthy. Check Dontrelle. Great Stuff. Check Marshall. Great Stuff so far. Check Gooz/Hill. Great Stuff in the minors. Check. Garland. Great stuff/poor control til last year. Check. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? None of the above are "average" pitchers though Wood and Prior have had average careers due to injury. This thread isn't about you ridiculously dumping on the Cubs starters because you enjoy it. It's a discussion about why we can produce GREAT PITCHING TALENT, but not produce the same offensively. Which we do, regardless of what you say. In FACT, the reason why many Cubs fans are dissappointed, is because Wood hasn't lived up to how good of a pitcher he actually is. So he would be considered a very good pitcher with high expectations that has failed to live up to them. Further this thread is about the Minor League process. Sorry Badger, once again you are wrong. There are no GREAT pitchers on your list. Unless you see Jon Garland as GREAT PITCHER. Dontrelle Willis is very good, but then he's not here. The others are great potential, possible high ceilings..but not GREAT. Your boy Kerry isn't even in the discussion, as it's hard to be GREAT when you are on the DL all the time. I hope that Marshall, Guzman and Hill continue their development and I like what I see. I also hope that BigZ straightens everything out and Prior comes back strong. But I judge talent based on performance inactual MLB games, not some towel drill or simulated games. Given the Cubs low position in the amateur drafts over the 10 years of the Hendry talent search disaster, I expect alot more. How many other teams have produced more and better ptichers? To say the Cubs haven't done a decent job producing ML quality arms is a little over the top. I cannot think of a single organization that has produced more than a handfull of top quality major league pitchers including the Cubs, so I think your standards are a bit high. Sergio Mitre, Jon Koranka, Rynell Pinto, Jermaine Van Buren, Ray King and Juan Cruse, all the starting pitchers already mentioned and some guys I am sure I am forgetting is pretty darn good.

I don't know if pitching in the WBC affected the pitchers, but it certianly could have. However, citing examples of non-WBC pitchers who are struggling is about as good as evidence as any that pitching in the WBC is not the cause of all struggles. I don't think we can know until the season is over and we look at the data not just from the MLB pitchers but the Korean and Japanese pitchers too. Although those guys typically throw alot, if I am not mistaken.

Haven't we had this conversation before? Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time. I'll see if I can simplify it. Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better. What do you do? If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward. allow me to preface by saying that I think Dusty prefers vets over younger players. however, I think it is quite overblown. when time after time it turns out Dusty was right, ie. the younger player doesn't develop into anything, don't you think he may be on to something? I wanted to see Choi get the PT, but Karros and Simon did well. I wanted to see Bobby Hill be the starter, but Grudz had a great year. I wanted to see more of DuBois, but he's back down in AAA, and Hollandworth again is getting his PT. none of these guys amounted or will amount to much. so when does it get to the point where some of us are willing to admit our expectations might have been wrong, and Dusty was right that the young player would not be an asset to the team? if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year. in other words, your assumption of "Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now" is just that, an assumption. if you want to decide who the better player was at a given time, you can stick with your opinion no matter how false it turned out to be, or you can look at how the players actually performed. What are you talking about? That was a hypothetical. Hollandsworth over Dubois and Grudz over Hill are but two examples. And again it does not matter that Hollandsworth or Grudz might have better careers than Dubios or Hill. What matters is that at the time of the decision, playing the vet over the rookie was made even though the numbers for the vet were putrid.

Haven't we had this conversation before? Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time. I'll see if I can simplify it. Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better. What do you do? If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward.

He is homegrown with a breif hiatus in Atlanta.

Jagger looks like a pre-pubesent girl in that clip.

Last nights game will give jjigman fuel for his conspiracy theory that the umps don't want to see the Cubs win.

Mr. Clutch, hell. He is probably the best hitter on the team. And that is even when Lee comes back.

That's my boy!!!!

I'll let this be my last word on the matter: Two innings isn't going to hurt. It's not like it was the 5th. A rookie pitcher is on the mound and it's late. One swing of the bat and he gets the win. Now he gets nothing but an atta' boy. You have to pinch hit close and late. But we can look at the results. They still had to use a pitcher.

Dude, look at our bench. He wasn't expecting Marshall to struggle with the two of the hacks on Pit. He had 75 pitches. Which one of our murderer's row of Blanco Neifi Bynum Hairston and Restovich were you really feeling good about? Dude, all of those guys are payed to hit the ball. Marshall is not. It is bad baseball pure and simple. I don't give a frog's slimy behind how many pitches Marshall had thrown up to that point. Close and late you don't let a pitcher hit. Especially a rookie pitcher who hasn't hit on a consistent bases since highschool. But luckily the Cubs got out of it. [/shadow]

On further reflection, I'd have to say it was a dark cloud.

OK so Dusty didn't pinch hit for Marshall then he has to bring in another pitcher anyway.

Santo is about to cry after those two close pitches.

who did you want them to pinch hit with? Well, number one, it would waste a pinch "hitter" (I use that term loosely with our bench, only Hairston do I think could come through), and it would burn a pitcher. If there isn't a better hitter on the bench then a rookie pitcher who has pitched 7 good innings then the Cubs are in bigger trouble than any of us care to imagine.