jjgman21

you are right, it is not his job to get out of the way, but if the play was as you describe, the 'proper' play for a middle infielder is in fact to throw the ball at the runners head and make him get out of the way. going back to little league I was taught to 'throw the ball right at his head, he'll get out of the way.' It is not Brandon Phillips job to worry about the well being of Albert Pujols. the fact that he did in this instance is the main reason he is an idiot, not anything subsequent.

just saw the long completion to Manningham toward the end that put Michigan into position to kick a game winning field goal. indeed, the game almost came down to a UM WR getting away with pushing off. somethings never change, like Michigan being over rated and their receivers getting away with pushing off.

Wisconsin needs to wake the heck up. And Jack Ikeagwanu is hurt now too. how's that for a little cup of coffee with a side of bacon? just looked like a tweak to Ike. did he come back out there after that?

while it's rare that a Pac 10 team plays any defense at all, Tyler Donovan looks like the real deal. the much ballyhoo'd Wisconsin D on the other hand...

so many willing to throw Dempster under the bus for a couple of rough games in which he still converted the save. it's as if the prior ten games (9.1 IP) with two hits, three walks, and no runs allowed never even happened. prior to that he had a couple rough games in non save situations. prior to that, 11 games (11 IP), 7 hits, 6 walks, one run. the guy's not Billy Wagner, but he's getting the job done.

on 1)....putting a helluva lot of stock into a great year at Peoria, and a small sample size at Iowa last year, aren't you? 2006, EPatt one year older, both at AA EPatt - 738 Moore - 839 2005 EPatt at low A - 940 Moore at high A - 843 shouldn't recency, level, and age come into consideration when evaluating 'history of success?' on 2)...yes, but not a very good one.

Among players with a reasonable number of at bats, he was ninth on his own team in OPS. That's not that impressive. the worst part of the trade is losing Moore. OPS by month A - .637 M - .786 J - .998 J - 1.148 A - .977 I think your analysis may have punished the guy for a slow start. You cannot look at the numbers people are putting up at Iowa this year without considering the run environment there and in the PCL in general. Those look like really spiffy numbers (even though you really can't throw out his april & may numbers and just take his best ones), but darned near everyone was putting up spiffy numbers there. Cherry's ERA, while over 4, may have been more impressive than Moore's OPS. I think the unanalysis of the PCL is a little overblown, but the fact remains that, of qualified hitters, he's 12th in the league in OPS, despite that bad start, and has strikezone judgment, which we all bitch about the organizations lack thereof. He was behind: Soto (385 ab/1.076 ops) Murton (151/.977) Pie (229/.973) Cedeno (287/.958) Fox (87/.939) Kinkade (120/.937) Fontenot (211/.925) Hoffpauir (310/.917) Moore (321/.899) He may have been 12th amongst qualified batters in the PCL, but Iowa's run environment was just crazy in 2007. Those numbers almost have to be thrown away or at least taken within the context of the rest of the team. yet EPatt and his .817 and subpar defense makes your list.

six of the Cubs first seven batters yesterday hit the ball on the screws. Wandy is so lucky.

nice hops

Among players with a reasonable number of at bats, he was ninth on his own team in OPS. That's not that impressive. the worst part of the trade is losing Moore. OPS by month A - .637 M - .786 J - .998 J - 1.148 A - .977 I think your analysis may have punished the guy for a slow start. You cannot look at the numbers people are putting up at Iowa this year without considering the run environment there and in the PCL in general. Those look like really spiffy numbers (even though you really can't throw out his april & may numbers and just take his best ones), but darned near everyone was putting up spiffy numbers there. Cherry's ERA, while over 4, may have been more impressive than Moore's OPS. I think the unanalysis of the PCL is a little overblown, but the fact remains that, of qualified hitters, he's 12th in the league in OPS, despite that bad start, and has strikezone judgment, which we all bitch about the organizations lack thereof.

again, I think your framing the argument to suit your bitch. the only evidence anyone has seen is that Trachsel will get a spot start. there is a vast difference in a spot start v. going with a six man rotation. if it becomes official that they are going to a six man rotation, then bitch away. until then, reserve judgment. Its straight from Lous mouth. fine. how about reserving judgment until you see what is meant by "modified?"

just a prediction on how this Michigan game will pan out. Arrington or Manningham with a late touchdown grab after blatantly pushing off on the defender.

again, I think your framing the argument to suit your bitch. the only evidence anyone has seen is that Trachsel will get a spot start. there is a vast difference in a spot start v. going with a six man rotation. if it becomes official that they are going to a six man rotation, then bitch away. until then, reserve judgment.

Among players with a reasonable number of at bats, he was ninth on his own team in OPS. That's not that impressive. the worst part of the trade is losing Moore. OPS by month A - .620 M - .817 J - .998 J - 1.148 A - .977 I think your analysis may have punished the guy for a slow start. edited cuz minorleaguesplits and minorleaguebaseball have different numbers for some reason. the above are mlbb. for some reason mls doesn't have August stats up.

Thats wrong BBB. Trachsel is starting against LA this week. The Cubs are going to go to a modified 6 man rotation for some dumbass reason. I would think you would want your better pitchers pitching more often while in a playoff race, and not have them pitch less. I imagine the dumbass reason is every starter on the staff is set to approach or fly by their career high in IP. if that is in fact the reason, it's not so dumbass, IMO. the Cubs are also in a stretch where they play about 36 days in a row with one off day, with a DH upcoming mixed in, so 36 games in 36 days. while the typical is four days rest, I imagine the occasional fifth day that ordinarily comes due to an off day is quite welcome. Im sorry but its Sept and you are in a playoff race I would prefer to have Z, Lilly, and Hill pitching as much as possible to try and get to the playoffs, instead of giving starts to mediocre pitchers like the human rain delay. and then we'll have an excuse to bitch for five more years that our pitchers with long term contracts all had their arms blown out. huzzah. inserting Trachsel into one game against the Dodgers allows Z to open the series in St. Louis. the way the calendar is stacked right now, Z has a chance to get 6 starts this month and Lilly 5, and there really isn't much anyone can do about stacking it differently short of giving either of these guys only three days rest. the two off days at the end of the month allows the rotation to be stacked to get Z and Lilly the optimum amount of starts. I imagine we will see Z on the 25 against Fla and on the 30 against Cincy. Id hope Hill can get 5 also, seeing as hes been this teams best pitcher lately(the whole season). I just think the Cubs are over analyzing things. Ive never heard of a team in 1st place, on Sept 1, going to a 6 man rotation, and playing matchups against sub 500 teams. The pitching staff has been near the top of the NL all year, and now they are really(in my opinion) over analyzing things. Hill will get 5. framing the matchup as "against sub 500 teams" is very clever, but there's a damn good chance that game on 9/14 will be gigantic in terms of the standings, especially going into the 9/15 where a 4 game swing in the standings will be on the line. look at a calendar. basically the only way to get Lilly that sixth start would be if the Cubs went strictly 4 days rest with Z and Lilly from now until the end of the season. I think that is foolish, not only because of the wear on those two, but also because of how inconsistent it will make the rest of the rotations' rest. if you can come up with a better plan, I'd like to hear it, but without, you really have no basis on which to bitch.

Thats wrong BBB. Trachsel is starting against LA this week. The Cubs are going to go to a modified 6 man rotation for some dumbass reason. I would think you would want your better pitchers pitching more often while in a playoff race, and not have them pitch less. I imagine the dumbass reason is every starter on the staff is set to approach or fly by their career high in IP. if that is in fact the reason, it's not so dumbass, IMO. the Cubs are also in a stretch where they play about 36 days in a row with one off day, with a DH upcoming mixed in, so 36 games in 36 days. while the typical is four days rest, I imagine the occasional fifth day that ordinarily comes due to an off day is quite welcome. Im sorry but its Sept and you are in a playoff race I would prefer to have Z, Lilly, and Hill pitching as much as possible to try and get to the playoffs, instead of giving starts to mediocre pitchers like the human rain delay. and then we'll have an excuse to bitch for five more years that our pitchers with long term contracts all had their arms blown out. huzzah. inserting Trachsel into one game against the Dodgers allows Z to open the series in St. Louis. the way the calendar is stacked right now, Z has a chance to get 6 starts this month and Lilly 5, and there really isn't much anyone can do about stacking it differently short of giving either of these guys only three days rest. the two off days at the end of the month allows the rotation to be stacked to get Z and Lilly the optimum amount of starts. I imagine we will see Z on the 25 against Fla and on the 30 against Cincy.

28-17 at the half. year after year after year after year they are overrated. they haven't been a top 5 team in a decade, yet always are ranked there in the preseason.

Thats wrong BBB. Trachsel is starting against LA this week. The Cubs are going to go to a modified 6 man rotation for some dumbass reason. I would think you would want your better pitchers pitching more often while in a playoff race, and not have them pitch less. I imagine the dumbass reason is every starter on the staff is set to approach or fly by their career high in IP. if that is in fact the reason, it's not so dumbass, IMO. the Cubs are also in a stretch where they play about 36 days in a row with one off day, with a DH upcoming mixed in, so 36 games in 36 days. while the typical is four days rest, I imagine the occasional fifth day that ordinarily comes due to an off day is quite welcome.

not fond of the trade, but it's always frustrating to see a group of ordinarily rational people lose all sense of reality when it comes to evaluating a player that is coming to the Cubs. Trachsel had a 4.13 ERA in April and a 2.84 ERA in May, so let's dispense with the myth that his league average ERA+ (which usually means above average ERA+ for a starter) is the product of one 'lucky' August. not that his strikeout total this year instills confidence, but Trachsel has never had good peripherals, yet only twice over the past 12 years has he has an ERA+ below 92 (one of them last year when coming off a near season long injury). so either he has figured out a way to keep runs from crossing the plate despite bad peripherals, or he's been on the longest 'lucky' streak in the history of baseball. basically Trachsel is the definition of average starting pitcher. career ERA+ of 101, not a season below 87 since 1995, not a season above 116 since 1996. yet so many are trying to make the guy out as the second coming of Willie Banks. it's truly absurd.

Care to elaborate? He's been trading for crap hoping it turns into gold lately. EJ said it dead on with what I meant this kind of garbage gets nobody anywhere. I don't particularly like the trade, but we need honest debate here. Trachsel is not crap. by definition he is average.

six out of seven batters have hit the ball right on the screws here with nothing to show for it. frustrating.

I knew someone would respond like this. Almost word for word of the sarcastic remark I expected. But my post was not to dog Hendry for not getting him. There were plenty of reasons not to: injury history, past chemistry problems, and in light of the Barrett situation earlier this year, it was a long shot. The point of my post was to show that what I was saying in July that this was a high reward, low risk signing worth taking and that it has turned out that Bradley has turned in the best possible result so far. ah, so your point was to demonstrate your baseball genius. there's alot of 'I told you so' ing happening on the board right now. we all get some right and get some wrong. just curious, do you pop in to eat crow on the ones you get wrong?

isn't outperforming the expected record based on runs scored/allowed pretty close to the definition of luck? usually when that term is thrown about around here it is to summarize phenomena that can't be proven through various statistical methods. so based on your assertion that it is not luck, does the inverse apply? is there any explanation for this phenomena besides luck? the Cards in the standings posted above are already outside the measurement error. if you consider the rate that all three teams are going, the Cubs and Cards will both be well outside of the measurement error upon completing 162 games, the Brewers on the cusp. edit - I don't think I saw there was a second page of posts before writing this, but I'm still not clear on what you were saying here.

I dont think that the A's or the Twins have a lot higher payrolls than KC. These 2 teams have proven you can be competitive on the field without being competitive in payroll. The Royals also had a great following in the 70s and 80s. It is not inconceivable for them to build themselves to a midmarket team. these two teams have proven you can be competitive for a couple of years if you have a slew of talented young players all come up at the same time. after that, you have to start spending some money to sustain it. http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2001 vs. http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007

Saying that the game was lost on one bad pitch to Ward is "excuse-making?" Sure Reyes probably wasn't perfect other than that. The fact remains that the Cubs have scored a bunch of runs on very few hits in the series. Why so overly sensitive about the way the Cards media is scrutinizing Reyes' start? Who cares? I think this illustrates the difference between being a player/fan of the Cardinals and being a player/fan of the Cubs. had the roles been reversed, the Cubs media would be absolutely trashing the Cubs for that loss (and the national media would give no mention of the bad call whatsoever). but I think what you are also missing is it is not only the media making those comments, it's LaRussa. as for how many runs have been scored vs. how many hits, that's fricken baseball, and that's sports in general. should we get into how many of the Cardinals hits yesterday were weakly hit but found holes and how many Cubs outs were hard hit atem' balls?