jjgman21

me thinks Jason Kendall needs to reassess wearing the sunglasses visor at night. short hop - excusable not knowing the ball was popped up - not so much crappy game, gotsta get the next two.

I think it's critical because I see the first game of the Dbacks series as a throw away.

you could also say if Marshall didn't walk the lead off guy and give up a hit, it never would have gotten to Kendall. But I know better to argue when a player already has his grave dug for him before he comes over. Pitchers are going to occasionally walk and give up hits. Catchers should make the routine plays. Especially when they can't hit. then let's be clear on routine, because I recall a month ago a worm burner bouncing out of Barrett's glove was not routine, but tonight a short hop that few catcher's in baseball come up with, allegedly six inches out of position or not, is suddenly routine. IMO, it wasn't exactly "routine", but an allegedly good defensive catcher should make that play... Derrek Lee is probably better at scooping short hops than any first baseman I have ever seen in my life. the nature of playing first base is that he has to stay in one place in order to record the out by catching the ball in a large mitt specially designed for making such plays while he stretches out to put his glove in a good position to make the play. tonight, Derrek Lee has had two balls on shorthops 4-6 feet out of his reach after he stretched out for the ball. he caught one of them. Jason Kendall is not regarded as a good defensive catcher. the nature of playing catcher on plays at the plate is he has to stay in one place in order to record the out by catching the ball with a glove designed to catch pitches thrown directly at him while keeping his body closed so as to not expose himself to serious bodily injury. tonight, he had one shorthop 4-6 feet out of his reach while keeping his body closed in just such a fashion. he did not catch it.

you could also say if Marshall didn't walk the lead off guy and give up a hit, it never would have gotten to Kendall. But I know better to argue when a player already has his grave dug for him before he comes over. Pitchers are going to occasionally walk and give up hits. Catchers should make the routine plays. Especially when they can't hit. then let's be clear on routine, because I recall a month ago a worm burner bouncing out of Barrett's glove was not routine, but tonight a short hop that few catcher's in baseball come up with, allegedly six inches out of position or not, is suddenly routine.

Davanon's arm makes Pierre's look like a cannon.

NOW catcher defense cost us two runs.

Sarcastic, I now have all sorts of support about how catcher's defense on a play or two can make all the difference in the world in the outcome of a ballgame. see today's game thread.

I haven't been following the game thread until now, but if people are laying that on Kendall, they're being simply ridiculous. short hop on a throw from Soriano. It's not a difficult hop at all if Kendall is actually in position. I know, he was wandering off into right field. what the hell are you talking about. he was standing at the corner of the plate, right where he should have been.

puh-leaz.

I haven't been following the game thread until now, but if people are laying that on Kendall, they're being simply ridiculous. short hop on a throw from Soriano.

pitch out on 2-0 when the pitcher hasn't thrown a strike in six pitches. brilliant.

this is not a "chocolate or vanilla" situation. there are other flavors from which to choose.

the hustle thing is overblown, but just a nitpick. if the Giants set up the relay for second base like they should have, Aram is out by a mile at second and potentially out before Lee crosses home plate. the only reason he wasn't out at second was the throw went toward third for a relay home, AND the Giants failed to cover second at all. if someone is covering when the outfield throw comes in, a throw to second probably gets Aram there. oh, and the reason he hurt his knee, and the reason he reaggrevated the knee, were because he assumed an out after hitting the ball, then turned it on after it became apparent it would be a routine out. had he just run 3/4 out of the box on both occassions until routineness is actually determined, his knee probably isn't an issue at all right now. nonetheless, Aramis rocks.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Neither do I. Mitre seems much better than Marquis. it's not a matter of comparing the two players. it's a matter of evaluating Mitre's current season. if we do the same with Mitre as we do with Marqui, we come to the conclusion that Mitre's season, while still very very good without, is largely attributed to luck. while Marquis' numbers allegedly would be much worse if you take luck out of the equation, Mitres numbers lwere similar to Marquis' actual numbers (when I made this post) if you take luck out of his equation. Mitre doesn't strike anybody out, is walking far fewer batters than at any point of his career which is likely to balance out, is allowing far fewer homers than one would expect from comparing the % of flyballs allowed with infield fly percentage or with % of flyballs to this point in his career, is allowing tons of unearned runs, and has a FIP well above his actual ERA. etc etc etc many of the arguments that can be made to detract from Marquis' current performance and used to predict future performance can also be applied to Mitre. but that's not done because it wouldn't contribute the the 18 month Juan Pierre bitch-a-thon.

I guess that answers the question I asked a few times. apparently Bowen didn't have any options left. can anyone explain to me why he did not have any options left?

Because we are the same team that had Neifi Perez starting and batting second for over a year and a half. But the manager during that time had a strange love for worthless offensive players. Lou has shown that he will play whoever is producing. point taken, but the Cubs still have a manager that doesn't fully grasp how to utilize split stats.

my point was related to Wuertz's words, which renders you contending point moot. your point is well taken, although I don't completely agree with the notion that sample size will completely parse these things out. sample size does not necessary sort out other variables. I phrased my point incorrectly. my point was that CERA is deemed worthless in the context of criticizing Barrett, then to defend Barrett some of those same posters will suddenly tell you how great Barrett's CERA was with simply stating the bold doesn't make it so. before going to the Pads, Barrett had 8 passed balls, the Cubs pitching staff 20 WPs (I don't know how many were attributed to Blanco/Hill). since leaving, the Cubs catchers have combined for zero PB and a grand total of 2 wild pitches. but you also are putting words into my mouth. I never claimed Soto saved the game. I claimed there is a chance that Barrett doesn't stop the pitches that Soto did. that is not my logic. that is your interpretation of my logic based on the aforementioned putting of words into my mouth. I speak of nuances within the game. doesn't that suggest to you that I am not the type of fan who puts sole responsibility or credit on a single player? if there is no such thing as a play winning or losing a game, why are so many so enthralled with those graphs which show chances of winning throughout the course of the game? after the Wuertz K of Burke, the chances of the Cubs winning the ballgame went from the mid 60's to the low 80's. so the remaining question is whether Soto had anything to do with it. by Wuertz's words, one can presume it did because he was willing to bust off his best sliders and the implication that he might not have been so confident in doing so had a poor defensive catcher been behind the plate. by the frequency of which WP/PB occur when Michael Barrett is or is not catching, it did, although I am sure that consideration didn't enter into the calculations that went into plotting the points on that graph. you are right, it does lead down a similar path to clutchiness, and is further evidence of something I have been saying for years. sabr is very valuable, but relied on too heavily, in large part because the assumption of sample size evening things out is far from a truism. Bill James so admitted, why the adherents to the philosophies he was so instrumental in creating and popularizing deny this is troublesome as it has lead to similar dogma (aka 'new conventional wisdom') as it is trying to defeat.

no, you didn't. it's quite clear you were not speaking to results, you were speaking to Wuertz's alleged willingness to throw sliders when Barrett was the catcher. and if you take a very small yet extremely logical leap from the reporting to what I said, I was spot on. And we all know that everything Muskat writes is true. What great baseball knowledge she has. I don't care how much confidence Weurtz has. What matters is the results, and the results show that Weurtz was just fine pitching to Barrett. In fact, as has been repeated ad nauseam on this board, the stats show little to no difference in the performances of the pitchers pitching to Michael Barrett or the backups, this season or for the other three he played for the Cubs. What it really comes down to is whether the slightly higher chance Barrett would have allowed a passed ball, etc., outweighs the significant chance that he would have contributed more offensively. It doesn't. since when does it take any baseball knowledge to write down what someone says and then put that quote into a column? is there really any basis to determine the quote was untrue? this discussion between Tim and I was clipped. earlier in the discussion I admitted that more offense is needed out of the catchers to make their superior defensive abilities worthwhile. but this is the problem when all analytical consideration is given to the aggregate and all the nuances of the game are ignored, scoffed at or at best unaccounted for.* confidence should matter to you because it matters to Michael Wuertz and allows Michael Wuertz to throw his best pitch in any situation, thus increasing the chances that he gets batters out. what's funny about reference to CERA is that when it is brought up by a poster in support of a more defensive catcher, it is called 'insignificant.' but when it all evens out, that is proof that CERA doesn't matter. I choose to believe it doesn't matter, in all discussions, because it doesn't say anything either way due in large part to those nuances of the game. I might be wrong, but it's certainly fairer than changing my mind about its significance depending on the argument. I am not saying that offense out of catcher is insignificant and not a problem right now. what I am saying is defense out of a catcher can be the difference between winning and losing a baseball game and should not be dismissed out of hand like so often is the case. * these phenomena were seen in all three games v. Houston and played a significant role in all of them Floyd first to third wasn't a great play, it was a subtle play of possible great significance that may have been the difference in scoring three runs that inning vs. no runs at all. if he doesn't do it, he's at second and probably doesn't get to third on Jones flyball, so DeRo isn't at second when Lamb throws the ball away, he is at first and Lambs throw goes to second (also of note on that play was the rocket shot hit by the batter that lead to the bobble that probably contributed to the bad throw...Geo Soto). not that that is how the inning would have played out, it's just illustrative of how little things often make the difference in the ballgame. Does Oswalt walk Izzy if Soriano isn't on first? who knows, but maybe not, in fact, considering his control and Izzy's lack of baseball skills, probably not. these things are scoffed at as insignificant. they are in terms of evaluating a players future performance. they are not in terms of evaluating how a game was won or lost.

no, you didn't. it's quite clear you were not speaking to results, you were speaking to Wuertz's alleged willingness to throw sliders when Barrett was the catcher. and if you take a very small yet extremely logical leap from the reporting to what I said, I was spot on.

no, I just could never stand him and thought he sucked at his job, and I never understood how other Cub fans could, or how he became an icon simply because he was a drunken idiot. on the other sentiments you expressed, I am largely in agreement.

exactly. none of the misjudging flyballs. none of the inability to translate thought into spoken word. none of the slurring. none of the cliches. none of the constant bitching for the 8 innings leading up to those moments. you are right. Len's calls are a far cry from Harry's.

what is critical is that Barry not get three HRs this series. if he does, the obvious problem is the Cubs have to overcome his homers to win, but if he gets three, he also sits the entire series against the Brewers so he can tie and break the record at home.

agreed. couldn't stand Harry. couldn't stand that he came from the White Sox, couldn't stand that he still sloberred over the Cardinals.

I watched Wuertz pitch to Barrett pretty often and Mike didn't seem to have any problem with throwing those same sliders to Barrett. are you denying that the superior defensive skills of Soto weren't helpful today and there would not have been a different result if Barrett was catching? I merely meant to speculate that the result may not have been the same today if not for outstanding defense by Soto. why are you parsing hairs with this point via some notion of observation that could not possibly go to Michael Wuertz's state of mind? might just be me, but if Wuertz had equal confidence to throw the slider in the dirt with any catcher with the bases loaded and a one run lead, he should be examined by mental health professionals. I was probably the biggest Michael Barrett fan on here and I certainly agree with defense over offense. it doesn't prevent me from seeing his shortcomings and how those flaws became worse this year and how his offense didn't make up for it. I wish he and his offensive ability was still here, but that doesn't change the fact that there are times when his poor D killed the Cubs, including a few games early in the year that were attributed to the pen, but blame was equally on Barrett's inability to block balls in the dirt. that didn't happen today, and that makes me happy.

As of this morning, BP's playoff odds report suggests that the Cards have a .97090% chance of making the playoffs. If you look at the PECOTA-adjusted report, that number falls to .82385%. and all of baseball journalism is reporting them as ready to pounce.