jjgman21

well let's look at that. all other things being equal, if he doesn't give up on the ball in the second, the White Sox probably don't score. that puts the game at 8-6. he doesn't assume the ball gets through in the ninth, the score is 8-6 with two on and the Cubs hottest hitter at the plate. not THE reason the Cubs lost, but it definitely decreased the likelihood they would win the game. as for other options, Murton and Floyd. what's so hard to figure out about that one? it's not like Soriano's current stats are irreplaceable.

You can't be serious. The guy has a soft hamstring. This hustle thing is kind of silly. Soriano wants to win just as much as the next guy, but he's not going to pull up with a 15-day DL trip to do it, as he's more valuable on the field than off. my guess is he's referring specifically to the final out yesterday where Soriano assumed he had a base hit and started jogging to first, then realized Uribe would get to the ball. unexcusable. he didn't even have to go all out to keep the game going. all he had to do was run the 85-90% or whatever percentage I've seen him give in other situations. he didn't. that's not too much to ask, and completely unacceptable when it doesn't happen. if anything, he endangered himself more by not giving all he had from the beginning and instead had to turn it on to try to beat it out.

that seems impossible. at first glance it does, but once you realize the finite number of possible combinations of 6 IP and under 4.5 ERA and what typically happens during those games, it starts to make sense. usually when a starter has a quality start, he actually has a dominant start, having allowed only a run or two if any. when a pitcher has only allowed a run or two through six, usually he stays in the game, thus increasing the number of IP and lowering the ERA for the game even more. if he gives up runs, often times its blows the QS all together, thus taking it out of the equations above. without delving into the rare instance when a starter goes extra innings, here are the possibilities. 6 IP - 3 ER - 4.50 ERA 6 IP - 2 ER - 3.00 ERA 6 IP - 1 ER - 1.50 ERA 6 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 7 IP - 3 ER - 3.86 ERA 7 IP - 2 ER - 2.57 ERA 7 IP - 1 ER - 1.29 ERA 7 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 8 IP - 4 ER - 4.50 ERA 8 IP - 3 ER - 3.38 ERA 8 IP - 2 ER - 2.25 ERA 8 IP - 1 ER - 1.13 ERA 8 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 9 IP - 4 ER - 4.00 ERA 9 IP - 3 ER - 3.00 ERA 9 IP - 2 ER - 2.00 ERA 9 IP - 1 ER - 1.00 ERA 9 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA I agree to an extent that the stat stinks, but it's not that bad. I think the rule should be pitching six innings and allowing a 3.86 ERA or less. that way the stat includes 6 IP, 2 ER and 7 IP, 3 ER performances, but gets rid of 6 IP, 3 ER and 8/9 IP, 4 ER performances. however, considering how rare those starts are amongst the possibilities, the start really isn't that bad. Question/nitpick: Are the bolded actually considered QS? Everything I've heard is 6 IP or more, 3 ER or less, which is a very stupid definition. I guess you are right. I thought it was 6+ with a 4.5. so that makes the stat a little stupider. I would consider a 8/9 IP, 4 ER performance of higher quality than a 6 IP, 3 ER performance.

That was one of my favorite Walker moments! for sure best todd walker moment...ever milking a ninth inning, two out, bases loaded walk off of Damaso Marte after Dusty mismanaged yet another game has to be at least on par with that. although that was awesome. I still think Barrett deserved credit for a triple.

no, clemens could play for any team in baseball.... todd walker is retiring because nobody would give him a job. Yesss. I understand that. My point was either say you are not in a hurry to come back or your are retiring. Retire = To withdraw from one's occupation, business, or office; stop working. Not, I'm retiring, BUT I might think about it if someone calls. It's my peeve on the usage of the word "retire". I was not saying Walker is as good as Clemens. Only that he sounded like Clemens. There's no law that says retirement has to be permanent. People who retire go back to work in some fashion all the time, many in the same line of work and many doing many of the same duties. To me he's saying right now he's retired, but if something changes in the future maybe he'll come back. I don't get why people have a problem with this. I don't get why people have a problem with athletes struggling with the retirement issue in general. I take it as saying that he's retired unless a major league team asks him to play. in other words, he's not going to go play minor/independent league baseball into his late 30's hoping to make it back to the bigs.

that seems impossible. at first glance it does, but once you realize the finite number of possible combinations of 6 IP and under 4.5 ERA and what typically happens during those games, it starts to make sense. usually when a starter has a quality start, he actually has a dominant start, having allowed only a run or two if any. when a pitcher has only allowed a run or two through six, usually he stays in the game, thus increasing the number of IP and lowering the ERA for the game even more. if he gives up runs, often times its blows the QS all together, thus taking it out of the equations above. without delving into the rare instance when a starter goes extra innings, here are the possibilities. 6 IP - 3 ER - 4.50 ERA 6 IP - 2 ER - 3.00 ERA 6 IP - 1 ER - 1.50 ERA 6 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 7 IP - 3 ER - 3.86 ERA 7 IP - 2 ER - 2.57 ERA 7 IP - 1 ER - 1.29 ERA 7 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 8 IP - 4 ER - 4.50 ERA 8 IP - 3 ER - 3.38 ERA 8 IP - 2 ER - 2.25 ERA 8 IP - 1 ER - 1.13 ERA 8 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 9 IP - 4 ER - 4.00 ERA 9 IP - 3 ER - 3.00 ERA 9 IP - 2 ER - 2.00 ERA 9 IP - 1 ER - 1.00 ERA 9 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA I agree to an extent that the stat stinks, but it's not that bad. I think the rule should be pitching six innings and allowing a 3.86 ERA or less. that way the stat includes 6 IP, 2 ER and 7 IP, 3 ER performances, but gets rid of 6 IP, 3 ER and 8/9 IP, 4 ER performances. however, considering how rare those starts are amongst the possibilities, the start really isn't that bad.

Wrong I'd love to hear the explanation that proves the stats (facts) wrong. The statistic isn't wrong, your analysis is. Feast = Significantly more runs then during famine Famine = Significantly less runs than during feast A team can score a lot of runs and have a high standard deviation and not have a problem. A second team can not score a lot of runs and still have a high SD and have a problem. In other words, a team could have an SD of 6 and an average of 6 runs scored per game and not have a problem with feast and famine offense, while at the same time a team could have an SD of 6 and an average of 2 and have a problem with feast and famine. I guess the definition of "feast" and "famine" will have to be talked about, but it's all relative anyway. I don't agree with your definitions. if anything, it should be defined relative to how many runs it takes to win the majority of your ballgames, not the difference between the extremes. what I think we need to dispense of right away is the notion that a feast or famine offense is a problem. nobody has a problem with feast, everybody has a problem with famine. thus, the real problem that many see is the offense's tendancy to go to sleep and not score enough runs to win the average ball game. that is why I broke it down into how many 0-1-2-3-4 run games each team has had, and when looking at it from that perspective, it is clear that the degree to which the Cubs famine is not significantly worse than the better teams in the league, and not the cause of their sub .500 record up until this point of the year.

why doesn't Chris Shelton start a baseball instruction camp? career minor league OBP of .423 and OPS of 954. dude had 9 HRs in 13 games last year.

it's not hard to figure out at all. after yesterday, the Cubs are something like 2-12 when the pen comes in when the game is tied or the Cubs are up by 1 or 2 runs. you can blame the offense for certain games (particularly the extra inning games) but those couple of games are balanced by games where the offense bailed the pen out (like yesterday). you also can give the pen a break for the Zambrano/Ohman game considering the situation the pen entered. but the bottom line is this. if the pen converts even 50% of the games in which they had a one or two run lead when entering the game (thus not even counting the meltdown in NY) the Cubs are on pace to win over 90 games this year. the problem up until now has been the pen in close games. there's simply no two ways around it. every other stat you break down, there's no discernable difference between the Cubs and the other teams in the league. there's a huge difference between the Cubs and the winning teams in the NL when looking at the pen in close games.

if I am not mistaken he got his job on sports radio by being a persistent caller-in to sports radio. after the fact, me thinks Ozzie should be questioned more about his bullpen rotation than his starting catcher. Hall, good choice. McDougal, bad choice. I find it hard to believe that Ozzie didn't use the opportunity to bring in Aardsma simply because he is an ex-Cub, if not for his solid numbers.

I posted this in a different thread. numbers are before games on Wednesday. not a sabr/statistician look at it, but I think it gets at answering what you are asking.

last night on BBTN they were talking how Tampa wants to be a "Florida" team, so they are branching out. apparently they played there last year against Texas also, after noticing the pathetic attendance over the years in Ranger-DRay affairs in Tampa, they decided this was the series to move to Orlando.

Are you trying to tell me people on NSBB.com blow everything out of perspective, mostly in game threads? That's unpossible! :shock: tough to say as in the other thread they seem to be making excuses for the woeful bullpen.

regarding the bold, the pen has to come through sometime in this situation. I think the pen has held exactly one 1-run lead the entire year.

I don't know how you determine "deserve" but at first glance I assume you are putting Monday nights game into a "didn't deserve" catagory, which is insane. you probably also include the 8 IP 2 R performance in this catagory. shouldn't this be considered a 2 IP 1 R performance since the Cubs would have won the game had Dempster not given up the lead in the ninth? same thing goes for Eyre and the 6.2 IP 3 ER affair. even the 9 IP 1 R affair is diminished by the fact that the defense played out of their minds to keep the pen from giving up runs that game, including Pie gunning a guy at the plate in the 10th. simalarly, in Z's second game against Cincy, not all the blame can go to the pen, but walking two batters with the bases loaded certainly didn't help. there's also been a few games where the Cubs were within striking distance only to have the pen put it completely out of reach. there are too many variables in scoring that are hidden in this analysis. there are inherited runners that count against the starters, and there is the fact that the starter gets the loss if the team never gets the lead (so if the game is 0-1 when the starter leaves, and the offense scores five but never regains the lead, and the team losses 5-6, the pen doesn't take the loss). presuming you are right in defining "deserve," 10 NL teams don't have 6 pen losses, so how on earth can 6 be average? the Cubs pen is 2-10. no other team has more losses, and presumably several of the teams that are close also had games that the pen didn't "deserve" the loss. so presumably 6 games, which is actually 9 games, is far worse that "average." those teams that are close to losing as many games have also won more than two. of course part of that is offense, but part of that is the pen keeping the team in close games. 53% save percentage. enough said. all you have to do is watch the games, and you will know that the pen is a huge problem.

if the strike calls the Brewers complained about last night (at least those that I saw on BBTN) were the worst they've seen this year and the worst they will see, there will be no stopping them. if the Cubs reacted that way everytime they had a bad third strike call this year, Lou would've had 10 ejections by now protecting his players. seriously? they get that worked up over those calls? granted I don't know how the game was called, but the pitch to Fielder was clearly a strike, the pitch to Jenkins was borderline at worst.

And then a bad week could bring them right back down. I'd be fine with this offense if it managed to finish the season in the top 5 across the board of OBP/SLG and Runs scored. But all evidence so far suggests they are maintaining the feast or famine problems that have been so troubling. there's been alot of this 'feast or famine' talk and reasons given. turns out, every team is feast or famine, except possibly the Brewers and Mets to an extent. this isn't a perfect way to look at this phenomena, but most teams win the vast majority of the games they score 5 or more runs. the top run scoring teams in the league break out like this 0 run games/1 run games/2 run games/3 run games/4 run games ChC 1/4/4/4/7 NYM 0/3/4/4/3 MwB 0/2/2/10/7 PhP 0/3/5/4/7 FlM 2/4/4/5/3 AtB 2/3/3/6/5 the breakdown for 0-2 run games/3-4 run games ChC 9/11 NYM 7/7 MwB 4/17 PhP 8/11 FlM 10/8 AtB 8/11 looks like this 'feast or famine' thing the Cubs are oft said to be suffering from appears to be something all teams suffer from, the Cubs only marginally more than the top offenses in the league, if at all.

what the hell Henry? here, here's a run.

some bad infield positioning this inning, or not pitching to your defense.

leave me alone. I have a skin condition.

What was? looked like he took a chop at DeRosa's glove hand, Arod style. didn't have an effect on the play, but he'd have been out if it was intentional and was noticed.

a bunch of crap...that are all having great years.

after seeing that other angle on CIU, that looked pretty intentional by Chavez at first

six inches outside the first AB, six inches inside the second AB. exactly how big does that make the strikezone when Murt is batting against Glavine?

If he didn't suffer any major setbacks, and went to arbitration every year, he'd have made much more. no he wouldn't. he'd make slightly more. look at Morneau for instance. coming off the MVP and a 140 OPS+, he asked for 5M, the twins offered 4M, and they settled on the middle ground, 4.5M in his first year of eligability. Swisher will get 3.5M for his first year of eligibility. so if Swisher gets his stats to Morneau's level at the end of the season, and wins the MVP, it will save the A's about 1M. that's a big if. if Swisher matches or slighly improves on his stats from last year, he'd probably get about 4M. subtract the extra 300K they gave him for this year, and that's a grand savings of about 200K. you have to remember that the people that determine arbitration are not the people on this board and not people who appreciate the same things Billy Beane does. the panelist are traditional stats people. OBP doesn't mean much to them when his average is in the .250's. 35 HR is diminished by 95 RBI. no stolen bases is a ding against him. as I said, slight bargain. more pay than Jason Bay will get through his years of eligibility, with worse track record of production, yet I didn't see anyone declaring Littlefield a genius when that contract was signed. You're talking about one year of arbitration. First year arby awards don't even compare to the following seasons. Good players can easily make $10+ million now if they go to arbitration every year. Those base numbers are only going to go up as well. And that doesn't even take into account locking him up in his first free agency year and controlling his 2nd. They have potentially saved themselves $15-20m here, depending on how his career progresses. one player in the history of baseball has received a 10M award, and that's just because Bowden is stupid. the second highest in history was 8.2M. like I said, locking up the first year of FA elig. is the big benefit, but Swisher will most likely be on the downside of his career at that time. whether or not he will be worth 10M is a big question mark. at one time, Hank Blalock's deal looked great too.