jjgman21

Or Garner isn't very smart. Dusty is normally among the league leaders in pitchouts. only about 75 instances of putting the pitcher behind in the count to come up gold. wtg Dusty.

I've been advocating it for a couple months now. they like offensively challenged shortstops and he have them a plenty. I'd give them their choice of Izturis or Cedeno and their pick of one of our starters and a bullpen arm. In fact, I'd give up Pie plus another prospect/Izturis/Cedeno too. DeJesus just signed a contract extension this past March. He is signed through 2011 (actually club option for 2011) The Royals now have a good GM in Dayton Moore. I don't think they'll be giving players away. I don't think either of the deals I listed would be giving away. they aren't winning until 2011, so a nice package could land him. I'd be willing to sweeten either deal to get him. maybe Pie and 2 starters if they took Izturis.

there are the young players flying around, but we don't notice when guys who are trying to make rosters get hurt. we really only notice when guys who are definitely going to make the rosters get hurt. with them, I think the opposite may be true. Football is particularly dangerous when guys aren't going all out. alot of players go through the motions leaving them exposed to awkward hits at awkward angles, and that leads to alot of injuries. edit: Greenway was not just on the kickoff team, he was the wedge breaker. he went in hard and got knocked pretty good tangling his legs underneath him on that stupid turf.

I've been advocating it for a couple months now. they like offensively challenged shortstops and he have them a plenty. I'd give them their choice of Izturis or Cedeno and their pick of one of our starters and a bullpen arm. In fact, I'd give up Pie plus another prospect/Izturis/Cedeno too.

how about a little honesty... "the guy on the mound is a notorious head hunter who just got beaned and I didn't want to expose my pitcher to an obvious retaliatory beaning.

with how high it was, he had to venture back there in case it came down in his glove, but he has to recognize sooner and get away from the wall. of course he over ran the ball, so even if it came down without hitting the wall he would have missed it.

I repeat, this park sucks. the entire inning goes back to the stupid fastball that Blanco called for to Huff.

this park sucks.

Ugh..I really had completely forgotten that Bynum was ever on this team. He's not signed for after this year, is he? Bynum is under Cubs control for the foreseeable future because he's a rookie. Wow, how did that not get out? Dang, I guess I was wrong. That's depressing. he's under control, but represents zero financial obligation after this year. they could let him go and not pay him a dime.

why throw that pitch to Huff after he looked bad on consecutive curveballs. come on Henry.

Ugh..I really had completely forgotten that Bynum was ever on this team. He's not signed for after this year, is he? Off the top of my head, I don't think so. Too tired to look it up but I think he's signed through this year only. At least that's what I'm hoping. he's a first year player on the standard non arbitration eligible MLB contract I think. so the answer is no.

can o corn.

when are umpires ever going to start using their brains to determine who is intentionally throwing at a batter and exect that pitcher, instead of using some strange code of chivalry and ad hoc procedure to determine who needs be ejected and who gets to stay. this is dumb. he should have been ejected, and neither team has the inside corner to work with.

so how many seasons of good starts then seeing the season ruined with a rash of knee injuries is it going to take before the Vikings change that knee eatting turf in the Metrodome? anyone hear the status on their first round pick?

So the NFL set is going to be more like college gameday, on location at the site of the game of the week so that Joe can go straight from that job to the playbyplay. NFL pregame shows are just background noice for me on Sundays. They are all awful, offering nothing to the viewer. It's just a combination of butt-kissing interviews, melodramatic sob stories and half-assed analysis. This is the time when I'm prepping the meat for the grill, testing the bloody mary's and checking the keg. NSBB Super Bowl party at goony's place! Every year. Every weekend actually, except half the weekends a big chunk of the usual crowd is at the Jets game. Each Sunday's menu is a pretty big project for me and the wife. Last year we averaged a keg and a half per week, with some going during college games, but most going during Sunday football/guys pass out girls watch whatever those shows are at night. Super Bowl Sundays are just a gluttony fest. We always have way too much food. I used to be that way until Monday absenteeism became an issue.

That's a pretty big leap of faith, but it's probably also our only hope for success the next couple of years. The problem with that idea is how do you get him to hire a manager who will ask him for the right things? mass ritual suicide?

At some point you have to leave the starters out there though-Marmol had to stay in that game on Sunday. There were 2 relievers who were unavailable for Sunday's game because they had pitched so much recently, and if we had taken out Marmol earlier we may have run out of pitchers. I was just going to say that. you also have about 5 guys you could start rotating between Chicago and Iowa if some guys need a break and actually sacrifice an occasional game for the greater good of the team. naw, gotta win every game to keep up the integrity of blah blah blah.

Um, one problem with that argument. The US suffers in the WBC because there are a number of rule changes that go against the US' strengths in basketball. The problem is, the NBA has been hell-bent on getting their name players and coaches in there. We saw this when Larry Brown was in Athens and completely botched everything by not playing his promising young players and sticking to a poor coaching plan. We saw this when a bunch of the me-first ballhogs and egomaniacs were selected to the teams (and continue to be, I'll add), which resulted in a number of no-look passes going flying into the fifth row and tons of low-percentage shots taken. It's an exhibition during the offseason to these guys; I don't think many of them take it seriously. The WBC isn't necessarily about talent. It's about putting together the best team to fit the rules. Unfortunately for the NBA, a number of their star players simply do not fit that mold. They do have a number of guys who are average/above average who would thrive in that environment, however. Unfortunately, those guys rarely get the nod thanks to jersey sales and ratings. not twhat I am saying at all though. the point was that in 1968, other countries could stay with us when our 22 year old hoopsters matched up against their best. in 1968, our 22 year olds would smoke the rest of the baseball world. I can't prove it. just seems that way because the rest of the world didn't come close to playing baseball on the same level as we did back then, but they were getting close in basketball. the statement about the WBC is to show how big the global talent pool of baseball players has grown in the past few decades when compared to the global talent pool of basketball players.

why can't I? there's noting inherently contradictory about it. the best international baseball players are in our consciousness because they made it to the majors, or played in the only other major professional league, Japan. they had the opportunity to make it to MLB. just because we only hear about great internationals in basketball now doesn't mean they haven't been around and playing the game professional across the globe for decades. like you said earlier about the history of pitching injuries, alot of it is perception. it took players around the globe a long time to catch up but the players that could have made the NBA did not have the opportunity due to global politics. do you think any other country could have stayed close to the US in baseball in 1968, bad referring or not? not a chance. they were by far the dominant nation in the sport. now they aren't even the favorite in the WBC. also, I am speaking relative to the pertinent period of time. basketball is more popular globally, but when you compare the growth since dillution of baseball has become an alleged problem, the mid 70's or so, baseball's growth internationally has been huge. before that time it was played in North America, Latin America, and Japan. at that point in time, basketball was being played and watched on large scales globally. that isn't true about baseball until the past decade and a half.

You make some good points, but with the explosion of sports like soccer, basketball, and even football, and the specialization of all of these sports that may diminish somewhat, the expansion of the population. It would be interesting to see if there has been any studies that have taken all of these things into consideration. you have to remember that those sports dilute hitting too. plus, baseball is now a global game. it's growth globally is probably more than any other sport. soccer was always an international game, football hasn't really expanded, and basketball became popular globally 30-40 years before baseball. IMO opinion, if there is any dillution, it is through the growth of non-ball sports...TO THE EXTREME!!! Football hasn't expanded? huh. basketball has exploded both in the U.S. and globally only probably since the height of Magic and Bird and continuing with MJ and into the present, probably only the last 20 years in the U.S. and less than that globally. Plus 20 years ago kids played multiple sports, now you see kids concentrate predominantly on one sport year round. I don't necessarily disagree with your points I was just looking for a little more concrete info behind it, and maybe there isn't any as I don't have any to back up my assertion. there was a long discussion on these issues last winter. I don't know that there has been any comprehensive study or it would have been linked in that thread. football hasn't expanded beyond North America, Europe, and places here or there, and I may be wrong, but the only other major professional league, NFL Europe, plays to half empty stadiums. football couldn't put together a WBC or a world championship like we see in hoops. eastern european nations were playing basketball at a high level as far back as the 60's. the sport has been hugely popular globally for decades. even latin american countries didn't produce the caliber of player to regularly make MLB until the 80's. the best international players didn't come to the NBA sooner only because the best international players were behind the iron curtain. baseball did not catch on in Europe or the Mideast or Australia until long after basketball took off. although I do agree that basketball got an extra boost in the 80's and 90's.

# 2 slot is reserved for Nefei. Bruce asked Dusty about that. Oh, Dusty. Dusty, Dusty, Dusty. fixed. an overly aggressive hacker who refuses to draw a walk got a couple hits against a guy who is always around the strikezone? I'm shocked.

You make some good points, but with the explosion of sports like soccer, basketball, and even football, and the specialization of all of these sports that may diminish somewhat, the expansion of the population. It would be interesting to see if there has been any studies that have taken all of these things into consideration. you have to remember that those sports dilute hitting too. plus, baseball is now a global game. it's growth globally is probably more than any other sport. soccer was always an international game, football hasn't really expanded, and basketball became popular globally 30-40 years before baseball. IMO opinion, if there is any dillution, it is through the growth of non-ball sports...TO THE EXTREME!!!

who knows about the internal workings of the Cubs, but I think it all starts with the hiring of managers that insist they have a fast minority in the top two spots of the batting order. I still hold out a shred of hope that Hendry's biggest fault is he trusts his manager to win and assembles the team his manager wants, and actually does a good job of doing that, it's just a faulty approach. in 2002, Baylor insisted on trying to make Corey a leadoff hitter. Kimm came in and moved Bellhorn to the top and patched the two whole together until Mueller came back and after he was traded, giving the Cubs a slow but good obp ahead of Sammy. then Baker came in and was given a lineup without two fast, minority, everyday players to bat at the top, so he did everything he could to wedge combinations of A-gone, Womack, Ramone, Goodwin, and CPatt into the 1-2 hole anyway. just-fast-enough Grudz was begrudgingly put at the top, and he cried cried cried that he needed a true leadoff man instead of just sticking Grudz at the top and allowing 'run-producing' Alou/first base platoon to hit down in the lineup. many of you may recall in the offseason between 03-04, Dusty was asked who he intended on batting in the leadoff hole and he said 'Lofton,' not even knowing that Lofton was no longer a Cubs. the season comes, and he pulls a Baylor, insisting on trying to make Corey a leadoff hitter, moving him to the two whole when it doesn't work out, and again patches the top of the lineup with the likes of Neifi, Ramone, Macias, Ordonez, etc etc. the platoon of Grudz and Walker get a share of leadoff, and only about 60 combined ABs in the two whole only after Dusty cries cries cries that he doesn't have his leadoff man, and eventually the lightbulb goes off and he moves Lee up in the order. I agree there has been a chain reaction, but I think and hope it goes back to the hiring of the manager and a belief that the manager can get the job done if given the roster he wants

I just did some quick flipping through the NL index back into the 40's (NL to eliminate the issue of the DH) at baseballreference and, without specifically charting it, obp has ebbed and flowed over the years, and appears to be mostly a function of average. league IsoD is predominately in the 61-67 range going back through that era, with anamolous looking bumps one way or the other along the way (60's tended to be in the 56-63 range) I also looked at these pages and definitely think it might be due to our perception NL league leader in ERA http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERA_leagues.shtml NL league leader in ERA+ http:// http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERAplus_leagues.shtml how many of those guys do you say "who?" when you see his name. this perception is especially magnified as Cubs fans, because we had (have?) two (three / four if you throw Guz in there) guys that were supposed to be with some of those names you do recognize when all was said and done, but unfortunately they may end up in the "who?" basket. more and more I am coming around to the thought that you need to trade young pitching for established hitting every single time. not jumping on that Tejeda trade was terrible, even though I defended it at the time. trading Z right now may be an idea if it brings back a 385/900 hitter. pitching flames out. don't ever expect to get more than 3-4 good years out of a pitcher. the influx of pitchers in the 60's was an anomoly. there are maybe 2-3 300 game winners in any generation and even the greatest pitcher of our generation, Pedro, is persistantly on the DL. if a hitter has a great three year run at the beginning of his career, chances are much greater he will continue to do that through the middle and end of his career than a pitcher who has a great three year run at the beginning of his career, specifically because of the injury factor. but back to the subject, I think many are correct and few are wrong. almost all of the things discussed are contributing factors. it's not really a 'no, its this.' all of these things are contributing factors. I don't think there really is dilution of the pitching though. I know there are more teams and other activities to engage in, but the talent pool on both offense and pitching is so much deeper due to population of the country, expansion internationally, and modern sports economics. it's just easier to hit right now for all the reasons discussed, there is something different about how arms are treated, we are just in an offensive ebb, medical technology has advanced but at the same time so has conditioning and conditioning does wonders for hitters, no so much for pitchers (I believe long term health of a pitchers is due more to flukishness than anything else), while at the same time the extent of the problem is more a perception of our circumstances.

anyone hear any updates on this minor controversy? in case anyone was still wondering why guys like playing in St. Louis...if this exchange took place on the north side of Chicago or another bigger market, this scab would be continually picked at by the media until it became a gapping, festering wound.