Electron Blue

Why would they get rid of Hill now when they can wait 11 days and have both on the roster? If they wanted Hill gone, they would have been rid of him weeks ago and just brought Soto up. As much sense as that makes to you and me, normal everyday fans, it is not the case: link :)

Everything in life is relative. Rich Hill is incosistent compared to who? Speaking of HRs Lilly has been giving them up a pretty good clip. His own demonstrated capabilities? did you misunderstand the question or are you avoiding it? Every pitcher is inconsistent. A player with a 3.00 ERA doesn't give up 2 Rs over 6 innings every time out. There are gems and poundings mixed in with decent and below average outings. Demonstrate how this doesn't describe Rich Hill and most every other ML SP, please. What? He said everything was relative and then asked who Rich Hill was inconsistent compared to. My response was his own demonstrated capabilities, ie - he's been much better for periods of time than he has for stretches this season. What am I avoiding? I never said Rich was some kind of anomaly compared to other pitchers. you're right that that's the definition of inconsistency. But if he isn't any more or less consistent than the bulk of the rest of the league it doesn't mean a single thing. Taken literally, of course you're right. But I'm not sure that it matters, since no one in the Hill-is-Inconsistent camp can back up the value of their claim.

wow. if only a drove a motorcycle and had a tattoo. boy, then he'd have some attitude this team could use...

^^ Bump? I asked this question in this thread and got the following response: Ah yes. Message Boards: The cornerstone of accuracy. I'm pretty sure a Cardinal fan isn't going to say a player on his own team of doing something if he didn't actually believe it. If you want to find out how CFICT knows, ask a question in that thread or send him a PM. But there is no reason not to believe him. by that reasoning, I should have gone out and bought a Griffey Cubs jersey in mid june. It's a message board, rumors get started/exaggerated/spread all the time, particularly if they're used humorously. It's more like a joke that Ankiel did cocaine, it seems like. And anyone having doubts about it, wanting to know the real story should certainly ask. It's a downright immature thing to accuse someone of if it's not true -- but I wouldn't put it past some people.

5.18 ERA, 1.50 WHIP. I'd say Cardinal Magic did not work on Mr. Weaver.

Everything in life is relative. Rich Hill is incosistent compared to who? Speaking of HRs Lilly has been giving them up a pretty good clip. His own demonstrated capabilities? did you misunderstand the question or are you avoiding it? Every pitcher is inconsistent. A player with a 3.00 ERA doesn't give up 2 Rs over 6 innings every time out. There are gems and poundings mixed in with decent and below average outings. Demonstrate how this doesn't describe Rich Hill and most every other ML SP, please.

That may be technically true, but is highly misleading.

this is a very ESPN-y thing to do... lame, in a let's break down sports into something as simple as possible way

do you really think this could have a negative effect, though? I don't see it. I think it just feeds the irrational and unhealthy fan attention to the situation. The guy has a long way to go before he'll be able to help the team. Yet with the huge contract, unjustified promotion already this year, and a potential call-up, fans are going to be expecting him to start next year in Wrigley and be good. We've already seen how little patience people have with other young players, there's no need to throw-in the added burden of expectations that a September call-up would bring. but no negative effect on Jeff's development or roster status/clock? That's what I think of when I hear a prospect is "rushed." Bringing him to the majors is rushing him. Exposing him to major league hitters, when he's barely even able to handle minor leaguers, and has very little experience, could easily have a negative effect. It's not just about the mechanics of options and roster status. You never really explain the answer to my question: where is this negative effect? You insist that he is actually being "rushed," but don't explain the downside. You say he can't handle ML hitters and lacks Experience, but he doesn't need to be a shut-down ace reliever. For all we know, he'll play the Scott Eyre role of a few weeks ago, only appearing in decided games. Do you think he cannot mentally handle the cup of coffee? I'd like to hear that explained.

do you really think this could have a negative effect, though? I don't see it. I think it just feeds the irrational and unhealthy fan attention to the situation. The guy has a long way to go before he'll be able to help the team. Yet with the huge contract, unjustified promotion already this year, and a potential call-up, fans are going to be expecting him to start next year in Wrigley and be good. We've already seen how little patience people have with other young players, there's no need to throw-in the added burden of expectations that a September call-up would bring. but no negative effect on Jeff's development or roster status/clock? That's what I think of when I hear a prospect is "rushed." Bringing him to the majors is rushing him. Exposing him to major league hitters, when he's barely even able to handle minor leaguers, and has very little experience, could easily have a negative effect. It's not just about the mechanics of options and roster status. I think people are afraid to bring players up because of the Corey situation. I think there is a going trend the last couple of years in MLB to bring up some of the younger players earlier rather than later. I don't see how bringing him up could be a negative experience unless he is mentally weak or something, which I doubt. Agreed - i don't see the downside. The Corey situation didn't work because they assumed he was majors-ready before he was, and they stuck him up here everyday before he could handle it. We're talking about a few weeks in the majors with Jeff. He'd come in for a few mopup situations, and get that taste of the bigs before starting next year back in the minors. And if he's too mentally weak to handle a cup of coffee, you can forget about a decent pro career.

Then why was everyone soo upset when Neifi and Izturis went 1-2 in the lineup last year? If it wouldn't matter if they batting 7th 8th, or 1-2, I don't see what the uproar was all about. Because by having Neifi and Izturis at 1-2 you are giving them more ab's than what they would get if they were batting 7-8. Actually, the whole Neifi thing was a perfect example of why I don't believe the lineup doesn't matter. When Lee was having a career year, he only ended up with a little over 100 RBI. The reason is because Neifi and Macias, among others who sucked were batting in front of him. Not only does it make it worse that these guys get more AB's but the fact that don't get on base also causes the players behind them not to get RBI opportunities. the neifi/macias problem was less about where they batted in the lineup and more about the fact that they were in the lineup at all The thing that bothered me most wasn't the loss of X runs or X wins over the course of the year -- it was the logic behind it. Dusty set the lineup that way because it made sense to him. Neifi was a grinder with some speed, Macias was an ideal #2 (made contact?). If I believed that Dusty believed in James' theories, it would have been different.

It's sunny out right now! Color me confused. :? Looks pretty dry to me. http://www.cubworld.com/category/a_cubworld_cam Dry, yes; sunny? not seeing it :)

do you really think this could have a negative effect, though? I don't see it. I think it just feeds the irrational and unhealthy fan attention to the situation. The guy has a long way to go before he'll be able to help the team. Yet with the huge contract, unjustified promotion already this year, and a potential call-up, fans are going to be expecting him to start next year in Wrigley and be good. We've already seen how little patience people have with other young players, there's no need to throw-in the added burden of expectations that a September call-up would bring. but no negative effect on Jeff's development or roster status/clock? That's what I think of when I hear a prospect is "rushed."

how can you not like poochie? He's half Joe Camel and a third Fonzarelli.

do you really think this could have a negative effect, though? I don't see it.

hill is no more inconsistent than any of the other cub starters. i don't know why people keep saying otherwise. Where did he say otherwise in the post you quoted? There's a prevailing opinion (on this board, and maybe throughout MLB's fandom), that inconsistency is a "reason player X is bad." I would guess that abuck was reading between the lines (as I did) in mhuber's post... Rich Hill may be inconsistent, but he's not "bad" because of it.

Then why was everyone soo upset when Neifi and Izturis went 1-2 in the lineup last year? If it wouldn't matter if they batting 7th 8th, or 1-2, I don't see what the uproar was all about. Because by having Neifi and Izturis at 1-2 you are giving them more ab's than what they would get if they were batting 7-8. Actually, the whole Neifi thing was a perfect example of why I don't believe the lineup doesn't matter. When Lee was having a career year, he only ended up with a little over 100 RBI. The reason is because Neifi and Macias, among others who sucked were batting in front of him. Not only does it make it worse that these guys get more AB's but the fact that don't get on base also causes the players behind them not to get RBI opportunities. I don't think it's that simple. Sure D-Lee missed out on some RBIs. But did that mean the team could have scored more runs with a different lineup? Not necessarily. Lee was still producing (getting on base; not creating outs) to benefit the other players in the order... A single players' RBI total (a nearly irrelevant stat in this context, IMHO) shouldn't factor into the discussion. EDIT: to add on, Lee had a RC/G of 10.7 that year -- easily a career high. I'm not a stats expert though. Seems important to me . . .

What a waste of GREAT Z. Fix'd Fix'd part 2.(at least for three innings) On the other hand, it looked like the Kipper was well on his way to owning our bats as well.

Is that the tail wagging the dog, though? Would they be that if they didn't get all the press coverage? Yeah, they probably would, but I sure as hell wouldn't mind not reading about them all the livelong day. The ESPN bias adds to the general favoritism, but they are the biggest team anyways. The greatest history/tradition. Twenty-Six championships!! New York Market. Twice the payroll of any other team. World Series contender every year for the last 2+ decades. ESPN does overdo it, but the Yankee's are baseball's biggest team, and partly because of that, and partly because of their own merit, they generate the sport's biggest stories.

This gets quoted a million times with no proof or evidence. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3766 http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/constructing-lineups/ if you read that of bp you'll notice that power hitters should not lead off :idea: Case in point: Sori should bat fifth with Riot leading off. No, not that they should not. Just that the value of thei extra PAs (and Sori would get roughly another 80 over a full year) would be nullified by the lack runners on-base. Not quite the same.

i thought it was about 10 (or 1 win)?

Are you a vampire? Look at his "Location:" :)

i am trying really hard to forget that commercial because i actually like dane cook sorry to hear that. i take it you don't like dane cook then? My friends hate him. But I like him. He's crazy. Crazy BAD!! ohhhhh :)

I'm sure it's been on all day. They still have 30 minutes . . .

did Gammons just confirm the MLB-called-off-Jones-Trade rumor? Or did I mishear?