cubfan

Shawon had a cannon. yeah, he could throw it 100mph into the 1st base side stands I was very young at the time, but I remember someone telling me that the Cubs drafted the best available arm but he happened to be a SS instead of a pitcher. The quote I remeber, which I'm going to attribute to Davy Johnson, went something along the lines of "of course the Cubs drafted Dunston ahead of Gooden...he has the better arm" Dunston had a cannon for sure. Oddly one of the throws I remember best was when he played some RF for the Cardinals and he GUNNED down Grace trying to score - granted, not that tough to do - but the throw was an absolute laser beam...but the best thing was Dunston then covered the lower third of his face with his glove for about the next 5 minutes because he was absolutely killing himself laughing at poor Gracie. Yeah, that is the quote I'm thinking of. I remember that a reference was made about Dunston going before Gooden as part of it.

Shawon had a cannon. yeah, he could throw it 100mph into the 1st base side stands I was very young at the time, but I remember someone telling me that the Cubs drafted the best available arm but he happened to be a SS instead of a pitcher.

That would be absurd. That's not a regular player, that's the definition of a journeyman player. The whole point is about developing guys who are good enough to start every day and contribute positively to your team. If it takes a guy a decade to get a few seasons worth of PA, he's not a regular. The only info I have is what I got from this thread but if Girardi is a regular everyday play with 4000 PAs in 15 years how can Patterson not be with 3780 PAs in 11 years? I'm not saying Patterson is a everyday player, just that PAs in a career is probably not the best way to make the distinction.

It been long enough ago that I'm not surprised that I remembered it wrong. I was pretty young and remember thinking that the Cubs must have had a great farm system lol.

I might be remembering it wrong, but I think that the year Walton won the ROY Dwight Smith was 2nd and Rolando Roomes was thrid. All 3 came from the Cubs farm system. Roomes was traded to the Reds for Lloyd McClendon before that year but was originaly signed by the Cubs

A few post above yours says that he was not released on Friday and would not be available until today. I don't know if this is right or not but could also explain why he has not been picked up.

Holy Garland for Karchner Batman! This is a horrible, horrible comparison. Soria is 26 years old. His lifetime ERA is 2.09, while his lifetime WHIP is 0.95. He strikes out more than a guy an inning, and has a 4:1 strikeout to walk ratio. If not for playing for the Royals, he'd reguarly be in the discussion for the best reliever in all of baseball. As you asserted, the original poster may have not kept a very good eye on Cashner this year, but you're selling Soria severely short here. To be fair, I think Cashner is a better prospect at this point than Garland was at the time of the trade for Karchner. So I agree that Soria is better than Karchner was but I also think that Cashner has more trade value right now than Garland had at the time of the trade. The difference between Soria and Karchner may be greater than the difference between Cashner and Garland but both would be bad trades for the Cubs.

This. I don't have a problem with a player swinging at a pitch he things he can hit well early in the count. That said, I did not see the pitch so I can't really comment on whether he should have swung at it or not. This is just an inaccurate statement. You don't just swing at any hittable pitch. Lots of pitches are hittable, but when the pitcher cannot walk you, you only swing at a drivable pitch on the first one, not just something you can put in play. That is the epitome of helping a pitcher out. How does "pitch he things he can hit well" equal "at any hittable pitch"? I think you are both saying the same thing

Yes. Coming off the hand, it looks like it's coming straight for your head. The initial reaction is to back off the plate. By the time you realize it's dropping right over the plate, you can only lunge at the ball. Thus the "knee-buckling" curve ball. Now, most hitters who actually make it to the big leagues can pick up that it's going to be a curve from the delivery and release point and adjust. The traditional up and down curve ball is a slow pitch by big league standards and had a looping curve. Kerry's delivery on his curve was well-disguised, was a relatively fast pitch, and had a real tight, whip-like break. From my experience a 12-6 curve looks like it is over the plate from the start and drops straight down. Very few people actually throw it. The spin is hard to pick up since it has no "tilt". A guy on my team used to throw one and I probably faced two different pitchers that had one. Everyone else had a slurve. A good slurve would look like it was going to hit you and break back over the plate. I didn't play at the highest level in college so I'm sure thing would be a little different with better competition but I would expect 12-6 would be the same.

Name them. I bet almost all of them missed bats at a decent rate. Greg Maddux in the later part of his career (2002-2008) put up a 3.92 ERA and struck out only 14.1% of the batters he faced http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maddugr01.shtml?redir#2002-2008-sum:pitching_simple I'm at work so I'm not putting a ton of thought into this, so I'm likely to be contradicted, but that's just the first name I thought of when you asked me to name one. And when Greg Maddux was, you know, good, he struck out an awful lot more guys. Isn't that the exact point trying to be made about Carlos? I was thinking of good as above league avg. Maddux prime was obviously Hall of Fame caliber but I think the 2002-2008 he was still an above avg pitcher. While Maddux was an above avg pitcher he only struck out 14.1% of batters he faced and makes the point that UMFan83 was making. I guess it depends on your definition of good.

Agreed. So let's normalize his balls-in-play luck. Even if you credit him with outs for 5 of the 6 balls in play, it was *still* bad pitching. That'd be 5 in-play outs, a strikeout, a hit, two walks and a home run. That's bad. Sample size matters if you are projecting or trying to find a true underlying talent. We aren't. We are trying to find out how good Carlos Zambrano pitched today. And of that, we have our sample is 100% of the possible sample. I saw 6 out of 10 before and missed the home run. I was not trying to say that Z was pitching well, I just thought that the % of balls in play was a poor way to illustrate it.

A perfect game with 11 strikeouts or fewer is incredibly lucky on the pitchers part. That's why they are so rare. I'd imagine the majority of shutouts have 11 Ks or fewer. I'd say that the most quality starts have under 11 Ks also.

A perfect game with 11 strikeouts or fewer is incredibly lucky on the pitchers part. That's why they are so rare. The point is still that 60% of balls in play is not really bad or at least can not be judged in a vaccum with out the context of how the balls were hit. By your definition a pitcher would have to strike out 40% of the people he faces to not be bad.

You have to miss bats to be effective. You also have to not walk 20% of the guys you face. I don't see what's so hard about saying he was both bad and unlucky. If a pitcher throws a perfect game, he would have to strike out 11 people to be under a 60% rate of contact. At the very least, 60% is not bad. How many pitchers strike out over 40% of the people they face on a avg?

This being said, Id be very interested in Ankiel if hed take something like a 1/3 deal. I'm going to predict that no one signs him and he goes to the minors and trys to turn into a pitcher :)

Can get an extra 20% off with EXTRABASES promo code. Shipping is about $5. For $13 shipped this is a good deal.

In 2005 at least, I think the St. Louis Cardinals had the highest payroll in the division. The Cubs had the second highest, not that this is an excuse for being below .500.

Wouldn't it be better to put Hoffpauir at 1b and Fox in LF in this scenario? Hoff is a pretty good def 1b and Fox will be below avg no matter where he plays. This way the def is only bad in one spot vs two. Realistically I'd rather leave Lee at 1b and have Fox and Hoff platoon in LF while seeing how bad Soriano would be at 2B.

Unless I missed something, I thought it would be Soriano at 2nd and Hoff in LF.

do you really think that's reflective of his true ability level, though? sure, he hasn't started hot, but he's absolutely a better option than anyone we actually have in the organization. EDIT: also it's still way early and so on. if he goes 4-4 with 4 singles today, his obp is .328 and his ops is 790. I don't think it's so far from his ability level going forward that we should be angry that he's not around to play corner infield everyday. Trading DeRosa wasn't a problem, replacing his spot on the roster with Miles and Gathright was. Also, DeRosa is 0 for 4 today. How much of an impact do you think being in a new league with pitchers he hasn't seen as often as NL pitchers has? I tend to think his numbers would be better (even if not a lot better) if he was still in the NL with the Cubs. The same argument could be made for the pitchers that have never faced him before. Also, he was in the AL in 2006 so he has probably faced several of the pitchers before. I do think it is to early to write off DeRosa and he is probaly just off to a slow start but I do not think never seeing the pitchers before is the problem.

um...really? So the day he steals the base that puts him over the break even point, there's no longer any risk associated with future SB attempts and he should run at every opportunity? Is that really what you're saying or am I misunderstanding? Um... yes. really. If the runner has amassed a SB% that exceeds the breakeven point by running at every single opportunity, then you continue to run him at every single opportunity. Or, if you prefer real life situations instead of impossible hypotheticals.... then if the runner has amassed a SB% that exceeds the breakeven point by running only in certain situations, then you continue to run him in those same certain situations. This goes to the definition of what a "breakeven point" is. There will be times when the runner is thrown out, and runs are not scored that might have otherwise. They will be outweighed by the times that the runner is successful and runs will be scored that otherwise would not be realized. If the percentage exceeds the breakeven point, then there is no risk. Math isn't that hard. Don't try to make so. Over the course of a year it would work out to be no risk at the breakeven point but it would add some volitility. Would your rather have a player that went 1 for 3 every day or a player that would hit 3 for 3 one day then go 0-3 the next two? I'm not saying one is better than the other and is probably not the best example but I could see how the volitility could be viewed as a risk of the course of one game.

:rotfl: Was I the only one who found this hilarious? Yes. I don't know, it might not work for baseball but the "Hart Stopper" could be effective if he turns to professional wrestling if baseball dosen't work out.

Except the guy at the top. No, it benefits him too, at least financially. Wait... The union overriding the player's own decisions is a benefit? Wow, who knew big brother was so benevolent. you know it's not that simple though. as soon as you do this once, teams will be all over players who want to be traded, telling them there's no one interested at the salary and he needs to give some cash away. it's a completely unacceptable precedent to set, and the players' union was completely right to refuse a-rod's attempt to screw over teammates and competitors. Correction...they were right to OBJECT. They never had the right of refusal. I really don't know for sure, but the union would have the right to kick ARod out of the union if he did sign the deal. The union couldn't have stopped him but that is one heck of a road block if it is actually the case.

Not that Ryan Leaf was a good pick, but I'm pretty sure he was the second overall pick not the #1 pick.

The Cubs really don't make that much money. The reason they're being sold for so much is because people are willing to pay that much to own a sports team. That's really funny. Even a billionaire with money to burn isn't going to flush money down the toilet year after year just because he wants to own a sports team. Maybe there are better billion dollar investments out there, but no one is stupid enough to pay $900 million for a money losing operation because he's a fan who wants to own a team. One thing is clear, even with a $140 million payroll, the Cubs are making money. No doubt about it. What part of "don't make that much money" means flushing money down the toilet and money losing operation? Making a choice to make less money than you could is different than choosing to lose money.