rawaction

I have a bad feeling about this game. Had a good one about yesterday, but kept it to myself. Hopefully, airing my bad vibes with this one will help reverse the result. Maddux is going to be tough. But Dempster should have a good go of it vs. the Padres RHs. I do worry about Giles, Gonzalez, and Freaking Gerut though. Gotta take what Maddux gives you. He's not that good anymore, and the Cubs should treat him like such, but I'm having flashbacks of Glavine and his 300th win last year.

There was a meeting at the mound and Kendall gunned a 2-hopper right to the covering SS.

Don't have a problem with this.

non-save situation. 50/50 that Lou sends Marmol out there for 1 more to end it.

Unless the Cubs build up about a 15 run lead here, my guess is that Marmol would go back in. It's too bad, but I don't see much way that it doesn't happen. A 4 run lead here does not assure this game. They've been coming back on us all night. This is not the same situation as putting Marmol in with a 6 run lead and the opposing team has shown no signs of life. Bring in Howry. If he struggles, bring in Kerry Wood. It's not that hard. If Howry struggles it could be tied before you blink. Well, that's a risk I'd take. I'd gamble that 3-4 pitchers can get 6 outs with a 4-run lead than that Carlos Marmol can continue his pace of 110 relief innings this year.

Unless the Cubs build up about a 15 run lead here, my guess is that Marmol would go back in. It's too bad, but I don't see much way that it doesn't happen. A 4 run lead here does not assure this game. They've been coming back on us all night. This is not the same situation as putting Marmol in with a 6 run lead and the opposing team has shown no signs of life. Bring in Howry. If he struggles, bring in Kerry Wood. It's not that hard.

Yeah, that's not true.

Please Soriano go deep so Lou can go to the pen and not pitch Marmol anymore.

Is Marmol batting?

Carlos Marmol= 25 Innings, 16 baserunners, 35 strikeouts.

Looks like it's gonna be a 2-fer for Marmol tonight. I know doesn't trust anyone else in the 8th.

wow, who called that?

New poll better pitcher Ted Lilly or Sandy Koufax?

Non-homer mini poll. Better pitcher Peavy or Zambrano? Peavy's always thrown in the conversation of best pitcher in the MLB (along with Webb and Santana), but never Zambrano....why?

Starks was a Bull? Yes, for 4 games in 2000. Unless you were purposely blocking it from memory. It was 4 games. More like not worth wasting a memory on.

Starks was a Bull?

anybody got some of Barry Bonds urine hanging around that they can switch w/ Edmonds? I'm sure Edmonds has roided before anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=48193 Yep.

Never been a big Weaver fan either. He was great for me in his rookie year, but I traded him that offseason, because I felt he would struggle. He did a lot last year and it has really continued this year. I did the same thing last offseason with Gallardo. I was predicting he would get injured, and he's gonna finish with 3 starts this season. I'll probably do the same with Edison Volquez at some point this season or offseason.

Seems like a no brainer. Means that we'll see him as a September callup. At least Wuertz and Howry are starting to throw the ball better.

I'd rather Pie NOT start tonight, if this game is being used as any sort of barometer for how much playing time he may or may not get. Peavy should pretty much eat Felix alive. First start in the week probably shouldn't be against the best RH pitcher in the NL.

No, that is why sacrifice bunts that aren't executed well are stupid. no, bunting with your #2 hitter is stupid. or, having a #2 hitter who you'd rather bunt with in that situation is stupid. That makes no sense. Bunting with your #2 hitter - essentially trying to put 2 runners in scoring position for your 2 best hitters is stupid knowing full well this game may be called very soon? http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html Slightly more runs expected with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs than runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. plus that assumes that the bunt is executed properly. there's a much better chance of a failed bunt that results in a double play, pop out or fielder's choice than there is of a throw into the stands or theriot beating the ball to first. so actually the decision to bunt is going to cost you even more than that very small amount. It's not that hard people. The only positive from a sac bunt when everyone knows a sac bunt is coming and the defense doesn't botch it is moving runners over and getting an out. There are several positives if you actually try to get a hit, which is what hitters are used to doing in every single AB. And many positives come from a PROPERLY executed sacrifice bunt. A fly ball ties the game and a bloop single wins it. Considering the weather and circumstances, it was a good decision but poor execution. A properly executed sac bunt is about as much of a given as a basehit, meaning it's NOT a given. First of all nothing "wins" the game, because it wasn't the final inning. Stop trying to act like it was. It was the 5th they are in the 6th now, there was no guarantee that it would get called then, especially since it didn't. But anyway. If Theriot swings away and hits a slow roller, it's the same result. If Theriot lets the pitcher actually pitch the ball and he throws one in the dirt, it's the same result as the bunt. If you bunt and everyone knows you are bunting, usually the best that's going to happen is an out and runners moved up. That's the only positive that can come out of that situation, defense independent.

No, that is why sacrifice bunts that aren't executed well are stupid. no, bunting with your #2 hitter is stupid. or, having a #2 hitter who you'd rather bunt with in that situation is stupid. That makes no sense. Bunting with your #2 hitter - essentially trying to put 2 runners in scoring position for your 2 best hitters is stupid knowing full well this game may be called very soon? http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html Slightly more runs expected with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs than runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. plus that assumes that the bunt is executed properly. there's a much better chance of a failed bunt that results in a double play, pop out or fielder's choice than there is of a throw into the stands or theriot beating the ball to first. so actually the decision to bunt is going to cost you even more than that very small amount. Do those numbers factor in when you're essentially playing for 2 runs in the bottom of the 9th type situation to win (5th here because of the rain), your 2 best hitters coming up, Shawn Estes being the opposing pitcher, etc? But it's not the final inning. It was the 5th and it didn't get called. Can't play for what might happen.

That rule only applies if the opposing team were to take the lead in the top of the inning. Since they already had it, it wouldnt matter. you're right. The result would be as of 5 though, right. meaning anything that happens this inning would not count.

No, that is why sacrifice bunts that aren't executed well are stupid. no, bunting with your #2 hitter is stupid. or, having a #2 hitter who you'd rather bunt with in that situation is stupid. That makes no sense. Bunting with your #2 hitter - essentially trying to put 2 runners in scoring position for your 2 best hitters is stupid knowing full well this game may be called very soon? http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html Slightly more runs expected with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs than runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. plus that assumes that the bunt is executed properly. there's a much better chance of a failed bunt that results in a double play, pop out or fielder's choice than there is of a throw into the stands or theriot beating the ball to first. so actually the decision to bunt is going to cost you even more than that very small amount. It's not that hard people. The only positive from a sac bunt when everyone knows a sac bunt is coming and the defense doesn't botch it is moving runners over and getting an out. There are several positives if you actually try to get a hit, which is what hitters are used to doing in every single AB.