cheapseats

Once the weather warms up, Pierre will be fine. As Dusty has pointed out in the past, dark-skinned players perform better when it's hot.

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second. No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out. Outs are precious and should be treated as such. That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out? A team is likely to score more runs when a runner is on second with no outs than with a runner on third with one out: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html That's not hypothetical. The numbers come from actual games played between 1999-2002. In most situations a sac bunt is a dumb idea, and bunting Pierre to third is no exception. Again, I'm not sure that is enough information. I am talking about the situation where you are trying to get one run. Like, a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. Which alternative is more likely to get that one run? I am fully aware that if you take an out away from the inning, you are less likely to score a bunch of runs. I can't copy and paste the article for copyright reasons, but there's a study on that here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2869 The conclusion: "We can say that sacrificing is a good idea when pitchers are batting and, for most of the hitters in the league, when there is a man on second, no one out, and a single run is the goal." If the Cubs are playing for one run in the bottom of the 9th and the opposing team's closer on the mound, bunting Pierre to third is probably not a bad idea. Doing it in the first or third inning, as Dusty so likes to do, is a bad idea.

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second. No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out. Outs are precious and should be treated as such. That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out? A team is likely to score more runs when a runner is on second with no outs than with a runner on third with one out: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html That's not hypothetical. The numbers come from actual games played between 1999-2002. In most situations a sac bunt is a dumb idea, and bunting Pierre to third is no exception.

Small ball, yeah! Which is a big reason why it's OK to strikeout sometimes. We don't have a very good offense.

Overweight and a lack of talent. He just had a good year in 2003. Last season was pretty typical. Most of our fans just have unrealistic expectations for him. He was 1-12 in 2003 with a 6+ ERA. I think you mean 2004.

FWIW, the Buc announcers speculated the ump was thinking that because he fielded the ball in the basepath, Wilson had to go around him. They looked up the rule here and justified this. He had already fielded it and was going to apply the tag, therefore, he was out. I hope we beat up on Santos next inning He was heading wide before he fielded it. Check the replay again. Still, the call could have gone either way. *Cough*HOMER*Cough* :D Also, if Aram's effort at the tag wasn't so lazy, the ump would have called him out. Still, as someone else pointed out (I forget who), you ALWAYS get the lead runner. He did get the lead runner. The ump just didn't call him out. Some here would have had Aramis chase Wilson into left field to apply the tag.

No. If he goes to get Wilson, he doesn't get the runner at 2nd. It should have been a DP. The umps just blew it. If you make sure you get the lead runner, they can't get a cheap run. I'd rather make sure we get the runner at 3rd than take a risk at a DP and let the man at 2nd advance to 3rd. No. You have to expect the umpire will do his job. It wasn't as if Wilson took a single step outside the baseline. Aramis made the right play.

No. If he goes to get Wilson, he doesn't get the runner at 2nd. It should have been a DP. The umps just blew it.

Neifi would've had that one. :P

Out of 192 qualified players, Cedeno is #189 in pitches per plate appearance. Vlad Guerrero takes more pitches than Ronny. It would be nice for him to start seeing more pitches than, say, Neifi Perez.

It was a pretty bad play. Maybe an 8 or 9 on the Moises scale. It's like he thought there were 2 outs.

i'm not watching, but it sounded like he wouldn't have made it. I am watching, and it would have been stupid to try. :twisted:

I wish. I'd take his .405 OBP and his 1.071 OPS.

It wasn't deep enough to score.

The result was great, but the idea was stupid.

If Dusty is calling for Cedeno to bunt... :evil:

Yes, it's impossible to prove that any one outing or season causes an injury problem down the road. Overusing a pitcher may not bring about an injury immediately, and it may never cause an injury. But there is plenty of research to show that leaving a pitcher in past the point of fatigue does cause physical damage. A common estimate for the point of fatigue is about 100 pitches. For young starters, it's usually closer to 90 pitches. It's a fact that Dusty had 3 of the top 12 pitchers in Pitcher Abuse Points in 2003. He left his starters in past the point of fatigue on a regular basis. We can argue over why he did it (he didn't have a good bullpen, etc), but the fact is, he rode his starters too long consistently. Would Kerry Wood have gotten hurt anyway? Maybe. Would Mark Prior have gotten hurt? Maybe. But it would have been a lot less likely if Johnny B Baker weren't overextending them.

Didn't see it mentioned in the thread, but it looks like Wood starts for the Lugnuts on May 7 and follows that with a start for Iowa.

I'm happy for all the hype. Selling my tickets for tonight's game and tomorrow's game financed a whole bunch of my Cubs tickets this year.

If the Cubs had gone after Church in the offseason, he could have been had for far less than we gave up for Pierre. The Nationals inexplicably sent him down to AAA at the beginning of the season.

I'm going to take a nap. I'm an old person, and I like to take naps.

Walker with a single. Aramis will either hit a 3 run homer or ground into a double play.

Pierre French people look the same to me. Sorry.

You know Dusty's dying to sac bunt here.

SPEED KILLS! Jacque with a groundball to short safe on a Hall fielding error.