MPrior

It seems that the only reason bullpens have to be constructed in the way they are is because people (managers, players, pitching coaches, etc.) expect them to. I know the "closer by committee" thing has been tried before, but I think calling it that is a problem. We should get rid of the "closer" moniker altogether. Instead, call your elite reliever your "relief ace" or something like that, and play them when they're needed. Even under this system, I probably still would have put Marmol in to close last night, if only because it was a one-run lead against a decent team with a couple of lefties coming up, which is not good for Dempster.

Well no, but this isn't really a fair assessment. If the Cubs don't improve their roster then no, they won't be as good as the Brewers, because the Brewers have a lot more young talent that is likely to continue to improve in coming years. I think by "stagnant" he meant no change whatsoever - so no development for players either. Essentially, if we played 2007 over 3 times. Or at least, that's what would make his statement make sense. The Brewers certainly seem to have more offensive talent than the Cubs. The Cubs seem to have better pitching and defense. I'm not sure who I'd give the edge to, but it's definitely close enough that it's basically just subjective.

I fail to see how this is cool.

Winning again would be nice. How about tomorrow? Please?

I'm all for keeping him around until we actually have to start paying him real money (as opposed to the fake money he's currently earning - you know, several hundred thousand dollars a year), because he'll provide roughly average production (including a decent OBP) for a shortstop cheaply. And, whatever the extent that attitude can affect the team, his effect is positive in that regard. As has been said, though, if an opportunity comes along to improve at SS, the Cubs should take it. Under no circumstances should Theriot become the primary 2B. Side note: just presenting his ranking among SS doesn't paint the whole picture. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I imagine that the bottom of the barrel of SS in terms of production are truly, inexcusably awful - and not being truly awful is the biggest asset Theriot presents to this team, I think.

Forgive my ignorance. What?

=D> You DO tend to look at the positive side of things, don't you? In fact, I'd say it's your unmitigated optimism that keeps me coming back to this board.

No no no no no NO NO!

You can say that again. Prince Fielder outweighs just about everything. I'm not crazy about the move, but I don't hate it. I generally think that intentional walks are very rarely called for, and tend to increase the scoring potential of the other team. The best defense for the move is Dempster's struggles against lefties, combined with Fielder's general beastliness.

I think that St. Louis doesn't get as much coverage because they're not an east coast team. The media loves the east coast. I don't dispute the east coast bias, but to suggest that the discrepancy is only or primarily because of the east coast bias is pretty silly. The Yankees have more history - or at least more publicized history - than other other team in baseball, by far. They have more than twice as many titles as St. Louis - it's not even close. They play in the biggest and most metropolitan city in America. And, at least for the last several years, they have been very, very good, almost to the point where they're considered favorites to win the whole thing, every single year. They have a loudmouthed, opinionated owner with deep pockets who's entertaining to watch. There really is no comparison, and it's understandable, if lamentable, that the Yankees get more coverage than other teams, regardless of east coast bias. All that said, I'm all for wresting the seat of sports nation from the east coast.

Actually, it's exactly half bad. Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Man. What a headcase. It's not really fair that a creep like him gets to play baseball for a living. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

I don't necessarily think it would have made much of difference, but did the ump tick anyone else off? He was awful - lots of sliders off the plate called for strikes, it seems.

Let it be known that MLB.tv sucks. It's not working for me - and I thought I'd be able to watch this game. Oh, and yay for lead off doubles.

I used to read pretty much all fiction, but I've shifted a lot towards non-fiction, to the point where it's about half and half. My official theory is that while I'm in school, I'm more likely to read fiction, because my brain's got all the academic-type stimulation it needs. But when I'm not in school, I get a little starved for learning. Oh, and Devil in the White City is very good, but I'm not sure it's as awesome as a lot of people made it out to be. It gets pretty slow, even for non-fiction, I thought. Fascinating, though.

I heard an interview with whats-his-name, the comic book guy who came up with Spawn (Todd McFarlane? Is that right?) - he's the guy who paid $3 million for McGwire's ball. He said (and I have not verified this) that no other baseball has sold for over a million dollars since, and hypothesized that Bonds' would go for 400-500k. He's a hardcore collector, obviously, so I'm apt to believe him. But I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it went for much much more than that.

While that's a lot of money, I'm glad they signed him. Woohoo!

So last game, we lost, but we achieved the goal of not being totally pathetic. Let's see if we can one up ourselves and be mediocre! That'd probably win this game, considering the matchups.

Aaron Harang is scary-looking. Also, I like winning, so let's do a little bit more of it, shall we?

Actually there is. It's the player who bats first and leads off the game. Is he ideal? No. But he can't hit down in the order because he can't hit curveballs. This is proven. Accept it. What twisted definition of "proof" are you using here? It may or may not be that Soriano has trouble hitting curveballs, and that may or may not be a reason why hitting lower in the order may or may not be difficult for him. If that's proof, then I guess you're right. And you're ignoring Rob's point, which is a good one: a team never "needs" a leadoff hitter, because the only thing that really defines a leadoff hitter, as you said, is hitting in the leadoff spot - which is a useless tautology. As far as this thread is concerned, I agree with the title - Hendry shouldn't have signed Soriano, at least for that money. He's not that big a bat, and his value is particularly low when he's in LF. Murton has nothing to do with it, really. While I do think the original poster's comments regarding Murton are a bit silly, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Murton outproduces Soriano over the course of his contract, though - Soriano's career line is .281/.327/.510, while Murton's is .297/.365/.452. Given Murton's superior OBP, the difference in their career numbers is very small, and Murton's entering his prime while Soriano is leaving his. And - this is an honest question - does the CS stat include being picked off? Because every out that Soriano creates on the basebaths ought to be held against him if we're trying to assess the usefulness of his stolen bases.

Everyone knows what's wrong with him. He has a knee injury that he says won't be 100 percent until at least the offseason. The organization made a plan for him that involved regular days off, and they've stuck to that. Exactamundo. Knee injuries are a bitch. I hurt my knee two years ago and it still gives me all kinds of problems on very random days. 5 knee surgeries, 2 re-con, and three arthro...they just DON'T get better I haven't had the surgeries, but I'm with you. My father's family has a history of bad bones - I'm only 24, and I have an awful lower back, two miserably painful knees, and a bad hip joint. I'd probably fall apart playing everyday on a baseball diamond - I really feel for Aramis.

Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Floyd... Guys that have had good power in their career all with power outages. It's not a coincidence. All signs point to Gerald Perry. That's a pretty big assumption. In fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet it has very little to do with Gerald Perry, as there's a reasonable explanation for pretty much all of them: Lee: wrist injury Floyd: well-documented age-based decline Soriano and Ramirez aren't far enough off their career averages to really think it's anything but normal fluctuation, are they? Edit: Soriano's career ABs/HR: 19.23; 2007: 24.67. So that's a pretty big difference. Ramirez career: 20.02; 2007: 21.69. That's not too huge a difference. In any case, there's not much of a compelling case against Gerald Perry here.

That's fascinating stuff, and much of it seems to be valid. I hadn't thought about it all. Bonds is still obviously a fantastic hitter, with or without the brace, just as he is with or without the steroids, but it does seem to confer a pretty huge advantage - particularly the part about maintaining an identical straight swing every single time.

If you go to the Cubs.com page, and read the synopsis of the preview for tonight's game, it says Eric Patterson is expected to get the callup. It doesn't, however, mention it at all in the article itself, which is weird. I was pretty surprised when I saw it.

I can't decide - is the extent to which the Cubs can affect my mood (more than most other silly games that I don't even play in) really sad or really awesome? I very much like this winning thing. Keep doing it, please.