MPrior

This is good because we don't have to face Smoltz. This is bad because we DO have to face a career AAAA guy, and you know what that means. 7 IP, 4H, 1 ER, something like that.

Solid trade Whoa. That seems more than a little bit lopsided.

I recognize the wisdom in what you say, and concede that it is probably the right idea. Now I will proceed to ignore it, and go ahead and start him anyway, because I'm that kind of stupid.

He's starting on Friday, and I picked him up. I'm not 100% sold on him yet, and he's starting against the Indians. Do I start him, or just keep him on the bench until he proves himself?

Whoa.

I voted other - when I'm not watching.

When did we give up on Guzman as a starter? Just because the Cubs were stupid enough to move him to the bullpen doesn't mean he can't be a good starter.

This is absolutely correct. This Cubs team has done as well as any in a long time (at least since hendry has been GM) at working the count. The problem is what they do in those hitters counts. Never have I seen a team take so many weak swings, leading to weak contact in hitters counts in my life. It's almost as if guys like Barrett, Ramirez, et al get themselves in hitters counts, and then say, "Whew! Now I don't have to worry about deciding whether to swing or not. I'm in a hitters count so the pitch must be coming right down the pipe. I'm hacking!!!" You're supposed to get MORE selective in a hitters count, looking only for something you can drive. The Cubs get hyper aggressive in these situations, or so it seems to me. While it's nothing more than my perception, I agree with your assessment. It seems as though hitters' counts make them trigger happy (I've noticed this A LOT with Jones in particular), and they'll just swing at anything that comes their way in a 2-0 or 3-1 count. It ticks me off like nothing else.

True. I feel dumb for making a trade of Ordonez and Kelvim Escobar for Huston Streeet at the beginning of Fantasy Season. Then again I never expected Maggs to have this much productivity, as I'm sure no one else in this world did. No kidding. After suffering through him all of last year, this year's productivity is quite frankly shocking. I essentially traded him for Lance Berkman, who seems to have turned into Royce Clayton. D'oh.

I have Bush on my team, and I think he'll turn it around (his K:BB ratio is purty durn good, and I think he's been a victim of a seriously bad BABIP against), but he's been sucking it up pretty bad - what should I do? Do I drop him? Just bench him? Or leave him out there every start?

The worst part of it is that I have tickets to the game tomorrow. The one time all year I get to actually see the Cubs, and I have trouble bringing myself to care.

Nice article. Veal sounds like a good guy. I hope he winds up being a solid part of our rotation in a couple years.

I was gonna say - maybe you're onto something here.

that seems impossible. at first glance it does, but once you realize the finite number of possible combinations of 6 IP and under 4.5 ERA and what typically happens during those games, it starts to make sense. usually when a starter has a quality start, he actually has a dominant start, having allowed only a run or two if any. when a pitcher has only allowed a run or two through six, usually he stays in the game, thus increasing the number of IP and lowering the ERA for the game even more. if he gives up runs, often times its blows the QS all together, thus taking it out of the equations above. without delving into the rare instance when a starter goes extra innings, here are the possibilities. 6 IP - 3 ER - 4.50 ERA 6 IP - 2 ER - 3.00 ERA 6 IP - 1 ER - 1.50 ERA 6 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 7 IP - 3 ER - 3.86 ERA 7 IP - 2 ER - 2.57 ERA 7 IP - 1 ER - 1.29 ERA 7 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 8 IP - 4 ER - 4.50 ERA 8 IP - 3 ER - 3.38 ERA 8 IP - 2 ER - 2.25 ERA 8 IP - 1 ER - 1.13 ERA 8 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA 9 IP - 4 ER - 4.00 ERA 9 IP - 3 ER - 3.00 ERA 9 IP - 2 ER - 2.00 ERA 9 IP - 1 ER - 1.00 ERA 9 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA I agree to an extent that the stat stinks, but it's not that bad. I think the rule should be pitching six innings and allowing a 3.86 ERA or less. that way the stat includes 6 IP, 2 ER and 7 IP, 3 ER performances, but gets rid of 6 IP, 3 ER and 8/9 IP, 4 ER performances. however, considering how rare those starts are amongst the possibilities, the start really isn't that bad. Question/nitpick: Are the bolded actually considered QS? Everything I've heard is 6 IP or more, 3 ER or less, which is a very stupid definition.

Hoo boy. You've done it now.

Did I read correctly on Fred's stats? That the Cubs have a .340 team OBP for the year? That can't be true. Cause that would actually be, well . . . not awful.

Don't worry, the blame will rest firmly with me. I'll be able to watch the first half of the game, just as I was for the first game of the series. So the Cubs will jump out on top only to blow it after I leave, just like the first game of the series.

I'm holding you to that, and I'll want pictures to prove it.

Amazing_Grace, I'm with you. Guzman is the much better choice. But people are, by and large, probably choosing Marshall just because they remember him being up all year last year and pitching a good game or two. Whereas those that remember Guzman at all probably just remember his few outings, when he got shelled.

Can you give a list-I can only think of two players right now-Perez and Izturis. I'll start: Macias Pagan Womack . . . He said absurd prices for a large role-all of those players were minimum salary players, and as far as I know none of them were signed to be anything other than a bench player. For what it's worth, I said absurd prices for a larger role than they should be considered for. But, in either case, the gist is this: he has filled his roster with players who SHOULD NOT BE on the roster, often paying more than was necessary, in money and/or talent, for them, and allowing them to be played more than they ought to be (which, in most cases, is not at all): Neifi Izturis Macias Pagan Womack Rusch Eyre Pierre Remlinger Blanco Was he responsible for Alfonseca? I forget. If it wasn't for Marquis Grissolm retiring, he'd probably be there too. There are more who marginally fit the parameters, but I'll stop there. I concede that my original statement was a bit of hyperbole. But the fact that there are ANY players that fit the semantics of that sentence is an indictment in itself. The point remains that he has filled a significant portion of his roster with either a) awful players or b) mediocre players who he paid far too much for.

While it's true that the many injuries to key players constitute a mitigating factor w/regards to Hendry's performance, they are THE ONLY mitigating factor, and using them as an excuse for Hendry only masks the fact that, with the exception of the 2004 team (which still had its problems), his teams have been deeply flawed, mediocre teams even without the injuries. People defend Hendry by citing his good moves. Okay, let's ignore his W-L record and evaluate his moves. So, sure, he's made good moves, and I'm glad. Most of the moves would have been impossible without his massive payroll, but that's beside the point. The point is that these moves don't make him stand out - all GMs make good moves now and again, or have a poor or seemingly lateral move surprisingly pan out very well. These moves do not distinguish him from other GMs; and, given that baseball is a competitive sport, that's his job - to be better than the rest. Where Hendry does stand out, though, is in his repeatedly demonstrated tendency to make mind-numbingly stupid moves. Few GMs (Bowden, Krivsky excepted) have made so many moves that were so misinformed. Hendry has repeatedly paid absurd prices to fill his roster with replacement level players for whom there is no market, and signed them to fill roles much bigger than they should ever be considered for. All this while blatantly ignoring the most obvious and egregious flaw on the team. So now matter how you judge Hendry, I don't see how you can make an argument that he is anything better than mediocre - a below average GM. And that's being kind.

Barrett, while he has been awful this year, and does occasionally irk me by popping up on the first pitch, is actually one of the more selective hitters the Cubs have.

I have a feeling that if you want to actually do this, you're going to have to either get numerous advanced degrees or start teaching (unless you already are a teacher, in which case, don't plan on retiring any time soon).

Wait, wait, wait. They feel a "sense of urgency" to get another starter out there, and they're specifically targeting Wade Miller and Jeff Weaver? .... *Erupts in laughter* Okay, I'm finished now.

Wow. Bay owns Z - and in a significant # of ABs, too.