bring stone back

I'm sorry I'm being so difficult. What's so foolish about the argument? Hitter sees a meatball on pitch #1, hits it, flies out to center field. Pitcher only uses 1 pitch. Hitter sees a meatball on pitch #8, hits it, flies out to center field. Pitcher uses 8 pitches, hitter sees a lot of the different type of pitches the hitter throws, can give info on what all the pitches look like to his teammates, etc. At least something minor was accomplished. My point stands, and I still don't see the foolishness of it. A 1 pitch out is a worthless at bat. I'm not trying to get in an argument either...I'm saying it's not that easy to hit a baseball and people are acting like taking 3-4 pitches is going to make it magically easier. It's like the NBA, if you have a good shooter take an open jumper with 15 seconds left on the shot clock is that worthless possession? Absolutely not. The only thing you can ask for is putting a good swing on a pitch you feel you can do something with. Sometimes you just miss and get a pop up or a fly out. Sometimes you'll hit it 400 feet.

The opposing pitcher's arm has no problem with it either. It's the same thing with some of the team's philosophy on stolen bases. If you think you can do it, then by all means go for it, but prepare to get hell if it fails. Same thing with first pitch swinging. If the pitch looks great and it looks like you can drive the ball, then by God swing the bat. But if you get out, accept the fact that you wasted your at bat. It's not a waste. So if your 3 hole hitter takes a fastball right down the middle and flies out on the second pitch, that's much better then? Not every player is suited to take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. See a good pitch to hit and put a good swing on it....depending on the situation I don't care if it's the 1st pitch or 8th pitch.

Really? Sometime go look up batting averages and slugging percentages on 2-0 and 3-1 counts. I'm sure you can supply a real fascinating stat for me. I realize when the count is in your favor you'll have better results, but can you supply some stats for me when the hitter is consistently facing 1-2 and 0-2 counts, as well? I'm not looking up anything for you. Basically you are just changing the subject. As far as 1-2 and 0-2 counts, I agree hitters hit worse. All the more reason to not swing and miss at first pitches out of the zone. You seem to be missing the point which is, quite simply, only swing at pitches you can hit hard. rolling over on a first pitch is worthless. so is rolling over on a 7th pitch but at least you made the pitcher work and saw some pitches that may benefit you in your next at bat. Have you ever played baseball? Swing at something only if you can hit it hard....good concept but it's not quite that easy.

I'm sure someone here has someone fascinating stat to back this up, but some people on this board are acting like swinging at the first pitch is like swinging at a pitchout or something. Isn't it strange that pitchers and pitching coaches preach about first pitch strikes and the importance of getting ahead in the count, but it's stupid for hitters to swing at the first pitch?? Makes sense to me..... You're making it an either/or situation when it isn't. No one has ever said that it's completely unacceptable to swing at a first pitch, which seems to be what you're implying. SOMETIMES it's a good idea to swing at the first pitch. No one here is going to deny this. USUALLY it behooves the hitter to work the count. That's all anyone has been saying. I'm trying to have a discussion with you. Your argument on page one was just foolish. If you swing at the first pitch and get a hit then fantastic, if you get out, it's a waste. As a hitter, you can't control where the defense is playing, where exactly the ball goes, etc.

I think the bolded is exactly what we all want to see. Our problem is that the Cubs are often aggressive when the situation dictates the exact opposite. I won't argue with that, but I will argue that swinging at the first pitch is a worthless at bat. That's a foolish argument. What exactly is accomplished when making an out on 1 pitch then? Hitting the ball hard somewhere, a sacrifice fly, moving a runner along. Three things that come to mind. This isn't a playstation game or something. As a hitter, you try to hit the ball hard somewhere. Unless you're Ichiro, you can't control exactly where the ball goes. I have absolutely no problem with our clean up hitter getting a first pitch to hit and hitting the ball hard somewhere and getting out.

Really? Sometime go look up batting averages and slugging percentages on 2-0 and 3-1 counts. I'm sure you can supply a real fascinating stat for me. I realize when the count is in your favor you'll have better results, but can you supply some stats for me when the hitter is consistently facing 1-2 and 0-2 counts, as well?

I think the bolded is exactly what we all want to see. Our problem is that the Cubs are often aggressive when the situation dictates the exact opposite. I won't argue with that, but I will argue that swinging at the first pitch is a worthless at bat. That's a foolish argument.

That isn't always the case. Some at bats the most hittable pitch you see will be the first one. The argument I'm making is that swinging at the first pitch and getting out is not a wasted at bat. If you hit a hard ground ball to the shortstop is that a wasted at bat? I'm sure not every team in baseball knows all the Cubs hitting tendencies as much as we all do. However, one only has to look at the stats for these guys to see that they are aggressive. So, you are the opposing pitcher and you're facing the Cubs. What are you tossing up there on the first pitch against a team that loves to swing at the first pitch? Is this a serious question?

People on this board have been complaining about this for quite some time. Depending on who you are and what the situation is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going after the first pitch if it's something you're looking for. These guys know the scouting reports and what they're trying to do up there...swinging at the first pitch is NOT a bad thing. Swinging at the first pitch and getting out is one of the biggest wastes of an at-bat possible. If you swing at the first pitch and get a hit, then fantastic. But if not, you just wasted your at bat. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is one thing for your 1 and 2 hole hitters to be swinging at the first pitch since you'd like for them to take pitches and get on base. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with swinging at the first pitch IF it's what you're looking for and where you're looking for it. I like your argument here by the way. If he gets a hit then it's okay, if not, it's a total waste. Sounds logical.... The point is there is absolutely no reason to ever swing at the first pitch unless you are sitting on a pitch and you get it, or maybe if you are working against a guy like Greg Maddux who rarely strays from the zone. And there is certainly no reason ever to swing at 2-0 or 3-1 pitches unless they are right there, and there is definitely no reason possible to swing at the first pitch after a walk (particularly on a walk where the pitcher shows an obvious lack of control), or at the first pitch after the pitcher makes an out, especially if it's the second out. And what the people on this board have been complaining about, quite justly IMO, is the fact that the Cubs have a tendency to do swing at all of those types of first pitches, and almost never do anything with them. At the major league level, pitchers aren't going to groove some batting practice fastball even if they're down 2-0 or 3-1. Being "right there" is a relative term. Know the situation, the pitcher and the scouting report. Be aggressive when the situation dictates.

I'm sure someone here has someone fascinating stat to back this up, but some people on this board are acting like swinging at the first pitch is like swinging at a pitchout or something. Isn't it strange that pitchers and pitching coaches preach about first pitch strikes and the importance of getting ahead in the count, but it's stupid for hitters to swing at the first pitch?? Makes sense to me.....

That isn't always the case. Some at bats the most hittable pitch you see will be the first one. The argument I'm making is that swinging at the first pitch and getting out is not a wasted at bat. If you hit a hard ground ball to the shortstop is that a wasted at bat?

People on this board have been complaining about this for quite some time. Depending on who you are and what the situation is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going after the first pitch if it's something you're looking for. These guys know the scouting reports and what they're trying to do up there...swinging at the first pitch is NOT a bad thing. Swinging at the first pitch and getting out is one of the biggest wastes of an at-bat possible. If you swing at the first pitch and get a hit, then fantastic. But if not, you just wasted your at bat. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is one thing for your 1 and 2 hole hitters to be swinging at the first pitch since you'd like for them to take pitches and get on base. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with swinging at the first pitch IF it's what you're looking for and where you're looking for it. I like your argument here by the way. If he gets a hit then it's okay, if not, it's a total waste. Sounds logical....

People on this board have been complaining about this for quite some time. Depending on who you are and what the situation is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going after the first pitch if it's something you're looking for. These guys know the scouting reports and what they're trying to do up there...swinging at the first pitch is NOT a bad thing.

Wow...you guys are impossible to please. I'm as frustrated as the next fan watching the Cubs this year, but we give up an absolute nobody (where we have a surplus) and get someone with some power from the right side to play first until Lee gets back and can come off the bench in late innings. If I'm not mistaken, Texas is picking up some of the tab, as well. It by no means is a blockbuster, but the Cubs are a better team for having made this trade. Isn't that the goal of making trades?

Considering the Cubs' inability to score at all this season, I think we can let one agressive mistake on the basepaths go. I have absolutely no problem with the decision, they put the pressure on Francoeur to make the play and he did....give him credit.

He's safe...pitcher got him on his knee and his foot got under. Nice fundamental play by a couple little leaguers, though.

Had no idea....good point. Knowing that, I think he'd be better off being limited to the number of innings he can throw his last 8-10 outings instead of just shutting him down in August.

Good observation. I think he does a nice job locating, as well. His achilles heel is his inability to throw his curve ball with any consistency at all. You're right though....I think he does a very nice job of locating and seems to battle pretty well out there. I like his toughness.

I'll take double play to end it.

Is it safe to say you're a Mizzou fan? Just curious.... Yep, student. I'm a recent Nebraska grad. How's that Mizzou pitcher, Scherzer coming along? At one time, I think he was tabbed for a top 5 pick.

Is it safe to say you're a Mizzou fan? Just curious....

Is that the guy they got in the Lowell deal from the Red Sox? He's damn good.

How many pitches has Wood thrown? Didn't he only throw like 70 last time? He has to be at/near that now, right?

How's the velocity?

That was my point though. Bobby is still in baseball, and would be a viable managerial candidate, when what bsb has been arguing is that there aren't viable candidates available. At least I think that's what he's arguing, since he's asked about 4 times in this thread for managerial candidates. I honestly thought he was genuinely curious as to what Davey Johnson is up to nowadays.. Maybe I'm naive. :? That's exactly what I was wondering. I knew Valentine was in Japan and many former managers are working media in some capacity or a 1st/3rd base coach (Pujols, Pena, etc). I was just wondering where and what Johnson was up to. My bad then...thought you were being sarcastic. No worries...I'm not trying to start anything. I think we've had a nice dialogue on this topic. I am not completely against getting rid of Baker. It's just that if we do that, I want to see a legitimate managerial upgrade to come in and we don't repeat the Bruce Kimm debacle. I was just asking who that would/could be. It's all a moot point if this has any truth, which it likely does: viewtopic.php?t=32026 My 2 cents is that Speier deserves a shot for the rest of this season. This team has not yet shown me that there's any way for them to salvage what's left, so why not give a new guy a chance? After listening to this Florida game, you're probably right. I wanted so badly for this to work out.....