goonys evil twin

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs.

hooray for baseball

Look at his awards and tell me what sticks out. If we can induct Ozzie Smith into the Hall because he's one of the top two or three greatest defensive shortstops of all time while being decent offensively, then Kaat by analogy should get in for being one of the two or three best defense pitchers of all time while being a decent pitcher. That is, of course, unless you view the value of pitcher's defense and SS defense as being unequal.

You sure about that? With Dish Network? It did with Directv, so did Sunday Ticket.

I almost teared up, reading that. It's exactly how I would make out the lineup with these players. I can't say I could EVER say the same thing when Dusty was making out the cards. Could we actually have a manager with some common baseball sense??? I don't know about you but I think it moved when I saw it. I'm still laughing.

The people who are in charge of bringing us the game are generally the people who have always been in charge, and those people don't have any use for progress. They like being in charge, and they know what they know, so they keep feeding us the same stuff. The key is getting more and more people like Bruce and Len into the situation. There are also old guard types like Peter Gammons who have given these stats much deserved recognition. The biggest problems are the people like Chass, and those who automatically respect the opinion of "baseball people" who continually bash the "stat mongers". There are people who don't talk about the stats much, but they don't bash them either. That's fine. But when idiots like these keep coming out with rant after rant against knowledge, it's quite disconcerting.

Slowly and carefully sure. One stat at a time with sufficient adjustment period? That sounds like somebody advocating for the continuance of conventional wisdom over actual knowledge. There's no reason why it has to be one stat at a time. Why couldn't a broadcaster discuss 3-4 different stats in any given game? We're talking about 3-4 hour telecasts, with 1-2 hours of pre and post game. And 24/7 sports talk all over the place. There's plenty of space to include something more than a one stat at a time mandate. Again, we're not talking about going all stats all the time. We're talking about replacing some of the nonsense from yesteryear with some actual intelligent analysis. We're talking about maybe 5 minutes of total airtime when all is said and done in a given game. The key is to have an intelligent, thoughtful and well-spoken advocate making the changes, not keeping progress as slow as humanly possible.

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion. Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation. I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO. That's my point. No attempt has been made to expose the general fan to these metrics other than to mock them at every opportunity. Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them. I think Len has touched on some things.

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion. People don't like to hear stats they don't understand mentioned on screen. Most of the people are not going to take the time to look it up either. Occasionally the common fan will let a stat like that slide (such as QB rating, where the common fan knows what is good and what is bad, but has no idea how to calculate it)-but most of the time, it turns people off to hear things that they don't get mentioned. I see it as very reasonable that if these more complicated stats are being heavily used in shows that the common fan watches (their teams telecasts and Baseball Tonight, for example) they will be turned off by the amount of material that they really don't understand, and they will just stop watching. Not only do I believe that to be nonsense, but it's pretty much a defense of the continuation of conventional ignorance. Don't talk about stats because John Doe will stop watching. Bunk. First off, if you're so closed minded that you'd stop watching baseball games because the analysts had the audacity to actually analyze the game, then too freaking bad. But I don't think the average fan would do anything of the sort. Nobody is going to make every telecast a baseball prospectus symposium. But discussing the advancement in statistical analysis, and throwing some stuff out there, with reasonable explanations, should be a major factor in every broadcast. There's no reason to stay stuck in the dark ages because you're afraid some dinosaurs will be offended.

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

That was Barrett talking about Lilly. Lilly started in Montreal, and Barrett was the catcher then in 1999 when Lilly came up. Lilly pitched 24 innings there, and was gone to the Yankees the next year. Lilly truly is a journeyman pitcher. He was drafted and signed by the Dodgers, then traded to the Expos while still a prospect. He was traded again as a PTBNL to the Yankees. Then he was sent to Oakland, and finally Toronto. The Cubs are his 6th organization.

This happened to me when mlbtv first came out. I purchased one month of the service, to test it out, and hated the results. Then, starting in January of the next year, they started charging me $15 a month for the service. It was on a credit card I stopped using, so by the time I check the bill in February, they had charged me again, and wouldn't reimburse me. It tooks several phone calls to get that one fixed.

Come again? What would you be doing (or buying) if you wanted to catch the most spring training games. MLB.tv or XM radio service. I'd get XM.

One way or another, they better announce something soon. Dragging it out this long only hurts marketing efforts for growing the service.

OHMYGOD, HIS ELBOW FELL OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate the way Wood's flappy skin looks when he pitches.

He's feeling lucky that he possibly has a case for getting out of the contract.

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance?

Then why have it at all? To give HOF members a chance to include guys who might not have gotten a fair shake from writers.

I wish he'd get in, just so this could stop being a story. It seems that behind player's health and the perceived cheapness of Cubs ownership, the hall status of their announcer is the third most discussed topic involving this team. Sports would be so much better without Halls of Fame.

On a slow day for talk, I could see hours of conversation being built around theorizing why certain guys get more space than others.

I'm not suggesting he thinks of it as the primary goal. I'm just saying I'm pretty sure he's acknowledged that side benefit. I know Lou has. Regardless, it's very different than Baker, and not just because of his ability to communicate effectively. If you look at it from afar, everybody pretty much teaches the same thing. Hit the ball really hard some where. But just as the fact that every major league baseball player is a very good baseball player, but not when compared with each other, there are differences in offensive philosophies. These might not be complete opposites, but I think they are quite different.

How are they fortunate? Maybe if teams switched leagues all the time, and the Chicago teams routinely found themselves in the weakest one, you'd have a point. I just don't get it. Starting off your premise with a "Do you Chicago people realize" opening, and suggesting fans of Chicago teams are very lucky isn't a good way to try and make a point.

You specified that Chicago teams are lucky. The fact that other teams/cities are in the same boat would negate the point. You also didn't say a think about "right now". You statement was "do you Chicago people realize your teams play in the worst conferences", and that "overall Chicago teams are lucky". I fail to see the point. Don't you think they are fortunate to be in those conferences/leagues right now? I'm not saying they are the only ones but I was just commenting to a Chicago based fan board. Yeah, there are others that are just as fortunate, if the word lucky bothers you that much. Will those conferences/leagues be weak all the time, heck no. I was just making an observation. No, I don't think they are fortunate. I think it's kind of silly to even bring up. Lots and lots of teams play in relatively weak divisions or conferences. You also leave out the White Sox, who play in a really tough division. The notion that Chicago teams are particularly lucky about where they play just doesn't make any sense. The Cubs are in a weak division, okay. But the Bulls division isn't weak. And while the Bears isn't all that strong, it's no weaker than some others. The Sox might play in the toughest division, and the Blackhawks play in one of the tougher divisions. And again, this stuff changes year-in and year-out. So I'm failing to see where luck is involved.

I think the big difference is that Perry wants guys to look for a pitch that they can make solid contact on, regardless of whether it's a strike or not. Baker wouldn't acknowledge that sometimes pitches can be strikes and also be more or less unhittable (unless you're looking for Juan Pierre quality contact), and wanted them swinging at anything that was close enough for blind Angel Hernandez to call a strike. That, and he didn't' seem to acknowledge that there was any value, at times, to taking pitches for the sake of taking more pitches (i.e. getting a better look at a pitcher's stuff and how he's attacking you, tiring the pitcher out a little over the course of a game, etc.). True, but Perry doesn't acknowledge that either. I could have sworn I've heard Perry talk about wearing down a pitcher with patience.