srbin84

One "hot" week doesn't change a career of below average production, and doesn't excuse the terrible contract he was signed to. No, it doesn't, but what difference does it make. Jones is blacklisted. He can finish the season with an .850 OPS, and I doubt it would be enough to get support from the haters. How do you think the same types of people would react to a Neifi Perez NL batting title? Crickets, that's what. That's fine...if people wanna be like that, that's up to them. Let's just tell it like it is though.

I'll read the thread later, but the answer to the question is that the haters never admit they are wrong.

For some reason, so many are against a manager getting angry and firing up the team. You say it does nothing to help the team in any way. Well, then why are you against it??? What harm would it cause for our manager to act like that?

Or 2b when the Cubs trade Prior for Cano. :D I still don't see what's so bad about that deal. Prior has a name, but you're basically trading nothing for one of the better young players in the league. We may be able to get more for Prior, but getting Cano isn't laughable.

Soriano would help our offense a lot, OBP or no OBP.

Ok, that wasn't funny.

Here's evidence of umpires giving more calls to home teams in the minor leagues. It's a really good article. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/are-the-minor-league-replacement-umpires-biased/

And to go off that idea, it's certainly conceivable to me that a lowly umpire could possibly be intimidated by a player like Bonds or Pujols. If they are unsure of the call, they might think that if that player didn't swing at it, it wasn't a strike....or give them the benefit of the doubt because it's a toss up. I'm sure star players butter up the umps, just like some NBA players do.

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely? It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question. Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not. People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place. Baseball is not basketball. Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing. What is so wild about it. That umpires have inegrity or that they are human? It's funny that you are definitively defining what emotionally effects an umpire and what doesn't. You completely dismiss one emotional factor while accepting another. It's great. It's wild speculation on both sides of the issue but for some reason you laugh at one and deem it to be ridiculous. I'm not sure how you can assume, to the extent that you do, that umpires operate like robots in one situation but become emotionally fragile in another. It really makes no sense. I don't think they operate like robots. But in general, I think they operate like everyone else in society. If a person is driving and someone in a Mercedes passess him going 100 mph it is no big deal. He might notice how nice the car is but he won't get emotional about it. But if the person in the Mercedes cuts him off while they pass him, he might get upset and do something stupid. If an umpire is behind the plate in a Braves/Mets game crica 1995 and Maddux is living on the corner strike. He will call it a strike. He might make a mistake here and there . But I don't think it is the case that automatcially the umpire says to himself, "hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners". Now if Cox starts griping he might get upset and intentionally call a close pitch a ball. How do you know an umps call would be affected by a manager instead of a pitcher? Prove it. I don't know that it does as I've said in the above posts. Three times. I said it could. And the umpire could be affected by who is getting on his case the positon of the person on the team is irrelevent. Let me try this again. You guys are saying that before the first pitch the umpire decides how he will call the entire game based on who is on the mound or in the batter's box. And that is always the case. I am saying that their could be factors during the game where an umpire might not give the benefit of the doubt to a pticher or a batter for one pitch or perhaps one at bat. But that is not always the case Well then I'm sure you'd agree with the sentiment that the umpire could, before the game say something to the effect of the following in his head

Is absurd to think an umpire would call balls all over the place strikes because of a pitchers reputation. It is absolutely not absurd to think that he would give borderline calls to a pitcher who has a reputation of being a control pitcher that he might not give to a pitcher who has a reputation of being wild. Well, not anymore absurd than thinking a manager's hissy fit is impacting the strike zone. I said it could. I didn't say it does. You really think umpires care who is pitching? Does your theory only apply to managers with a reputation of being good or have a certain amount of career wins?...is it only for fiery managers?.....because that's the kind of manager the Cubs need. If we had a manager that could influence the umpire to make even one key call in our favor every game just by being mad at him, then that would be one hell of an advantage.

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is. The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners. I don't think this is true. Then you're wrong. prove it. Prove what you're saying is true, you're so adamant in your wrong stance. I can safely say from watching many games over the 90's that that call was given to all of the Braves pitchers. If you choose to be ignorant to what happened, then I can't help you. You cannot say anything sitting in your house watching a game on TV. The camera angle even when behind the pitcher is off ether to the left or to the right. Its a fools errand to try to call balls and strikes through that method. But more importantly, you are saying that the umpires and MLB conspired to cheat for the Braves over the better part of a decade. I guess they just wanted them to make it to the WS and not actually win it. Here are some other myths: the Yankees bought their pennants (most of the players where homegrown) The Braves get the benefit of the Doubt because well, they're the Braves That's not a good argument because the Braves had great lefties and righties. If the angle is off, it can't be off for both types of pitchers since they mostly threw on the outside edge of the zone. Same for the hitters too. It can't always be wrong, but the call was almost always there.

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is. The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners.

He rocks in Baseball Mogul.

Maybe he's tuning out Baker's advice anyway. If he couldn't remember what he told him, he probably just used it as an excuse to cover deciding never to try it in the first place. Before the season, there were people here concerned about OBP because he got lucky hits last year.

Were there any other personnel differences in those seasons? Say Jimmy Rollins or Pat Burrell. Stuff like that? Burrell was there in 2000, and Rollins didn't even have that good a year in 2001. Burrell was also 23 in 2000, and still improving. He was also the 1B in 2000, putting a Ron Gant Kevin Jordan platoon in LF. In 2001 Burrell moved to LF (solidifying that position) and Travis Lee played a full season at 1B. As unimpressive as Lee is, he was 26 (ie. peak year) and much better than the LF platoon that was there in 2000. Plus, Philly's pitching staff was in shambles in 2000, with an oft-injured Schilling. In 2000 they had a worthless Jeff Brantley as closer and in 2001 they got an absolutely dominant Jose Mesa (183 ERA+) in that role. Philly's starting SS had a 75 OPS+ in 2000 and Jimmy had a 92 in 2001. Scott Rolen also played a full season in 2001 after missing a large amount of time in 2000. In 2000 Morandini got the bulk of the 2B time and had a 62 OPS+, while Anderson had a 97 in 2001. There were major differences in personel that have nothing to do with a manager who yells at people. Those improvements aren't enough on their own to improve a team 21 games in the standings.

Were there any other personnel differences in those seasons? Say Jimmy Rollins or Pat Burrell. Stuff like that? Burrell was there in 2000, and Rollins didn't even have that good a year in 2001. My bad, I was thinking 01 was Burrell's first year as well. Regardless, Larry Bowa was not the only change made between 00 and 01. Travis Lee has a solid season as I recall, and Ron Gant and Mickey Morandini (639 OPS) were gone from the everyday lineup too. Their pitching staff was quite a bit better as well. The bullpen was better but not really the rotation. Schilling wasn't there in 2001.

Were there any other personnel differences in those seasons? Say Jimmy Rollins or Pat Burrell. Stuff like that? Burrell was there in 2000, and Rollins didn't even have that good a year in 2001.

He chose to go to Tampa. And he wasn't any better in Seattle than Dusty was in San Fran (and both men won because of the ability to pencil in all time greats every day - and neither reached the promised land despite all that talent). Everybody likes to talk about how smart it is to change the makeup of the team by changing the personality of the manager, but what proof do you have that it works? Philly was a moderately talented team that struggled under Francona, who was considered a soft excuse making players managers. So they brought in Bowa and still struggled. A lot of people just assume that ranting and raving and intensity will equal great success, I disagree. Bowa was 86-76 in 2001 and Francona 65-97 in 2000.

How has it been proven? In the standings.

Yeah, his OPS is pretty decent now. He's turned things around. I hope he can keep going and turn this into into a pretty good offensive year.

Johnson's was 20 and Lou's was 16. So what? They were both very long ago. And Johnson was with Baltimore for 2 years. His first year he improved the team by 17 wins and won the wild card. He got 10 more wins in his 2nd year, when Baltimore won 98. He was 2-2 in playoffs series with Bmore, then he was gone, when Angelos's overpaid bunch of over the hill veterans disintigrated. He did not have "several chances". He finished 1st or 2nd in 12 of 14 seasons as a manager, a lot of which took place before the 3 division and wild card format made that easier to accomplish. Lou was 1st or 2nd 8 of 19 times and had a lot of 3, 4 and 5th place finishes during the 3 division era. Davey also had a higher winning percentage. I'm not sure it's possible to say definitively which manager was better, but Johnson had more success. Of course he did. He coached much better teams. What did you expect from those Tampa teams: .500 record........playoffs?!?

That's part of the reason they brought in Dusty after Don Baylor (& Bruce Kimm). They figured Dusty wouldn't have arguements with players via the media. Well, that's not the kind of reason I was talking about. In all sports, the philosophy of following coddling managers with disciplinarians has been proven to be a successful one.

With the D Rays he brought more a winning attitude then before. Now with the Reds he won the World Series. In Seattle he took them, year in and year out, to the playoff's, tieing the best regular season win total in baseball ever. More of a winning attitude? They won 63, 70 and 67 games under his watch. That's no better than what Larry Rothschild did down there. Yes, in Cincy he won the World Series, 16 years ago. And he didn't get back to the playoffs. He was in Seattle for 10 seasons and went to the playoffs 4 times, not year in year out as you claim (sounds like how Dusty claims his record looks). He had 2 of the greatest players in baseball history for 7+ seasons and the most dominant starter in the AL during that era. Not to mention he had the greatest DH ever. He had loads of talent to work with for several years. Then, he figured he couldn't get his team to the promised land and left for more money and a less stressful environment. He's 63 years old and melted down in Tampa. He was managing a AAA team in Tampa. Everything else he has done is great. When you fire a manager or head coach in any sport, it's good to bring in a different type of manager to change things sometimes. The Cubs are the perfect example of this type of team. They are a lazy team because of their manager, so they need someone who will not take any crap and put them in line when they make a mistake instead of kissing their butt and telling them it's ok and everything is gonna be alright.

I like the idea of getting Lou Piniella. He brings the intensity and fire that this team needs. He is the complete opposite of Dusty Baker. Instead of making excuses for his players, he puts them in line and is a no nonsense kind of guy. Making the argument that he wouldn't be a good hire because of his record in TAMPA BAY is flat out laughable.

I would like this trade, and your assumption is correct....15 years experience vs. 7 for Jones, so Dusty would probably view Conine as the better player. Not to mention, he's loves the really old guys the most. Dusty likens players to a fine wine, the older, the better. Conine would be as likely to fill-in for Murton as he would for Jones. That would be completely irrational and stupid. So yeah, you're probably right.