fromthestretch

If you assume that 99% of all message board posters on the internet have little to no baseball ability...which I guess is a safe bet. Straight as an arrow 100 mph fastballs, more than a handful of guys here could make contact. 99% is a bit high. The majority, however, would struggle to make contact. Edit: I didn't notice his statement about being told the exact location of the pitch being thrown. If you knew the speed and location, that obviously increases your chances of success by quite a bit. Sure, they would make contact. None of them would get a hit though. No way. Pop ups and groundouts. You make contact, there's a chance you could dump it somewhere in-between fielders. Doesn't need to be solid contact to drop in for a hit. I'm not saying the chances are great, but there's certainly a chance.

With the Cubs, that's correct (although he would have easily done so the past two seasons had he not missed significant time due to injuries). He has, however, scored more than 100 runs as a leadoff hitter with other teams. Most recently, he did so for the Nationals in 2006, and they weren't exactly a great offensive team.

vs. C.C. Sabathia (43 PA): .333/.442/.806 vs. Kelvim Escobar (36 PA): .371/.389/.571 vs. Zach Duke (35 PA): .455/.486/.758 vs. Chris Carpenter (34 PA): .364/.382/.576 vs. Tom Glavine (28 PA): .417/.500/.708 vs. Danny Haren (21 PA): .333/.333/.905 vs. Jake Peavy (18 PA): .375/.444/.938 Someone needs to tell Chris Carpenter that he's no better than a cardboard cutout.

If you assume that 99% of all message board posters on the internet have little to no baseball ability...which I guess is a safe bet. Straight as an arrow 100 mph fastballs, more than a handful of guys here could make contact. 99% is a bit high. The majority, however, would struggle to make contact. Edit: I didn't notice his statement about being told the exact location of the pitch being thrown. If you knew the speed and location, that obviously increases your chances of success by quite a bit.

I doubt that. You would know you were going to do this and train for a bit. If you go to a pitching machine you can jack it up to 100-105 and still make contact. It's when the damn ball spins or changes levels where we all get seperated from baseball players. A pitching machine is going to put the ball where you want it though. Not all strikes are easily hittable. On top of that, while it is much easier to hit a straight fastball than a breaking ball, it's not like everyone has the athletic ability to make consistent contact. I've seen plenty of guys at try-outs for amateur leagues show up and not be able to make contact with a batting practice fastball, let alone one reaching triple digits in speed.

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival. But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals. They had a different GM for that trade. And who says they didn't think twice about it? There were most likely other circumstances you about which you have no idea. Also, anyone in your division can be considered a rival when all teams are gunning for the division title. It's just that some teams have a more legitimate shot at it. If you'll recall as well, Bobby Hill at the time was considered a very good, potential all-star second base prospect. Matt Bruback was also fairly highly considered, I believe. Many people thought we gave up way too much at the time for Lofton and an unproven third baseman. Another thing to consider is that Aramis had one really good season under his belt but had regressed significantly the following year. McLouth was just coming off a breakout season. I have little doubt that the Cubs would have been outbid in any attempt to trade for McLouth.

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival. But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals. They had a different GM for that trade. And who says they didn't think twice about it? There were most likely other circumstances you about which you have no idea. Also, anyone in your division can be considered a rival when all teams are gunning for the division title. It's just that some teams have a more legitimate shot at it.

It's not that the Pirates won't trade with the Cubs. However, if McLouth was available to be easily had in a trade this offseason, I can guarantee the Cubs wouldn't have been the only team calling the Pirates. And while the Pirates might listen to an offer from the Cubs, if other teams are making offers, I'm sure the Pirates would prefer to send him out of the division. Also, the Ramirez/Lofton deal was done under a different GM in Pittsburgh.

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival.

I mentioned this in another thread, but this one is a little more high-traffic. I have an extra ticket for Sunday's game if anyone is interested.

I really hate having to watch the Nationals' broadcast of these games. Their announcers - Bob Carpenter and Rob freaking Dibble - are just terrible. It was fun listening to Carpenter basically rip the Cubs for giving up on Juan Pierre, implying that he was a great leadoff hitter for them in 2006 because he led the league in hits. They criticized the Cubs usage of Soriano in the leadoff spot because of his low OBP, despite the fact that Soriano's OBP in his first two years with the Cubs (.337 and .344) was higher than what Pierre had in 2006 (.330). They talked about how Reed Johnson has been given the leadoff spot, and how it was questionable to have a guy with only one stolen base batting first. They didn't even mention the fact that Johnson is on the short end of a platoon in CF, not the everyday starter.

If anyone is looking for a ticket to Sunday's game in DC, I have an extra one. It's in section 225, row H.

Good stats and good point, but again, service time should negate Hack from being a real nominee. He only has two years on Hornsby in that regard. To put it in perspective, Aramis Ramirez has been a cub longer than Hack was. I'll give you that. Six years, at least in that era, probably wasn't a long time with one team.

That's definitely tops. The next best would most likely be Hack Wilson from 1927-1930, when he posted a 1.051 OPS. His overall numbers in six years as a Cub are great with a line of .322/.412/.590 and an average of 31 HR, 108 R, and 128 RBI per season. Hack is problematic because his astronomical numbers were in large part due to the crazy offensive era in which he played. The ridiculous offensive numbers of the late 20's-early 30's stand as the only real rival to the steroid era as far as offensive production. Consider that in Hack's best year, 1930, the LEAGUE batting average was .303. Thus, one could (if they wanted to) quite convincingly dismiss Sosa (roids) and Hack (softball league stats) from their lists of greatest Cubs hitters. If one were to do that, I'd think the clear remaining choice is Billy Williams. Completely contrary to Hack, Billy put up the bulk of his numbers while playing during an era dominated by pitching. For example, take 1963 and see that the league BA was just .249. You have to go back to 1917 to find a league BA that low. So for Billy to hit a career .290 during an 18 year career when the league average was .254 over that same span is pretty impressive. His 133 career OPS+ over 18 seasons is pretty damn nice as well. I guess I've convinced myself in doing this research right now. I'm gonna go with Billy Williams. final answer. The thing is though, Wilson's OPS+ for his six years as a Cub was 155. Billy Williams' best six-year run was 141. Sosa's best six-year run was 162. So while Sosa and Wilson may have played in better offensive eras, their numbers are still better relative to their respective leagues. This certainly isn't a knock on Williams, who was a fantastic hitter.

That's definitely tops. The next best would most likely be Hack Wilson from 1927-1930, when he posted a 1.051 OPS. His overall numbers in six years as a Cub are great with a line of .322/.412/.590 and an average of 31 HR, 108 R, and 128 RBI per season.

They do recognize it in their media guide though. However, they do say that they were named "national champions by the Helms Foundation."

A lot of schools, Purdue being one, refer to it as a Mythical National Championship. I don't see any harm in a school recognizing that they were named the national champion for those early years, provided that it's put in the correct context.

If the players you're trying to acquire aren't a clear upgrade over what you already have, why make the trade? What this team doesn't need is to go around throwing prospects at other teams for more garbage middle infielders that aren't a clear upgrade over what the Cubs already have.

For the upteenth time, a platoon of Fontenot (career .798 OPS vs. righties) and Baker (career .898 OPS vs. lefties) is a decent bet to outproduce Kennedy or Cabrera or Ellis or any other mediocre infielder on the A's you want to throw away prospects to get.

So have Cabrera and Ellis, albeit with another team. Neither of them is anymore likely to turn things around in the second half than Fontenot is. Also, when you consider past performance, even if either of them does revert back to career norms, it's really not a big enough improvement to justify trading prospects away. Both Cabrera and Ellis are on the wrong side of 30 and are low-.700 OPS guys. A Fontenot/Baker platoon is just as capable (if not moreso) of putting up an OPS over .775 in the second half and wouldn't cost anything to acquire, since they're already on the roster.

There aren't any hotels right near Nationals Stadium. I would recommend staying anywhere in the metro area near a Metro train stop. Nationals Park is off of the Navy Yard stop on the green line. The green line connects to the other lines at a few locations in downtown DC, so you can stay at a hotel near any of the lines. Staying anywhere in the DC area, especially in summer tourist season, is going to be pretty expensive unless you don't mind things along the Motel 6 type and even those will cost what a Hampton Inn would cost in another city. apete pretty much nailed it. Just stay somewhere relatively close to a metro stop, and you should be fine. You probably don't want to stay too close to the stadium anyway, as the immediate area around the stadium is still being developed. I'm looking forward to the series, as I have tickets to Sunday's game.

2009 OPS+ Fontenot 72 Cabrera 74 Ellis 66 Neither is really an upgrade over Fontenot. A Fontenot/Baker platoon should outproduce either of them. You conveniantly left out-Kennedy 115. Maybe we just picked up the wrong Cardinal cast off this off season. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was responding to your statement that Ellis and Cabrera "have a high upside". Neither really has a high upside at all at this stage in their careers, especially offensively. And while Kennedy has been playing well, there's nothing in his past three seasons to indicate he'll continue to produce, especially when you look at his last 100 at-bats or so (.664 OPS in his last 142 plate appearances). Furthermore, it's a bit irrational to say "Baker is showing no signs that he'll be any better" when he's had a whopping 16 plate appearances with the Cubs, including quite a few against right-handed pitching. There's a reason "nobody wants the guys we can afford." It's because they suck.

2009 OPS+ Fontenot 72 Cabrera 74 Ellis 66 Neither is really an upgrade over Fontenot. A Fontenot/Baker platoon should outproduce either of them.

How does Lee have nine homers and 10 RBI with the bases empty?

I'm not going to argue the fact that that ballpark is a hitter's paradise. However, David Dellucci posted a .926 road OPS and an .839 home OPS in 2005 and actually had a higher season OPS the following year while playing for the Phillies. While his overall numbers were inflated a bit by his home totals, Gary Matthews Jr. actually had solid road numbers in 2006, as well.