fromthestretch

I met Dunston once during one of those Cubs Caravan events. He was quiet but more than willing to sign autographs. The line for his autograph was by far the longest, and I was at the very end of it. He waved me over from the end of the line and signed a few baseball cards for me. As far as bad experiences, my cousin had a horrible experience trying to get Ron Cey's autograph after a game once. He was not exactly fan-friendly.

I vaguely remember hearing something about them thinking he plays SS lazily. The ESPN guys were talking about it during last night's broadcast. Apparently, he has some issues with laziness, taking direction from coaches, and actually showing up on time.

Except that he's not. So the Cubs don't get clutch hits, but when they do, it's lucky? Not that I have any faith in Blanco and Miles offensively, nor am I saying that the Cubs have hit well in clutch situations, but give credit where credit is due. A hit with RISP from Miles and Blanco is just as good as a hit with RISP from anyone else.

I really don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that players back then would've taken the PEDs of today if they were as easily attainable AND if the information about the PEDs was available to them. It's not just about illegal substances that one puts into his body. It's about the lengths one will go to gain an advantage. Whether it's doctoring a ball, loading a bat, taking greenies, taking steroids, etc., players have proven throughout the history of the game that they are willing to cheat.

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok. I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. Who is saying that? This is just on the last page and one I remembered. Fair enough. But again, I'll restate that the degree to which they help isn't really known. You have a lot of players that took them that didn't become great or even good.

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok. I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. Who is saying that?

I don't think anyone is saying that they didn't help. The degree to which they helped isn't clear when you consider that many players that took them didn't see major spikes in their homerun totals or top the leaderboard in ERA or strikeouts.

There were also several guys that took them that didn't become elite hitters. There's much more to this era than just steroids that has helped lead to better offensive numbers.

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another. why? one gives the player a MUCH, MUCH bigger advantage. do people really not think there's a difference? I'm not saying that the stuff today isn't much better than the stuff back in the '60s. But again, if you're going to get up in arms about PEDs, then why give players from previous eras a free pass for taking substances? Also, as goony and others have stated, is it really that big of an advantage when so many players are taking them?

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another.

I don't see why PEDs would effect the performances of two completely different types of athletes in ways that perfectly balance out. In fact, I'd be shocked if they did. I doubt it's a perfect balance, but pitchers would seem to benefit greatly from the use of steroids, considering how useful steroids are when it comes to muscle recovery. A relief pitcher on steroids throwing on three consecutive nights is probably going to suffer less of a drop-off in his stuff on that third night as opposed to a "clean" relief pitcher. A starting pitcher on steroids coming off a 120-pitch effort in his last outing might come back stronger in his next couple starts than he would if he wasn't on something. Pitchers are more likely to benefit from the ability to bounce back, recover from injury or avoid injury. They aren't that likely to be that much better of a pitcher. Steroids won't help get movement on a fastball or break on a slider. They might help throw harder, but the ability to throw hard isn't necessarily a strength thing. Hitters definitely benefit from swinging harder. So steroids might prevent teams from having to use their weaker replacement arms as often, but expansion played a part in negating that benefit. I agree with that, and I feel that it's a big benefit. If a team can use its best relievers more often and still get their best stuff, that's big. We know that steroids aren't going to turn Patton into Marmol. But they could help Marmol have at or near his best stuff in his third or fourth consecutive appearance.* *I'm not implying that Marmol uses.

I don't see why PEDs would effect the performances of two completely different types of athletes in ways that perfectly balance out. In fact, I'd be shocked if they did. I doubt it's a perfect balance, but pitchers would seem to benefit greatly from the use of steroids, considering how useful steroids are when it comes to muscle recovery. A relief pitcher on steroids throwing on three consecutive nights is probably going to suffer less of a drop-off in his stuff on that third night as opposed to a "clean" relief pitcher. A starting pitcher on steroids coming off a 120-pitch effort in his last outing might come back stronger in his next couple starts than he would if he wasn't on something.

You're right.....it just so happened that a record that stood for 30+ years just happened to be obliterated by three players that were all on steroids. And in your mind an equal factor would be smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, poor pitchers and juiced balls? If you want to ignore the obvious, be my guest. The obvious, of course, being that hitters weren't the only ones on PEDs. A lot of pitchers were taking them, too, yet a lot of people continue to ignore that fact.

hoss, you want to double check your numbers there. He's not hitting anywhere near .400 on 0-0 and 0-1. Soriano AB R H 2b 3b HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS BABIP P/PA IsoD RBI% Pitch# 1 32 5 10 1 0 3 4 0 0 0.313 0.313 0.625 0.938 0.241 1.00 0.000 0.111 Pitch# 2 49 6 14 5 0 3 8 0 0 0.286 0.294 0.571 0.866 0.239 2.00 0.008 0.250 Pitch# 3 40 4 7 0 0 4 7 0 11 0.175 0.175 0.475 0.650 0.120 3.00 0.000 0.120 Pitch# 4 40 6 8 4 0 1 1 9 12 0.200 0.347 0.375 0.722 0.259 4.00 0.147 0.000 Pitch# 5 46 8 9 3 0 3 6 5 22 0.196 0.275 0.457 0.731 0.286 5.00 0.079 0.167 Pitch# 6 24 7 4 0 0 0 1 4 11 0.167 0.310 0.167 0.477 0.308 6.00 0.144 0.167 Pitch# 7 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 0.286 0.375 0.286 0.661 1.000 7.00 0.089 0.000 Pitch# 8 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 0.167 0.375 0.167 0.542 0.500 8.00 0.208 0.000 Pitch# 9 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.667 0.667 1.000 1.667 1.000 9.00 0.000 0.000 Pitch# 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.00 0.000 0.000 Pitch# 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.00 0.000 0.000 Pitch# 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 12.00 1.000 0.000 All Pitches 249 40 57 14 0 14 27 22 66 0.229 0.296 0.454 0.749 0.254 3.86 0.067 0.131 Fred, I think he's talking about career. Soriano is a career .399 hitter when putting the first pitch in play. He's at .384 on 1-0, .387 on 2-0, and .350 on 0-1.

Since May 1: Soto: .270/.359/.396 Lee: .336/.427/.549 Bradley: .262/.336/.411 Lee's been great the past month and a half. Soto and Bradley are improving, but both could still be a lot better. However, as these guys improve, Soriano and Fukudome are struggling big time.

I was supporting your point. I figured that out after I posted. Was too lazy to go back and edit.

It's not like he's a bad hitter on 0-1. His career line on 0-1 is .350/.365/.670 and that's in a decent sample of 575 plate appearances. It's when he gets to two strikes that he tends to suffer...like most hitters do. That's just at-bats that end on 0-1. After an 0-1 count overall, he's .242 .271 .423. League average this year .227 .272 .344 So he's more or less the same amount better than league average 0-1 as he is overall. I understand that. I was simply addressing his point that Soriano is in bad shape if he takes the first pitch. The big issue for Soriano, like for many hitters, is hitting with two strikes.

I don't count them equally at all. Its not like the Cubs were better at NOT getting shutout, its the exact opposite. Out of those 14 teams, the Cubs were like 12th in being able to score 4 or more runs. They led the league simply because they had a stacked lineup that could put up 7+ on a consistent basis. Without stats and hefty analysis, most people who watched the majority of Cub games from 2007 until now can discern that the Cubs can struggle just as easily as anyone else because they 'clutch' fundamentals in close games. Yes, their high-dollar payroll got on base and slugged with the best of them, but they also got shut down nearly more than anyone else... 2008 Cubs (MLB Average) Overall: .278/.354/.443 (.264/.333/.416) RISP: .278/.367/.452 (.266/.355/.414) 2 outs, RISP: .222/.337/.361 (.241/.351/.381) Late & close: .278/.369/.438 (.252/.333/.395) Tie Game: .279/.355/.447 (.264/.336/.415) Within 1 Run: .284/.361/.454 (.264/.335/.416) Within 2 Runs: .280/.356/.449 (.264/.334/.414) Within 3 Runs: .283/.359/.456 (.264/.334/.416) Within 4 Runs: .282/.358/.452 (.264/.334/.416) Margin >4 Runs: .257/.335/.394 (.261/.326/.416) High Leverage: .275/.359/.429 (.264/.339/.411) Medium Leverage: .287/.354/.461 (.267/.334/.420) Low Leverage: .271/.352/.433 (.261/.329/.415) The Cubs struggled in the "2 outs, RISP" situation. In all other "clutch" situations, they were pretty much right at, if not better than their overall averages. They didn't choke in those situations.

It's not like he's a bad hitter on 0-1. His career line on 0-1 is .350/.365/.670 and that's in a decent sample of 575 plate appearances. It's when he gets to two strikes that he tends to suffer...like most hitters do.

This has zero foundation, when swinging for the fences and bad pitches has led to more strikeouts, GIDP, and rally-killing pop-ups to foul territory have meant a consistently bad offense. When Derrek Lee leads off the inning with a single, and there is ZERO power threat behind him, you MUST do the little things to move him over and drive him in. Its as simple as that. We have a leadoff hitter that doesn't run. We have back-order hitters that can't get the bunt down. We have an entire lineup of guys who choke with a runner on third and less than 2 outs. Shorten up with 2 strikes and go the other way... Theriot just showed you that THAT wins ballgames. Your obsession with bunting is comical. And swinging for the fences leads to more GIDPs? Weak contact can do the same. As for the "lineup of guys who choke with a runner on third and less than 2 outs", they performed admirably in that situation last year, posting a .346/.390/.515 line in those situations. Considering that they had the same hitting coach up until yesterday, what are they doing differently fundamentally this season that's causing them to post a .248/.340/.371 line in those same situations this season? They weren't the small ball team you crave last season, and they thrived in those situations.

Let's compare the Cubs to a few other playoff teams from last season: Tampa Bay 3 or fewer runs: 20-41 (.328) Road: 40-41 (.494) Red Sox 3 or fewer runs: 11-45 (.196) Road: 39-42 (.481) Phillies: 3 or fewer runs: 12-47 (.203) Road: 44-37 (.543) Cubs: 3 or fewer runs: 16-50 (.242) Road: 42-38 (.525) So the Cubs had a better winning percentage last season than the world champs in games where they scored three or fewer runs. They had a better road record than the other World Series team.

Some of the contestants are a little over the top, but that just makes it more enjoyable when they get hit in the groin by the suckerpunch wall or do a face plant. The obstacles on that show look pretty punishing.

Really? You might want to check again, because looking at the stats, Theriot posted a .326 OBP in 2007. That's nowhere remotely close to "good". So you want to change the overall philosophy that led to the best offense in the league last season? That doesn't sound like a very good idea. A healthy dose of "small ball" is not going to jump start this offense. I'd be very curious to know how you would go about improving the hitting with RISP.

Getting rid of Miles could improve the offense at least a little. Addition by subtraction in this case. The guy has an OPS+ of 28 in 123 plate appearances. He has no power and no patience, giving him very little offensive value.

Yanking him off the field wouldn't have helped the situation. Giving him a day off tomorrow might not be a bad idea, but I don't see how pulling him from the field in the middle of the inning would have been a good idea. In the end, his bone-headed mistake didn't cost the Cubs a run. That's not the point. It's a symptom of the disease lately. I understand that. But to think it's a good idea to pull arguably the most volatile player in the majors in the middle of the inning when he knows he just embarrassed the crap out of himself in front of over 40,000 people...well, I just don't think it's a smart move to make.