fromthestretch

When you can predict the outcome of an at bat 7 times out of 10, the player you are referring to is pretty bad. And I wasn't referring to just predicting whether he makes an out or not, but rather where he makes his out. For what Pierre offered at 6m, I'd rather have Alex Sanchez for less than a million. .280 for a lead off hitter would be good if they had an OBP of .350+ to go with it. Pierre's .330 is not good enough, and tack on the 20 times he got himself out attempting to steal, and it's even worse. Pierre really only has 1 skill. Speed. After his speed, there is very little to get excited about. No offense, but what do you mean about the 7 times out of 10 part? I was sitting in a bar with a friend this summer watching the Cubs/Padres game on May 6. Everytime Pierre came up, I said "he's going to hit it to the second baseman." I was right three times in five at-bats.

His .330 OBP in 2006 and .326 OBP in 2005 are terrible for hitter that is expected to set the table for the middle of the order. Also, considering his speed, he gets caught stealing quite a bit. He has no power to speak of, which wouldn't be a problem if he was getting on base at a higher rate and not running himself into so many outs. Ok I didnt deny that his last two years were his best first off! Secondly not every person in baseball needs to have power to succeed in the Major Leagues Pierre has gotten by for like the last 8 years. If you'd read my post, I never said he needed power to succeed. However, his lack of power gets magnified when he's not doing what he's paid to do: get on base and use his speed. He has nothing else to fall back on. His speed is worthless if he's not on base often enough to use it. And I wouldn't exactly say he's gotten by for eight seasons. He's had three pretty lousy seasons in his career, including the last two. I'm not going to argue your point about Soriano, because in a perfect world, he would be batting somewhere around fifth in the order instead of first. As for defense, we have no way of knowing how he'll adjust to playing center until he actually plays it. With his speed and athleticism, he could end up being decent out there. Despite your claims, Pierre is not one of the best leadoff hitters out there. Since he's proven to be allergic to the base on balls, he pretty much needs to hit around .310 to get his OBP to a respectable level for a leadoff guy. And the fact that he's getting thrown out on over 25% of his stolen base attempts doesn't help. Unless Pierre can revert back to his 2003 or 2004 form, the Cubs are better off without him and his bloated contract.

His .330 OBP in 2006 and .326 OBP in 2005 are terrible for hitter that is expected to set the table for the middle of the order. Also, considering his speed, he gets caught stealing quite a bit. He has no power to speak of, which wouldn't be a problem if he was getting on base at a higher rate and not running himself into so many outs.

I hope you also like seeing people steal third base, because that would happen a bit more often with a lefty catcher. Not the easiest throw to make for a lefty, especially with a right-handed hitter in the box.

2005 and 2006 combined stats Player A: 449.1 IP, 3.84 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 6.45 K/9, 1.71 K/BB Player B: 446 IP, 3.79 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 7.65 K/9, 3.54 K/BB Which player is the ace, and which player is the 2 or 3 starter? They are the same age (only 4 days apart actually). Harang is player B. Who is that other guy? I would guess Zito.

He didn't say that someone should be put on the roster only as an emergency catcher-he just asked if anybody currently on the roster could serve as an emergency catcher. While it may not come up during the season, it's still a good thing to know. It may not come up but could easily happen. Pinch hitter for the starter then the back up gets hurt. Presto you need a 3rd catcher. Like I said earlier, when is Blanco going to be pinch hitting while there are still players on the bench? He's the worst bat on the bench. I think he's talk about a situation where Blanco is starting, is pinch-hit for then Barrett is injured. For the record my money is on either Ward or Theriot being the number three catcher. A left-handed emergency catcher? That would be something to see.

I'm not asking for numbers, and I'm certainly not claiming he's great at calling a game. What I am saying is that you might be over-estimating the impact that actually has. Sure, every pitcher would love to have a catcher that can call a great game, and I think every catcher who reaches the majors should have a decent idea of how to call a game. However, the pitcher is the one that throws the ball. And unless specifically told otherwise, he has the ability to shake off the catcher. I'd like to think that if a starting pitcher has an issue with the way his catcher calls games, the pitcher would be smart enough to sit down with him before the game and go over his gameplan for approaching the opposing lineup, talk to him between innings, etc. And for the record, I'm all for throwing 0-2 fastballs...just not in the strikezone. You can use it to set the hitter up for something else. You can try to throw it a few inches off the plate to see if the ump will give you the call or if the hitter will fish for it. You can throw it inside off the plate to try to move the hitter back a little. I'm not saying throw it in EVERY 0-2 count. But if you can spot it well, it can be an effective 0-2 pitch.

I'm not picking on you here, since a few others have mentioned how bad Barrett is at calling games, but this just isn't a strong argument. Chances are, unless the signs are coming from the dugout, the pitcher has every right to shake him off until he gets the sign he wants. (And if the signs are coming from the dugout, that's not Barrett's fault.) Bottom line, the pitcher is in control of what he throws more often than not. Other things to consider is that even if Barrett is calling for an 0-2 or 1-2 fastball, he's certainly not calling for the pitcher to throw it in the middle of the strikezone. Depending on the hitter, a fastball thrown to the right spot might be the right call in that situation, but it's still up to the pitcher to execute. Pitchers who blame their problems on the catcher's ability (or lack thereof) to call a game are simply looking for a scapegoat. Catchers who are receiving for pitchers who can't find the zone with their breaking balls may not have much choice on what they call, either. Exactly. This wasn't exactly a team that exhibited pinpoint control.

I'm not picking on you here, since a few others have mentioned how bad Barrett is at calling games, but this just isn't a strong argument. Chances are, unless the signs are coming from the dugout, the pitcher has every right to shake him off until he gets the sign he wants. (And if the signs are coming from the dugout, that's not Barrett's fault.) Bottom line, the pitcher is in control of what he throws more often than not. Other things to consider is that even if Barrett is calling for an 0-2 or 1-2 fastball, he's certainly not calling for the pitcher to throw it in the middle of the strikezone. Depending on the hitter, a fastball thrown to the right spot might be the right call in that situation, but it's still up to the pitcher to execute. Pitchers who blame their problems on the catcher's ability (or lack thereof) to call a game are simply looking for a scapegoat. I think I've hijacked this thread enough, if you want to copy this to a new thread, I'd be glad to reply. Also - this is a really good conversation :D I think unless Tim or another mod wants to split the thread, you can reply here. This technically is a thread about quotes from the pitching coach, so I think pitch selection and game-calling are relevent.

I'm not picking on you here, since a few others have mentioned how bad Barrett is at calling games, but this just isn't a strong argument. Chances are, unless the signs are coming from the dugout, the pitcher has every right to shake him off until he gets the sign he wants. (And if the signs are coming from the dugout, that's not Barrett's fault.) Bottom line, the pitcher is in control of what he throws more often than not. Other things to consider is that even if Barrett is calling for an 0-2 or 1-2 fastball, he's certainly not calling for the pitcher to throw it in the middle of the strikezone. Depending on the hitter, a fastball thrown to the right spot might be the right call in that situation, but it's still up to the pitcher to execute. Pitchers who blame their problems on the catcher's ability (or lack thereof) to call a game are simply looking for a scapegoat.

It was made abundantly clear to me last weekend that all of those guys have options, so they aren't worried about the logjam. Are you sure? I thought Gooz was out of options. I think he was granted another option due to medical reasons.

There is absolutely no reason for Wuertz to be back in AAA. I believe Cotts has an option left, and if both Eyre and Ohman are on the team, I'd rather have Cotts sent down than Wuertz. Either that or they need to trade one of their bullpen lefties.

And I hope Hendry is right about Izturis. But, I'm very, very skeptical that Izturis will be any better with a bat than the worst SS's in the league. if he stays healthy & plays great defense, does it really matter what he hits? the sox & cards won the WS with guys who had .713 & .694 ops's respectively. Of course it matters. That black hole in the lineup has more of an impact than anything he does on defense, no matter how good his glove is. Those teams may have won with those shortstops, but it wasn't because of them. how many teams have won anything on the offense of their 8th place hitter? The Red Sox won in 2004 with a combined .833 OPS from the eighth spot in the order. I'd be much happier with that than a .700 OPS.

And I hope Hendry is right about Izturis. But, I'm very, very skeptical that Izturis will be any better with a bat than the worst SS's in the league. if he stays healthy & plays great defense, does it really matter what he hits? the sox & cards won the WS with guys who had .713 & .694 ops's respectively. The White Sox also had a team ERA of 3.61. I'd say that played a bigger role in their WS title than a guy with a .713 OPS.

If memory serves, I seem to recall him saying he tried steroids very briefly and couldn't discern a real benefit from them. If you ever seen House in person, he's tiny, maybe 5'7"-5'8" on a good day, from what I recall he might've been one of the 1st to try steroids to add velo and that's probably the 1st time he realized that maintaining flexibility is more important than adding mass as it didn't add velo. He believes in nutritional supplements to help speed up the recovery time between outings. btw, according to this he's 5'11 and was 190 lbs when he played. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_House Athletes routinely pad their height on rosters. Billy Wagner is listed as 5'10, but he's closer to 5'8. Sosa is shorter than his listed height of 6'0. The only time I've ever seen a player in any sport that was actually taller than what they were listed was when Brad Miller was playing for Purdue. He was listed as 6'11 on the roster but was actually 7'0.

Back when it was still unclear what was happening, I'll give you that. But these past few years they've been gloming on to Bonds, stinking it up on the field-----really doing nothing of note as Barry becomes known as the seminal steroid cheat of all time. I realize some people don't think that reflects badly on the organization. For me, it really does. It reflects badly on the Cubs if they knew about Sammy's use too---although I think it's a little more obscure what the Cubs might have known and when. With the Giants, it's clear. For at least the past 3 seasons, they've been fully aware of what Barry is, and they haven't shown an ounce of concern. Not trying to be argumentative, but I'm curious what you think they should have done with him the last three years. Wasn't he in the middle of a multi-year deal at that time? It's doubtful the Giants could just release him for steroid use, since he never failed a test and the only real knowledge anyone has of his usage is leaked grand jury testimony, which they never should have known in the first place. You really can't blame them if they aren't eager to police their own players when no other team is. If they did release him, they lose a lot of money. By essentially dumping Bonds, they'd alienate about half (if not more) of their fan base. Not only that, but they'd eliminate any hope they had of competing.

It's a good thing Doug Mientkiewicz was never a Cub.

I don't think that's the discussion. I think Prior could easily get more then 1/3.5. But I don't think he could get AJ type of contract or money unless he has a healthy season. He could possibly get a 1 or 2 year deal at 10 million. Some team would take that risk. I don't think anyone is saying he would get a Burnett-type contract. I was just using Burnett as an example of a pitcher with a long history of injury getting a multi-year deal. I certainly couldn't see Prior getting a five-year offer, but 2-3 years? Of course.

Yet! That's the rub no one knows what's wrong with Prior. Everyone knew that AJ had surgery, recovered, and had a good year prior to his Free-Agency. Again, you can't compare the two. If Prior has a good year this year, then yes, he's in line for a nice multi-year payday. Teams don't know what to think of Prior right now. He has to at least prove he can take the mound, before a team offers him a multi-year deal. I'm not saying he would get a five-year deal or $11 million a year. But to say that no team would offer him any more than a one-year deal, especially in this market, is ridiculous IMO. (It should also be said that Prior would have been at or very near 200 innings in 2005 had Brad Hawpe hit the ball two inches to the left.) As far as Burnett, that's great that he recovered and had a good year. You know who else had a couple good seasons a couple years removed from Tommy John surgery? Kerry Wood. How'd that work out for him? Point is, Burnett was a big risk, and teams were willing to take that risk. Mark Mulder is coming off a terrible year, just had shoulder surgery, and got a multi-year deal for good money. Randy Johnson is 43 coming off a year with an 88 ERA+, just had back surgery, and a team not only gave up prospects for him, but also gave him a very nice contract extension. Pitchers like Ted Lilly and Gil Meche - two guys with a history of average-to-below average performance and have never reached 200 innings - are getting 4-5 year deals for $10+ million per season. Some team offering a 2-3 year deal for Prior for $6-8 million (CONTINGENT ON PASSING A PHYSICAL) would not out of the question. It's all moot anyway. He's not a free agent, so we'll never know for sure how it would have played out.

Do people forget the contract that A.J. Burnett got from Toronto after the 2005 season? Sure, he was coming off a season in which he threw over 200 innings, but he has as much of an injury history as prior, if not moreso. And if I'm not mistaken, Burnett's injuries weren't the fluke "collided with a baserunner" or "got hit by a line drive off the pitching elbow" type of injuries. If Prior was a free agent, I don't doubt that he would have been offered a nice multi-year deal, contingent on passing a physical. If he doesn't pass, they withdraw the offer. But his injury history isn't going to limit the initial offers to one-year deals. The key being he was coming off a season where he was healthy. That's not a fair comparasion. If Prior is healthy this year and pitches decent, sure, he'll get the big deal that AJ got. It is a fair comparison. The fact that he managed to stay healthy for one season doesn't erase his history of arm problems prior to that season or the fact that he had major arm surgery. While Prior may not be coming off a 200-inning season, he hasn't needed surgery on his arm. Two of his injuries have been flukes. There's no doubt in my mind that at least a few teams would have made him multi-year offers, contingent on passing a physical.

Do people forget the contract that A.J. Burnett got from Toronto after the 2005 season? Sure, he was coming off a season in which he threw over 200 innings, but he has as much of an injury history as prior, if not moreso. And if I'm not mistaken, Burnett's injuries weren't the fluke "collided with a baserunner" or "got hit by a line drive off the pitching elbow" type of injuries. If Prior was a free agent, I don't doubt that he would have been offered a nice multi-year deal, contingent on passing a physical. If he doesn't pass, they withdraw the offer. But his injury history isn't going to limit the initial offers to one-year deals. That's simply not true: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6393 I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think Prior could have received offers similar to if not better than what Mulder got had he been a free agent.

Do people forget the contract that A.J. Burnett got from Toronto after the 2005 season? Sure, he was coming off a season in which he threw over 200 innings, but he has as much of an injury history as prior, if not moreso. And if I'm not mistaken, Burnett's injuries weren't the fluke "collided with a baserunner" or "got hit by a line drive off the pitching elbow" type of injuries. If Prior was a free agent, I don't doubt that he would have been offered a nice multi-year deal, contingent on passing a physical. If he doesn't pass, they withdraw the offer. But his injury history isn't going to limit the initial offers to one-year deals.

Perhaps he just doesn't feel comfortable talking to the press. Not everyone is ecstatic to have cameras and mics shoved into their faces, with reporters asking the same questions over and over. Different people have different ways of expressing how they feel. Would I say he's happy? Probably not, but I don't think it has anything to do with the team/city he plays for. I think it has to do with the fact that he's had some freak injuries (collision with Giles, line drive off his elbow, etc.) that are out of his control and have prevented him from doing what he loves to do: pitch. Having people ask him about his injuries all the time certainly isn't going to make him any happier either. And for the irrational folks who keep claiming he's soft, I think the fact that he came back so quickly after a line drive off his pitching elbow shows he's pretty tough.

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do. I guess Nolan Ryan forgot how to win in 1987, when he went 8-16 despite leading the league in ERA (142 ERA+). Jim Palmer apparently didn't know how to win in 1974 when he went 7-12 with a 3.27 ERA (105 ERA+). On the flip side, Bobby Witt was an expert in the field of winning in 1996, going 16-12 despite his 5.41 ERA (93 ERA+). Same with Steve Trachsel last year with his 15-8 record and 4.97 ERA (87 ERA+). Over the course of a career, a good pitcher will most likely win more often than not, unless he spends his entire career on a very lousy team. Even then, he'll probably be over .500. However, I don't believe in the idea that pitchers "know how to win." Certain pitchers have the ability to keep their composure during tough innings or even tough at-bats. They know how to pace themselves and when to reach back for a little something extra. That's not knowing how to win, it's knowing how to pitch. If you truly do value wins as an individual statistic, how much emphasis do you put on wins "earned" by a reliever? A guy can come into a game, cough up the lead, and have his team score enough runs to get the lead back before he's removed from the game and still get credit for the win.

Gotta love how Bonds throws a teammate under the bus on a whim, then when it leaks to the press does a 180 quicker than an olympic ice skater. Or it could have just been a misunderstanding in the first place. A few articles yesterday alluded to the possibility that Bonds may not have implicated Sweeney in the first place. Bonds may be a jerk (I'm not arguing the opposite), but that doesn't mean that every bad thing that is printed or said about him is true.