fromthestretch

No one is saying that ballplayers shouldn't be analysts. All people are asking for is a better screening process when selecting which ones get to sit behind a microphone. I agree that having a former player in the booth can make the broadcast more interesting. They have a lot of playing experience to draw from, which can really help (see Steve Stone). A lot of them probably have great stories to mix into a broadcast. The problem is, a lot of the guys they get to do this job come off as arrogant and closed-minded (see Joe Morgan, Tim McCarver and John Kruk) and many of them aren't very articulate (see Joe Carter). The networks worry about getting a recognizable name in the booth. Screw that. A smart, articulate player who hit .230 during a five-year career could bring just as much to a broadcast as Tim McCarver or Joe Morgan do.

Useless only to those that can't understand a very simple analogy. I think I'm starting to understand why you always express the same opinion over and over again regarding the use of statistics in player evaluation.

that was a dial-up response. :lol: Heck yeah, it was. Stupid middle of nowhere non-high speed offering part of the world. Bloomington? :wink:

He's a decent source of power and OBP. His minor league numbers were impressive. Too bad his home park is the size of a national forrest.

I have a feeling Randy Hundley is sitting in the booth for the last time. :lol:

I remember some of the past threads you were involved in regarding Barrett's defensive abilities. I don't recall anyone saying he was a good defensive catcher. About the best anyone has really called him is average. He's probably a bit below that. In no way, shape, or form is he even close to being the worst defensive catcher ever. He also probably could have used a few more innings behind the dish in spring training. With his involvement in the WBC, I doubt he got as much playing time as he would have had he been with the Cubs all spring.

Why is everyone so willing to forget that Pierre was awful in 2002, as well? A .675 OPS (including a .332 OBP) in Colorado is just plain bad. It's not like last year was a first for him.

if you have a guy with a checkered past like wood, why would you ride him so hard in 2003? In my opinion, ridden hard in 2003 or not, he would still have arm problems. I just think the damage had already been done. If Wood was an Astro or Cardinal, would you still believe he could come back and be relatively injury-free or is it the Cub fan in us that makes us believe there's still hope in him? I know if he didn't pitch for the Cubs I'd think he was done. If he didn't pitch for the Cubs, and the team he was with got fed up with his injuries and got rid of him, he'd probably follow along in the footsteps of Dempster and Williamson as a pitcher with arm problems that the Cubs picked up off the scrap heap and offered a one-year deal plus team option for a second year.

Um, Hermanson's relief stats were in response to a claim that prior to last season, he had a decent track record as a reliever. Obviously, he didn't. He may have been very good last year, but no one in their right mind could have expected him to perform that well, considering his career numbers. I really don't blame Guillen for it. He had a very average pitcher in his 30s (one who no one was probably counting on to be a fixture on the pitching staff for years to come) who was pitching much better than anyone could have hoped. Like you said, he played the hot hand, and considering the depth they had in the bullpen, I don't blame him. If Hermanson gets hurt, despite how well he was pitching, the White Sox had enough depth to cover for losing him. Combine that with the fact that Hermanson is most likely not the future of that bullpen, then it only makes sense that if you have to use someone a little more than you like to get out of a few jams, Hermanson is that person. You get the outs you need, and you do it without negatively impacting your young arms.

I think Wood's history of misuse began well before the Cubs even drafted him, but that's no excuse to keep doing it. There's no question that one usage pattern can affect Pitcher A one way and Pitcher B another. But I think the safest thing to do is err on the side of caution. Protect the pitchers you are counting on to be a key part of the team for many years. There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early. As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently. I agree that there are pitchers who need to work on lowering their pitch counts. But I think that also goes back to coaching, not necessarily the manager, but certainly the pitching coach on his coaching staff. If you have a young pitcher that is consistently hitting the 95-100 pitch mark by the fifth inning, then certainly work with him on how to be more efficient with his pitches. If he can't fix the issue, then decisions need to be made. Do you build your bullpen with the understanding that you need a couple guys who are capable of going 2-3 innings to compensate? Do you convert the starter to a reliever? Do you carry 12 pitchers instead of 11? Do you trade the pitcher? Do you get a new pitching coach?

I think everyone is aware that there are several factors that can cause injury to a pitcher. However, if it's within your power as a manager to control one of those factors (pitch counts), don't you think it makes sense to do so?

I think Wood's history of misuse began well before the Cubs even drafted him, but that's no excuse to keep doing it. Didn't he pitch something like two complete game shutouts in the SAME DAY in high school. Whose his highschool coach? I want to take a bat to his knees, so he won't do that to another stud pitcher. I believe he started both ends of a double-header either the same day he was drafted or within a day or two of the draft. I'm sure someone on here knows more details about the story.

I think Wood's history of misuse began well before the Cubs even drafted him, but that's no excuse to keep doing it. There's no question that one usage pattern can affect Pitcher A one way and Pitcher B another. But I think the safest thing to do is err on the side of caution. Protect the pitchers you are counting on to be a key part of the team for many years.

He may have been an important part, but he was also a hell of a lot easier to replace than a young frontline starter, especially on a team like the Sox that had a decent selection of relievers plug into that closer role.

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate. For that matter, the Cubs got lucky with Dempster. At least Hermanson had a track record of late inning success coming into the season. Not much but some... All Hermanson had was a track record of late-inning mediocrity. 4.33 relief ERA with the Giants in 2004. 5.10 relief ERA with Cardinals/Giants in 2003. I think there's a big difference between mis-using a 20-something year-old starter with a very high ceiling and a 30-something journeyman reliever who happened to pull a good season out of his rear-end. During the course of a season, a manager is probably going to encounter at a few situations - due to injury, extra inning games, double-headers or whatnot - where he's going to have to use a reliever he shouldn't be using or extend a starter a little longer than anyone would want. In those situations, you have to make a decision which pitcher is going to take one for the team. If that choice is between a young fireballer who the team is expecting to be a front-line starter for the next 5+ years or a mediocre journeyman reliever (ie Hermanson, Rusch, Mulholland, etc.), I'll give the ball to the latter everytime.

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate.

That's all well and good, but I don't think you can retroactively enforce it. It's certainly within the right of MLB to enforce these things now and moving forward, but you can't go back and say that because he used in 1999, we're going to ignore his stats from that point forward. There's no way to pinpoint the exact day he started taking steroids, just like there's no way of knowing exactly how many other players were taking them. Also consider that people that have been caught cheating in other ways - such as Joe Niekro and the nail file - have simply been suspended. They haven't had their stats marked with an asterisk or completely removed from record books as a lot of people are calling for with Bonds. I'm not saying you're calling for that type of action, but a lot of people are. As I mentioned before, I don't care about HOF, nor the * debate. But I think a suspension would be in order and it would do a lot to take care of at least half of the * debate, and might even delay HOF induction, which would have it's own affect. Whether he goes into the HOF is irrelevant. I was using that to simply point out that I don't believe steroids made him a great player. I could honestly care less if he actually gets his mug on a plaque there or not. I don't see anything wrong with suspending him now, if there is indisputable evidence that he did these things. Ban him from baseball if that's the punishment that fits. But what he's already accomplished on the field is done. I don't know of any other "cheaters" that have had their numbers thrown out the window. And as far as I can tell, they'll never be able to know exactly how many other players were taking things as recently as two years ago, including how many pitchers were on something when they faced Bonds. That may or may not be something you're arguing or even care about, but that's the thing that has me the most bent out of shape about all of this. I listen to these people calling into radio shows and writing all their articles about how his stats shouldn't count or how he should be thrown out of the record books, and I personally don't see any justification for it. Even though we'll most likely never know what percentage of players were on performance-enhancing drugs in the past, what would any of you think if it happened to turn out that over 50% of players (including pitchers) were on some sort of performance-enhancing drug for let's say the past 10-15 years? Would you consider it to have been a much more level playing field? I'm not trying to call anyone out here. Just curious.

That's all well and good, but I don't think you can retroactively enforce it. It's certainly within the right of MLB to enforce these things now and moving forward, but you can't go back and say that because he used in 1999, we're going to ignore his stats from that point forward. There's no way to pinpoint the exact day he started taking steroids, just like there's no way of knowing exactly how many other players were taking them. Also consider that people that have been caught cheating in other ways - such as Joe Niekro and the nail file - have simply been suspended. They haven't had their stats marked with an asterisk or completely removed from record books as a lot of people are calling for with Bonds. I'm not saying you're calling for that type of action, but a lot of people are.

I've always heard that steroids fell under the same category of other drugs. But there wasn't any testing, that's why you could get away with it. If you got busted for stuff by the law, then MLB could act, but they couldn't test you, so if you stayed clear of the police, you were fine. I'll have to look into it, and see what I can find. If it was against the rules all this time (prior to the testing policy), then that certainly alters my opinion on all of this a bit. That being said, I did find a few interesting things: 1. Of the 12 players that have been suspended by MLB for steroid use, six are pitchers. 2. On 4/4/05, 38 minor leaguers were suspended of steroid use. Of those 38, 17 were pitchers. 3. On 5/12/05, 11 minor leaguers were suspended of steroid use. Of those 11, seven were pitchers. In all, 30 of those 61 players suspended (nearly half) have been pitchers. If there were rules in place for steroid usage prior to testing at the major league level, Bonds certainly is guilty. But you do have to wonder how many "juiced" pitchers he faced day in and day out. I do agree with the Neyer quote posted earlier. Steroids didn't make Bonds a great player. If anything, they enabled him to sustain his high level of performance for a longer period of time. If you agree with the allegations that he started taking it after the 1998 season, and factor in his career averages prior to that, he's probably a 550-600 home run guy instead of 700+. Certainly a big difference, but still HOF-worthy, when you factor in a career average that probably would have been in the .290s, 1500+ RBI, 500+ stolen bases, and what would have probably been a career OBP over .400 and career SLG of .570 or so, plus very good defense for a good portion of his career.

How do you feel about the whole 'spitball pitchers in the Hall' argument? Obviously obtaining spit is only gross and not illegal so it's not exactly the same, but do most baseball fans resent pitchers who may or may not have cheated when they were pitching? Is that a breach of sportsmanship? I'm not even sure how I stand on the matter. Just curious what others think. (To clarify, I believe steroids = bad) Spit balls were allowed for a while. Steroids were always against the rules, they just didn't have testing. And I don't think the two are near the same category. Were they against the rules? I'm not questioning your statement, just curious. I was under the impression that until the testing started (or not too long before that anyway) that there were no MLB written rules regarding steroids. I'd be curious to see what was outlined by MLB regarding the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs prior to the testing policy that was recently put into place.

Considering that both are right-handed hitters, it doesn't seem likely.

The MiFi is portable, but inside the portable antenae is useless, so unless you have the means to hook it up to a base with a proper antenae situated near a window, I wouldn't reccomend it. But, the MiFi does come with earphones that can be plugged in directly. It also can be utilized through it's FM transmitter. So, while the MiFi would be idea if you wanted something portable, unless your class is outdoors or you could set up the base and indoor antenae in class, it would be useless for listening to Cubs games in class. Or, if you are inside bit near a window exposed to the south/southwest, it will work. My MiFi works indoors without the antenna in certain areas. My office faces southeast, and I get perfect reception. I have a SkyFi2. Greatest Christmas gift ever.

It's very hard not to be ready to watch some baseball after watching that video of Grace's homer.

Why? Is it so they can run in years without Futbol's World Cup and the Olympics? I believe that is exactly why. I remember hearing that they didn't want it the same year as Olympic competition (be it summer or winter).

That is an extremely poor way of judging a prospect and his chances. Not to pronounce their careers over, but it worked pretty well for Hee Seop Choi, Bobby Hill, and Jason Dubois, none of whom did anything worth writing home about in their big league auditions and all of whom are now gone and not having much impact on their new teams. Regarding Hill and Dubois, neither was really given what I would call a genuine opportunity. I'm certainly not saying either would have succeeded if they had been give that opportunity, but we'll never know. I probably wouldn't bet a lot of money on either of them to be all that productive. I see Choi differently though. I still feel he can be a productive major league hitter. He shared time with Karros in 2003, and still managed an .885 OPS pre-concussion. Look at the one opportunity he had to play regularly (2004 with Florida before they dealt him to LA). http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/choihe01.shtml For a 25-year old playing half his games in a pitcher's park, his numbers looked pretty nice. Then he gets dealt to LA, where he rotted on the bench (he got a whopping 12 at-bats that Sept....and they were very spread out). I still think that if you give him 500 plate appearances in a season, he's capable of putting up an OPS in the mid .800s. His strikeouts will be high (probably around 130 or so with 500 plate appearances). But 25 homers and 70 walks wouldn't be a stretch, especially if he could play in a more hitter-friendly environment than LA.