CubColtPacer

That is a debatable point on if it actually does give the Cubs the best chance to win. It's almost certainly not an easy enough decision either way to call it a dis-service if they decide to do it the other way.

I hope I've done enough already in this thread to show that this is a false assumption. You have not. The two things I have an issue with are: You have made no distinction between leads and deficits. A reliever coming in constantly with a 1-2 run deficit is not nearly as valuable as a reliever coming in constantly with a 1-2 runs lead. Giving up 1-2 runs when you're already behind simply lowers your already low chance of winning. Giving up 1-2 runs when you're barely ahead decreases your chances of winning a lot more than that. There is no distinction made that top relievers come in sometimes (and if the manager is smart, a good percentage of the time) with runners already on, which makes the game closer than the score would necessarily indicate.

Marmol in his career as a starter - meh. Marmol in his career as a reliever - ridiculoawesome. Shrug. ] This. Plus: Marmol's Expected Wins Added Above Replacement: 2.516, second in all of baseball behind Brad Lidge. Support Neutral Win-Loss Above Replacement (essentially the equivalent stat for a starter): Zambrano: 2.6, Dempster: 1.8. A high-leverage reliever is every bit as valuable as an ace starter. You keep saying this, but you neglect to take into account that a reliever, even the most overworked reliever in baseball, is throwing about 90 innings. A solid starter is generally throwing at least twice that for the year. So, then, to maximize overall team value, the most effective pitchers on the team should be used in situations where they throw the majority of the innings. I'd rather see Marmol get 200 innings and Marquis get 90 than the other way around. Even if a Marmol 90-inning year is hugely effective. Let's make this a fair comparison (to help out the Marmol as a starter argument, as Marquis to the bullpen hurts the argument). Marmol at his current production with a league average starter, and a league average reliever + Marmol as a starter. Marmol for 90 innings (1.64 ERA) + league average starter (4.47 ERA) for 200 innings=3.59 ERA league average reliever for 90 innings (3.77 ERA)+Marmol as a starter= ? Marmol would have to have a 3.51 ERA for a team to get the same production out of his as a starter as a reliever. Most of the other factors then tend to balance out. Your top reliever throws more close innings than an average starter. At the same time, starters are harder to find, and more expensive to pay for. It's too big of a gamble IMO. Marmol would have to pitch like a borderline ace just to get it to even out. There's not even close to a guarantee he will do that. He could be that, but he could be a lot worse. The chance of him being better than that and being one of the best 10 starters in the league is small compared to the chance that he would just be a league average starter.

Tennessee scores 6 in the 8th and 1 in the 9th to win 8-7 over Carolina. Colvin went 1-3 with a walk and a sacrifice bunt. As impressive as his walks have been lately, the cutting down of the strikeouts has also been very impressive. Only 2 in his last 10 games now.

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter. Patterson started 72 out of the first 79 games in 2005. I'd hardly call that jerking him around. His line after July 2nd of that year when he lost his job: .236/.274/.387 in 305 AB's. I don't agree with what they had him work on in the minor leagues, and believe that was a mistake. But I don't think they gave him the yo-yo treatment. They also didn't start him as much as I'd like after he came back, but he did start 37 out of the 50 games. Baylor and the injury were the worst things to happen to Patterson. He got a fair shot in 05. And, btw, fixing Pie's swing this early is a mistake, no matter how bad he looked. They're taking a huge gamble before even seeing how well he can adjust on his own. That's nice, but Corey was first called up to the majors in 2000. He went back to AAA in 2001, then got called up where he platooned for a while and then more or less turned into a pinch hitter for 2 months. The names you mentioned were Dusty and Hendry. I would agree that Patterson was yo-yo'd back in 2000-2001, but you said that Dusty and Hendry did it, and neither of them were in the key decision maker spots back then. Did you mean Baylor and MacPhail?

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter. Patterson started 72 out of the first 79 games in 2005. I'd hardly call that jerking him around. His line after July 2nd of that year when he lost his job: .236/.274/.387 in 305 AB's. I don't agree with what they had him work on in the minor leagues, and believe that was a mistake. But I don't think they gave him the yo-yo treatment. They also didn't start him as much as I'd like after he came back, but he did start 37 out of the 50 games. Baylor and the injury were the worst things to happen to Patterson. He got a fair shot in 05. And, btw, fixing Pie's swing this early is a mistake, no matter how bad he looked. They're taking a huge gamble before even seeing how well he can adjust on his own.

The problem with Soriano at second now is that he is having a problem getting started. His first few steps are taking longer than normal. His range at 2nd would probably be even worse than his range in left. Then of course that would make him dive for more balls, and that would cause a lot more stress on his legs. I think he would struggle there and get hurt more. It's not a thing the Cubs should really be considering until DeRosa's contract runs out, anyway. With questions with both the starting rotation and bullpen after this year, I'm not sure the Cubs could afford to take on another 13-15 million dollar offensive player, and that's what it would take to be an upgrade on the current setup.

No Russell Martin tonight, so that should help Gallagher a little bit.

It'd help a lot if Pie was hitting at all in the minors though. When does Ward come off the DL? Maybe they'll cut Edmonds then to make room? Ward's still waiting for the medical approval to start swinging a bat. It will still be a little while.

Teams had wanted to make him an OF for a long time because of how terrible he was at second. The Nationals finally forced the issue because they already had a second baseman. The problem with Soriano right now is that before, he had good range and rather poor instincts. Combined with that great arm, it made him a well above average fielding left fielder. Since he doesn't trust running on his leg, his range is poor and combined with those poor instincts, makes him really bad out there. He can't even use his arm as much out there because he cannot get to balls fast enough for his arm to become a factor. And don't forget that he's afraid of fences and walls. He either stops or starts flinching when he comes within 25 feet of the fence or wall. Yup. I was throwing that in as a big part of his poor instincts, although he has shown other smaller signs of poor instincts as well.

True, but it makes me worry less seeing the other road records around baseball right now. At this time last year, road teams were 341-386. That's a winning percentage of .469. This year, road teams are 321-437. That's a winning percentage of .423. The Cubs definitely need to play better on the road, but so do most of the teams in the league. Last year at this time, Milwaukee's road record was good for 12th out of 16 teams in the NL. The Cubs road record, albeit slightly worse than Milwaukee's last year at this point, is 7th best.

Teams had wanted to make him an OF for a long time because of how terrible he was at second. The Nationals finally forced the issue because they already had a second baseman. The problem with Soriano right now is that before, he had good range and rather poor instincts. Combined with that great arm, it made him a well above average fielding left fielder. Since he doesn't trust running on his leg, his range is poor and combined with those poor instincts, makes him really bad out there. He can't even use his arm as much out there because he cannot get to balls fast enough for his arm to become a factor.

It's an interesting question right now because Soriano is pretty bad out there at the moment. At the same time, last year Yost kept pulling Braun for a defensive replacement. The Brewers lost some games after the other team tied it up anyway, and then Braun wasn't available to hit and Yost was criticized. It's really a tough question to determine. Is the chance of a ball going out to LF that Soriano will mess up so great that it's worth losing his bat later if the opponent ties it up anyway? This is a gamble whichever way Lou decides. There's not really any good option.

I don't think it really matters to a pitcher if they go: start, off day, off day, side session, off day, start or if they go: start, off day, side session, off day, off day, start It's still essentially the same thing. The fact that he got taken out a little early of Friday's night game probably helped as well. Now if the game had continued, my gut feeling would be that Volquez would have thrown 20-25 more pitches. That would have been a problem. The amount he threw though was a decent side session.

Yes, Indiana basketball is relevant, just as I said. Illinois is not. What are you not comprehending? Clearly something, because if you had understood what I said, the entire second sentence of your response would have been unnecessary. How is a team with 2 returning scholarship players relevant? Illinois is a borderline tourney team next year, but I think even even the homer-iest of IU fans would tell you Illinois is a better team next year and '09 barring some big gets by Crean. I think that's exactly why he believes IU is relevant because of the blowup of the roster, the coach, everything. That's all news in the college basketball world, and IU has had a lot of news coverage over the last 3 months. Being that they'll be terrible next year and haven't been for a long, long time, that will also be news. Illinois, on the other hand, in his opinion will be mediocre with very little controversy. Their relevance probably comes back in 09 when the first of their huge recruits shows up. Of course, he's taking everything from a national perspective, when the Illinois discussion on this board is based on a local perspective. It doesn't matter that Illinois 08 isn't a big deal nationally because the steps being taken are a big deal to Illinois and Big 10 fans, which makes it relevant to this thread. Not everything needs to rise to the level of national news.

He's hit batters 3 times to start an inning, and walked 1 batter to start an inning. He has 5 hit by pitches and 5 walks overall. 2 of the 5 walks have been of the intentional variety. He has had a problem with hitting people, but he's been simply great with not walking them. 3 unintentional walks in 25 2/3 innings is actually pretty unbelievable for any pitcher, and simply astounding for a guy like Wood. How many of the hit batters bat lefty? I'll go ahead and track both while I'm at it: On 3/31, he hit Weeks (right-hander) and IBB'd Fielder On April 13th, he hit Dobbs (left-hander) and walked Burrell (right-hander). On May 1st, he hit Counsell (left-hander) and walked Weeks (right-hander) On May 11th, he hit Salazar (left-hander) On May 14th, he walked Gerut (left-hander) On May 24th, he hit Mientkiewicz (left-hander) and IBB'd McLouth. So 4 out of the 5 guys he hit were left-handers, and 1 out of the 3 guys that he unintentionally walked. As you can see, those 10 walks/hit batters have also been jammed into just 6 of his appearances. He has not done either in 18 of his 24 appearances.

Not really. They have an off day tomorrow. Cueto remains the scheduled starter for Tuesday. Wenesday is a little tricky. Can you pitch Harang or Volquez on 2 days rest after this outing? Volquez in particular shouldn't have any problem, as he basically threw a side session out there. Thursday Arroyo goes on normal rest. Friday they're fine going with either Belisle or whoever you didn't pitch out of Harang/Volquez.

HAHAHAHA The Reds have now used 23 of their 25 players. If I'm counting correctly, it's actually 24. Arroyo was used as a pinch-hitter several innings ago. They have Cueto left. That's it.

It's pretty obvious the Padres don't care about Josh Banks's arm, extra innings or not. He threw 42 pitches yesterday, and is now up to 72 pitches today with 2 outs in the 18th.

He's hit batters 3 times to start an inning, and walked 1 batter to start an inning. He has 5 hit by pitches and 5 walks overall. 2 of the 5 walks have been of the intentional variety. He has had a problem with hitting people, but he's been simply great with not walking them. 3 unintentional walks in 25 2/3 innings is actually pretty unbelievable for any pitcher, and simply astounding for a guy like Wood.

The Reds have now resorted to using Aaron Harang out of the bullpen as his side session. He's also the 17th pitcher to enter this game between the two teams combined (not counting Bronson Arroyo, who pinch-hit but didn't pitch).

Of course if we could trade him for value, we would. Just because of his contract, not because of his production. But I don't understand the winning percentage argument. Last year, the Cubs were 12-16 without him. Most of those games came in August, which happened to be the Cubs only losing month of the last 4 months. And by the way. The Cubs this year had won 6 out of 8 before Soriano went down (not counting the game he got hurt in the first inning). They then won 10 out of 15 with him gone (counting the game he went down in the first). This had absolutely nothing to do with the people who replaced Soriano. The people who were in the lineup in place of Soriano were absolutely terrible during those 15 days. The Cubs were just hot before Soriano left, and they continued to remain hot. Since then, most of the Cubs bats have cooled down. There's absolutely no evidence to say that Soriano going down had anything to do with the Cubs hot streak. They were hot when he was cold, and they continued to remain hot when his replacements were cold.

It's a leverage thing because you guys are arguing that every situation is exactly the same, which is incorrect. Let's take the usage of Marmol as a primary example. You have Marmol available to get exactly three outs in a given game and you know he's going to give you three outs regardless. No more, no less. Would you rather have him come in with the Cubs up one in the seventh inning, the bases loaded and no outs or in the ninth with the Cubs up one with nobody on and nobody out? It's the former and anyone here with half a brain would pick that situation. Why? Because it's the higher leverage situation and the Cubs are more likely to lose the game in the seventh than in the ninth in that scenario. Soriano making a misplay on the 27th out instead of the 10th out with the situations being the same (same score, runners on, outs, etc.) is obviously going to be more important because it's the 27th out. Just like a guy hitting a solo home run with the game tied in the bottom of the ninth is more important than a guy hitting a home run in the bottom of the first. Why? Because there are fewer outs left in the game and that is the limiting factor of a baseball game. You're right, Marmol is the perfect example. But his argument works against you, not for you. The entire point of leaving Marmol as not the closer is that the 25th-27th outs are no more important than any of the outs before that. All that matters is that he's used in situations that maximize him preventing runs for the game overall. If runs given up in the 9th really were more important, then Marmol should be the closer from now on. Now, there is one time I can buy that the run being given up in the 9th is a problem. That's if the leading team has changed their strategy and not scored as many runs as they otherwise could have because they're leading, such as putting in defensive replacements. The Cubs never did that today. They tried their best to score runs all the way throughout the game. So in today's game, Soriano giving up a run counted the same if it happened in the 7th as in the 9th. The Cubs would have made the same decisions and sent up the same hitters to the plate. The only difference was the psychological impact it had on the team by being the last out, and I'll leave it to everyone individually to decide how much a play like that has a psychological impact on a team.

I've never once heard anything of this until this thread... Show me where this happened and I'll give it to you. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=195450

Considering that that play cost us a win, yeah, I'd say it was pretty important. So if a player goes 0-6 going into the 15th inning, and then gets a game-winning hit, he's a bigger hero than another player who hits 2 home runs in the first 5 innings of the game, but then struck out with runners on twice in extra innings?