CubColtPacer

It isn't that, it is the fact we like the chess match of the NL, where overall talent is important and the manager plays a hand in the games outcome, compared to the the AL that demands barely anything out of the manager and reduces one player to knowing only one skill. Most "chess match" decisions in baseball are 51/49 type decisions. There are very few, if any, game-changing decisions based on matchups. I haven't run the stats but I don't really care. I enjoy the "chess match" aspect, especially in the later innings, and I find AL baseball to be less enjoyable because it has less of it. And I'm too old to change ;) Agreed. I definitely don't enjoy AL baseball nearly as much because of this. I like seeing a pitcher on the mound struggling who is also due up the next inning, and then having to make the decision of 1) trying to ride the pitcher until the end of the inning, 2) put another pitcher in (typically a good reliever to get out of the jam) who is going to only face 1-2 batters, or 3) double switch. I like how on offense when one team has a rally going in the 5th or 6th inning and the pitcher's spot is coming up the team has to decide 1) if the pitcher is going to bat or not (do you sacrifice the pitcher or the potential offense). The other team has to decide if it's worth it to walk the 8th hitter in order to get that pitcher out of the game. I love knowing how typically in any given game multiple pinch hitters are going to be needed for that spot, so managers have to plan carefully to try to put each of their bench players into the best possible spot. I know it likely won't make much difference over a full season, but it's a big part of why I fell in love with baseball and why I continue loving it. I would find it a much more boring game without constantly thinking during ballgames about how all the pieces of the team should fit together to give the team the best chance to win for that particular game situation. The puzzle is constantly changing as the game unfolds, and I find that fascinating.

I can understand the other things (agreeing with them to varying degrees), but why Henry Blanco? Lou has only started him 3 times out of 15 games. That's normal for a backup catcher, and if you take Blanco away from Lou that only means that Lou will have Koyie Hill for those 3 games.

I took a quick look over the game logs to see if I could find his best 4 game stretches in the walk department. Unless I missed something, the last time Z had a 4 game stretch where he walked 5 or less combined guys during those 4 games was in 2002, just a couple weeks after he had broken into the starting rotation for good.

It's a rant because you said a variation of the same thing about 10 times. We get it, you're not happy that Z was still in there but there's no need to keep repeating it over and over. As far as the Z question, you answered your own question with the bolded - it's a routine. And as far as PAP, my basic knowledge of them tells me that they don't start until you go over 100 pitches and, I believe, it's ((# of pitches) - 100) ^3. Z threw 101 pitches which would add up to a whopping 1 PAP. It's not that big of a deal. I'm being told that it's better to let Zambrano throw over 100 pitches because he's used to it and that makes no sense to me at all. There's a long list of reasons why he shouldn't have been out there and just how risky the decision was is completely irrelevant. Piniella is managing a roster of 25 guys and not a video game. He shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions. IT'S ONE FLIPPING PITCH OVER 100!! If he had thrown 99 pitches, would you be bitching and moaning so much? You're making it seem like he threw 115 or 120. Apparently nobody is getting my argument, or David's, so I'll start over. It has nothing to do with how much risk there was involved. It's that Lou made a decision that carried some risk when there was no reason to. Again, the amount of risk is totally irrelevant. I would have liked to have seen Zambrano taken out after 6, when his PC was in the 80s. We have three long relievers who need work. One will be held back for tomorrow, but that still leaves two. But the overall point is that there's no redeeming value to Lou's decision yet there's a risk, so why do it? We've given at least a couple of potential benefits though. 1) It makes Z happy. Why sit Z down after 79 pitches and 6 innings? He wants to go back out there and do what he does. He's not going to react very well to him being babied like that. 2) Your argument is that the relievers are rested. They may be right now. However, the Cubs still have 11 straight games after this one. Their starters for the next 3 days are Lilly, Marquis, and Hill, and those 3 pitchers are averaging less than 5 innings per start combined in the early going. It's not easy to trust them to go deep into the game, and so the Cubs are going to need their relievers to be rested in order to handle those innings. The benefit alone of getting Hart back a day earlier by him not throwing that 3rd inning is worth the risk of Z throwing an extra inning. 101 pitches is a light day's work for Z, especially since the majority of the innings had almost no stress on him with a huge lead.

Even tho I like Stewart, and the possibility of taking a talented, but PR move RB like Stewart doesn't really improve their team. There looking at a 1st rder who will contribute for the WHOLE season. And had Seattle only signed either Jones or Duckett, then yeah, I could see Seattle popping for Stewart, but the fact that they put out good money for 2 rbs, makes taking a RB in the first like their 10th most pressing need for the draft. I see Seattle either taking a WR, or trading the pick (up or down). Besides, I personally think, he's injury causing him to "free-fall" in the draft is a smokescreen. I personally believe Stewart will go higher then some are saying. I say Stewart will either go to the Cards at 16, or the Texans at 18. And with the strong rumors that Seattle really likes Brandon Albert, and really wants to jump Pittsburgh to get him, it wouldn't surprise me if Seattle and Chicago make a deal that would include the Seattle's 1st/2nd/4th for the Bears 1st/6th. A 1st, 2nd, and 4th and all they get in return would be a 1st and 6th? That would never, ever happen. Why not? That sort of deal happens all the time, and that's what it would take for Seattle to be able to move up from 25th to 14th. I don't have the exact pick numbers for both teams in front of me after the first round, but taking a quick look at the draft value chart where the picks would approximately be that's almost exactly equal value.

Even if Lou intends to take him out why burn a pinch hitter? The near disaster at 2nd base would be one reason. Why is Lee still in there instead of Ward? Why isn't Patterson out there or Blanco? When you're up 9 in the bottom of the 7th, you can afford to have a reliever take an AB. Worrying about him running the bases seems a bit paranoid. It's not a worry so much as it is distaste for a 100% unnecessary risk. Imagine how you'd want to react if he DID get hurt. There was really nothing to gain with an 8 run lead. He has about as good a chance of getting hurt being hit by a line drive sitting in the dugout. The guy is not fragile. OK, that's hyperbole. It doesn't matter that he's not fragile. There was no reason to have him in there. Absolutely nothing to be gained other than for Z to have some fun. Why do it? I think you've hit the same reason why to leave him in for 101 pitches. For Z's mental state. Z fluctuates mentally so much, and it's such a big key to him pitching well, that I'm willing to make concessions for him within reason. Is it really a big difference for Z to pitch 101 pitches instead of 90? Not really, so why take him out in the middle of the inning with runners on (which you know Z can't stand) if you don't need to? If it's the difference between 100 and 120, I'm taking him out over his objection. I see almost no stress on him just by barely reaching 100 though. At the same time, if Z wants to bat for himself with an 8 run lead, let him. It doesn't hurt the Cubs on the field. Z is just as likely to get hurt just being his crazy self during the day as on the basepaths, and the Cubs keep him mentally in the best state he can be..

The Cubs are in the middle of a long stretch of games with an already overworked bullpen the last two weeks and starters that have been struggling to go deep in games. And Z at 101 pitches is so normal for him. Z hit 100 pitches 23 times last year. I'd actually be more concerned with his next start if he stopped at 90 worrying that he would overthrow than sitting at 101. Of course, putting him out there for another inning like Lou seems set on doing is crazy. It's not like Z can't handle it, he's done it plenty of times before. It just isn't necessary whatsoever.

Lee now has hit as many home runs as he did before the All-Star Break last year.

I don't mind the DeRosa in LF and Fontenot at 2nd. With the current roster and the way those two are hitting so far this season, putting both of them in the lineup right now is a decent idea. I wish Pie was in tonight though because I really feel like he could hit Fogg well. Fogg doesn't strike a lot of people out, and Pie could really use some at-bats against a pitcher who struggles and doesn't have good enough stuff to easily get him out. If you're going to put Johnson in against any right-handers, do it for the ones who can easily make Pie chase any pitch out of the zone. Don't do it for Fogg. I just thought of something though. We have no idea how Pie is feeling right now. It may not be a factor at all, but it may be considering his collision last night. It could also be a reason that the Cubs want Patterson over Murton. Of course, this is the Cubs, and that probably makes too much logical sense to actually be the reason, but you never know for sure.

I would probably be hoping for the team not to win the WS if they acquired Bonds. I'm much more of a journey guy then the destination. The destination is wonderful, but enjoying the journey is the most important part for me. I'd like the destination if he was acquired, but my enjoyment of the journey would be lessened considerably. And I want to enjoy the destination the first time when I really have enjoyed the journey as well. That's just me though, and I can see how some fans would feel differently and care much more primarily at winning at all costs. It doesn't matter though. With the rumors that came out over the offseason, it seems that MLB would suspend Bonds for 50-75 games the day after he signed a contract, so signing him does no good anyway.

The fact that he wants Pie to bat 8th for Pie's benefit has an interesting piece of logic to it. It's sort of a trial by fire-Lou is going to change this part of Pie's game before Pie becomes set in his ways, even though Lou implies that he would have better production right now in another spot. I'm ok with that if Lou realizes that putting an extra learning curve on Pie by putting him there will take a little extra time for the adjustments, and he has to be patient with him. I agree that Pie should be hitting down in the order now. But I disagree with Lou regarding swinging at every strike. Unless you have 2 strikes, sometimes it's better to take a strike than swing at it. Some really good pitches are strikes that even really good hitters won't do much with (unless they get a lucky little blooper). Laying off great pitches that are strikes so that you can drive a ball you can handle is a much better approach than "swing at every pitch I think is a strike" which is stupid. If that means you strike out a few more times, rather than dribbling a soft grounder to 2nd, so be it. Oh, and Theriot should be hitting 8th regardless of where Pie is on his learning curve. Hit Pie 7th and Theriot 8th until Pie is ready to hit higher in the order. Interesting. You took that sentence completely differently then I did. When Lou said you have to swing at strikes, you took that to mean that there is an obligation to swing at every strike that comes up there. I put the emphasis on the other part of the sentence, which to me fits in with the rest of the quote better about working the count and being able to tell the difference between balls and strikes. You have to swing at strikes doesn't mean to me that you have to swing at all strikes, but it does mean that it is essential that you do not swing at balls. You have to swing at strikes instead of balls because if you're swinging at balls then it's too easy for pitchers to get you out. So I really don't think that Lou meant that you have to take a swing towards each and every strike that comes over the plate.

Lou on Pie batting 8th: The fact that he wants Pie to bat 8th for Pie's benefit has an interesting piece of logic to it. It's sort of a trial by fire-Lou is going to change this part of Pie's game before Pie becomes set in his ways, even though Lou implies that he would have better production right now in another spot. I'm ok with that if Lou realizes that putting an extra learning curve on Pie by putting him there will take a little extra time for the adjustments, and he has to be patient with him.

Cubs lineup: Soriano Theriot Lee Ramirez Fukudome DeRosa Soto Pie Dempster No shocks there. Theriot isn't likely IMO to get out of the 2nd spot very much until Pie either 1) starts hitting, or 2) is replaced.

1.) The Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik trade did not help the White Sox. 2.) The White Sox are no more real than the A's or the Orioles right now. Are you kidding me? He was their leadoff man. I guarantee the Cubs would take vintage 2005 Scott Podsednik in a heartbreat. The Cubs had Scott Podsednik Podsednik in 2005: .290/.351/.349, 59 SB/23 CS Cubs player: .292/.330/.388, 58 SB/20 CS The Cubs player played an average CF. Podsednik played an average left field. It certainly can be argued that the Cubs player was actually more valuable than Podsenik was in 2005. Their offensive numbers are almost the exact same (21 points of OBP is offset by the 39 point advantage that the Cubs player has in SLG, and the Cubs player was slightly more efficient on the bases). The Cubs player also played CF, while Podsednik played one of the two easiest positions to play on the field. So you're saying that the Cubs would love to have Juan Pierre back and that his 2006 season would be wonderful for them?

Cubs.com seems to agree with you:

Even if one expected Marquis to be good for the rest of April and May, I think that person would still think it would be likely that he wouldn't pitch well in this game. Not only is this a terrible matchup for him, but the one star player for the Phillies that Marquis has dominated (Rollins) isn't even playing. I'm interested to see what Marquis does after this start. I think the true test to see if he can stay in the rotation will be to see if he can salvage a decent month by pitching well against the Pirates, Rockies, and Brewers. For this one, I'm just hoping he leaves before he gives up 5 or more. I honestly think that the best case reasonable scenario for this game is 6 innings, 4 runs, maybe 3 runs if some luck goes his way.

Yeah, that doesnt seem like a very fun league to be a part of. I'd say since you don't really have any holes go with who you think has the biggest upside. Also, with that amount of quality on the waiver wire (and since the rest of your league might be dumb), try to trade quantity for quality. A friend asked me to join. I think about 7 owners are pretty good, and the other 3 are making some poor reactionary choices. I hope that they will either get better from the experience this year or get replaced next year.

No, but I did take advantage of some people panicking early to pick up somebody like Myers from free agency. Also somebody really panicked and dropped Granderson because my league has no DL spot, and he thought he could pick him back up in a week or two before he came back. I also made a trade to get Martin and Fielder (for Vlad, Carlos Pena, and Soto). In shallow leagues like this, I like to make 3 for 2 type trades to get better starters because I know I can find talent in free agency.

I don't mind putting Ward out in RF for a few games. The difference between Pie and Ward offensively is a huge one. Sometimes the Cubs need that boost offensively and risk the defensive issues that result. With the Cubs offense rolling like it has been and an emotional Zambrano on the mound, last night was simply not the correct night for it. In fact, I would say that they don't really need to put Ward out there in RF unless there is an injury to 1 of the 4 big hitters (Soriano, Lee, Ramirez, Fukduome). If one of those players gets hurt, then maybe the Cubs will be struggling enough offensively to take a risk and put Ward out there.

I am in a 5x5 league with OBP instead of AVG, 10 team league. My lineup as it currently stands is C: Russell Martin 1B: Prince Fielder 2B: Brian Roberts SS: Jose Reyes 3B: Garrett Atkins OF: Adam Dunn OF: Brad Hawpe OF: Jason Bay Util: Travis Hafner Util: Nick Swisher Bench: Orlando Hudson, Curtis Granderson SP: Jake Peavy SP: A.J. Burnett RP: George Sherrill RP: Brandon Lyon P: C.J. Wilson P: Chris Young P: Brett Myers Bench: Rich Hill, Pedro Martinez I have limits of 162 games per lineup spot, and 1250 innings from my pitchers. I have 1 open roster spot now with a trade I made recently. What should I add? The best 7 hitters by Yahoo's rankings are Andruw Jones, Shane Victorino, Juan Pierre, Matt Kemp, Jacoby Ellesbury, Carlos Delgado, and Edwin Encarnacion. The best 2 starters are Liriano and Cain, and then a big dropoff after that. The best relievers are Borowski and Brian Wilson, and I doubt I'll want to go that direction. So what does my team need most? Thanks for any help that can be given.

It's a planned day off for Fukudome, which really makes me wonder how Lou is going to arrange the outfield. Ward is the worst option-can't hit left-handers, can't play defense. Pie is a little better, but I don't know why Lou would sit him tonight and then play him tomorrow against a left-hander. Maybe DeRosa in right and Fontenot at 2nd? This was pretty poorly planned by Lou. Fukudome should have been given the night off today (Friday) and had Pie-Ward in the OF, and then Johnson and Fukudome could be the CF-RF combo for Saturday. Instead, it's a bad situation no matter how it's done.

Well, let's see. The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year. The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA. So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined. 80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall. Of course, having those good innings all come in close games does give an extra benefit to the setup guy. At the same time, you have to add in that an average reliever costs you probably 1 million dollars and can easily be replaced if something goes wrong, while an average starter is going to cost you 3-6 million dollars at least and if they bust, they're much harder to find a replacement for. If I could lock in either of those two choices, I'd go for the starter. There is so much more flexibility in a bullpen to find a few good players and use them in all the important situations. In the Cubs case for example, Marmol going into the rotation moves Howry into Marmol's sport, Wuertz's into Howry's, and Eyre into Wuertz's. The guy who would replace Marmol wouldn't even have to be that good, because he'd be getting most of the mop up innings anyway. Of course, I have my doubts that Marmol could produce that much as either a starter or do it again as a reliever, but that's another discussion entirely.

Before tonight, mostly bad luck. His opening day at bat was a line drive that was drilled but right at the second baseman. I know the other day he hit one that the first baseman made a great play on as well.

Myers really isn't the type of right-hander who you want to load up the left-handers against. I like the lineup in general, but not really tonight. Z is a very good hitting pitcher and also your best pitcher overall. Myers is a right-hander who has smaller splits then most right-handed pitchers. Out of all the nights that you need the offensive boost that putting Ward in provides, this isn't necessarily the best one. That doesn't mean I think the lineup is a bad one. I actually think it gives you the best chance to win tonight. At the same time, my feeling is that the amount of times you can put Ward on RF is limited with his possibility of injury, and so long-term I'd rather save this for another day.

At least the quote wasn't Piniella saying something about how the Cubs need to get off to a fast start, and that was the reason for him considering taking Hill out. It is right to do the best thing for Hill that gets him fixed the quickest. Now, I don't believe that's taking him out of the rotation, and I think at this point Piniella won't either after thinking about it. There's definitely something wrong though. Hill hasn't been able to hit the strike zone consistently for weeks. His first outing had good stuff, and the Astros were swinging early in the count which helped him to be effectively wild. I'm sure that if he continues in the rotation he'll continue to have several outings where he can be wild and still be effective. At some point, the underlying problem will have to be addressed though.