CubColtPacer

It was 2-4 with 1 2B. His hit in the first was a single, and the hit in the 9th was a double. I think there was some confusion if it was a single and an error, but it was definitely a double.

Glavine-Marquis had a matchup in May as well. The Cubs got to Glavine for 4 runs in 6 innings, and Lee didn't even play. The batter-pitcher matchups also look pretty good against Glavine for that game: Lee: 15/52, 5 2B, 2 HR, 9 BB, 16 K, .288/.390/.500 (most of these at-bats were probably also when Glavine was better with the Braves and Lee was still just an above average player with the Marlins) Ramirez: 11/22, 3 HR, 5 BB, 1 K, .500/.571/.955 Soriano: 7/18, 1 HR, 3 BB, 4 K, .389/.476/.611 Marquis: 2/5 (both hits were in the May game) This might actually be the 1 day to play Floyd over Murton against a left-hander as well: Floyd: 13/33, 2 HR, 3 BB, 2 K, .394/.444/.636 Murton: 0/7, 2 BB

Cruz is 33, is fading, and has been terrible against both right-handers and left-handers this year. Sound like a Cubs CF you know? I don't know why the Cubs would pick up Cruz. Pagan is probably better than him at this point, and if you want to pick up a free agent, Kielty is probably better than Cruz.

I think they are willing to give Murton a shot-at least against left-handers. If Murton is only getting PT against left-handers though, or if he's getting 50 percent or less of the at-bats, is Kielty a better option to be that role player?

That's very good news. Ward's .456 OBP this year would be very useful on the bench to this club right now. Depending on how our right fielders are playing by that point, I wouldn't mind him seeing another start or two in right, as his defense was actually better than expected for me (notice I didn't say good..just better than expected :D).

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part. I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring. As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass. Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs. I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race). Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any? Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates. I'm just saying there aren't many teams that are so concerned about the Cubs that they would block the deal. The Brewers if they are in position to block definitely would. The Cardinals? possibly. Braves? I doubt it. The NL West teams? Hard to say. It's more because Church would be an economical, decent pickup for someone. Teams don't have to claim him just because they're trying to foil the Cubs' plans. They can do it just because Church works for them and their own plans. And that opens up pretty much every team in the league under us. Basically what davearm just said. If they know the Nationals are going to just pull the claim back (which they definitely would) why would somebody who wasn't trying to block the Cubs try to claim him? It would be a waste of time for a bad team to claim him-there's no positive and a definite negative (Cubs aren't happy with that team) in it.

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part. I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring. As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass. Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs. I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race). Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any? Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates. I'm just saying there aren't many teams that are so concerned about the Cubs that they would block the deal. The Brewers if they are in position to block definitely would. The Cardinals? possibly. Braves? I doubt it. The NL West teams? Hard to say.

The expected W-L for the Cubs based on stats isn't that high though, the Cubs have scored a lot more runs than they probably should have given their offense and a few less runs than their pitching should have. A huge part of the good record over the last month is the Cubs are scoring a ton of runs while hitting poorly, a .700 team OPS doesn't usually lead to a lot of wins. They should be 56-49 using W3, Brewers should be 57-51, Mets should be 61-45. It's hard to tell if it is partly a function of how the Cubs play (forcing people into quick decisions and quick throws) or if they've just had a long streak of luck, but for the last month or two everybody makes errors when they play the Cubs. That drags down the Cubs OPS, but it leads to runs, and the Cubs have probably had the most errors comitted against them lately in the major leagues. I think the way the Cubs hit and run the bases has led to a higher than average number of errors, although some of the frequency is probably just random variation. So that needs to be taken into account when looking at team OPS and how it correlates to runs.

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part. I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring. As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass. Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs. I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race).

Probably the same lineup as Monday night. I think you'll see Cedeno give Theriot a night off tonight. Other than that, it will be the same as Monday (with the lineup juggled a little bit-probably Pagan and Murton are the two best candidates for the 2 spot tonight).

I can research Baseball Reference myself, I suppose. :) Including tonight, Kendall's OBP is at .314. Still bad, but not pathetic anymore. Yeah, I think I counted that he's 6 for his last 16 with 1 BB since his horrible first couple games with the Cubs. It's hard to tell if he can keep anything like that up or not.

It depends what Blanco we get. If it's the Blanco of last year, he's better than any catcher the Cubs have had this year has done offensively, including Barrett (a sad fact but very much true).

Except that he's not playing as a role-player. He's platooning with Jones in CF and getting a bunch of time in RF, which is a role he isn't suited for. 25th man? Fine. Platoon partner? Not fine. Pagan has had 137 at-bats this year. There are 125 outfielders in the major leagues who have had at least 125 plate appearances so far this year. Of those, Pagan is 49th on that list. So he's outperformed half the starters (probably more because some on the list before him are probably bench players as well). Now, to be fair, for the amount of at-bats Pagan last year, he ranked 111th out of 133. So his production last year would put him on the edge of 25th man status (although more of a 5th OF than 25th man) this year's production is a pretty good platoon player. Pagan is a player who has become somewhat useful to a major league ballclub because of his power development. He had 4 home runs combined his first 4 years in the minors. Then, his 5th year, he hit 4. The year after that, he hit 8. Last year he hit 5 in only 1/3 of the at-bats he would normally get. This year he's already got 7 combined. His development of power from a 0-1 home run guy to a 15 home run guy with full-time play has made him a legitimate backup option. That's the main reason his numbers are up this year-because his SLG has continued to increase.

One of the big reasons that Fontenot's numbers look so good in the 2 spot is that he was put there when he was hot, and as soon as he started to cool they moved him further down the lineup. That's going to lead to a distorted picture of that spot in the lineup.

To be fair, things can go well and still be going downhill. Personally, though, I think it was Salomon Torres who started Sammy's downward slide, so to speak. He looked like the same old ridiculously good Sammy (rather than the still very productive Sammy of the rest of 2003 and 2004) before that. Sosa was definitely sliding in 2003 before Torres hit him on Easter 2004. Torres may certainly have accelerated that slide, though. That was Easter 2003. You are correct, I don't know why I thought it was 2004 (maybe because the sneezing incident was a couple weeks after that in 2004).

To be fair, things can go well and still be going downhill. Personally, though, I think it was Salomon Torres who started Sammy's downward slide, so to speak. He looked like the same old ridiculously good Sammy (rather than the still very productive Sammy of the rest of 2003 and 2004) before that. Sosa was definitely sliding in 2003 before Torres hit him on Easter 2004. Torres may certainly have accelerated that slide, though.

The rule with the Brewers right now seems to be to keep pace with them as best as one can at home, and then to catch them while on the road. So I'll say August 8th.

ugh, great He was speculating about Kielty, didn't mention any specific discussions or anything. Kielty would basically be a platoon bat-similar to how they were wanting to go after Payton, but in this case they can always let go of Kielty in the offseason if they want to (while Payton had another year on his deal). His numbers against left-handers the last few years: 2003: .300/.417/.550 2004: .259/.338/.491 2005: .322/.398/.469 2006: .325/.358/.607 He was designated for assignment, so he should come pretty cheap (although the Red Sox are said to want him as well). He just came off the DL a couple of weeks ago, so he really hasn't done anything in 2007 at all. If they aren't going to make any other moves anyway, I wouldn't mind them taking a look because Kielty could help the ballclub.

Yeah, I was just looking at that-that's a lot of at-bats for a good hitter like Rollins to be so bad against a pitch to contact pitcher like Marquis. I couldn't believe it. The thing is, the Cubs face Adam Eaton and J.D. Durbin in this series. Then in the Mets series they have Zambrano going in game 1 and Lilly going in game 2 against El Duque and Pelfrey. They still have a good chance of going 4-3 on this homestand, which is just fine playing against the Phillies and Mets.

That one double in the blowout game Vs. Cards? He also hit a sharp single to left in the last game that he started.

whow calm down there tiger. i don't see either of our lefties beating this team, and these phillies just mind send marquis off to the asylum--which might not be a bad thing. Ugh. Marquis is going tomorrow, isn't he? I had completely forgotten. That's going to be an ugly one. The Phillies send Adam Eaton though to the mound. Their starting pitchers and relievers are absolutely terrible, the only one I'm concerned about for the rest of the series is Moyer on Wednesday (crafty left-hander factor).

The Lilly breaking ball is scary tonight-it's going all over the place (but mostly high and outside). He better find that release point before too long.

That would be fine with me. The Cubs would have a much greater chance of winning against the Phillies bullpen.

you say that as if the Cubs have had hitters go elsewhere and blossom into great hitters since...oh, let's say anytime in the past 20-25 years. Joe Carter wasn't to shabby now was he, I believe he has a couple rings on his finger! I wasn't talking about just hitters I was talking about any player, pitcher, batter and ballgirl for that matter. Well, if you're talking about anybody, they held on to Zambrano through his struggles and let him blossom into a great pitcher just a few years ago now. Rich Hill was also kept and has turned into a good pitcher.

Colvin? Next year? Presumably, Jones in 2008, then who knows in 2009. But with Colvin in AA, it wouldn't be a surprise to think the Cubs thought of him as their guy by then. Colvin makes Pie look like Adam Dunn in terms of taking walks. He's got 14 walks all year long. He only has an OPS of .700 right now in AA. Wow-that's actually good news to me. I hadn't checked on him in a couple of weeks-he's been on a hot streak and may actually be starting to figure out AA. 33 AB's, 13 H, 2 2B, 3 BB, 2 K, 2 SB