CubColtPacer

Really though, the Cubs biggest thing missing from their offense is the home run. They've kept their SLG all right so far because of some doubles (some that were singles stretched into doubles-Soriano and Izturis with 4 doubles, Lee with 3), but they only have 4 HR overall and only 1 that wasn't a solo HR. That is not going to continue all season long-they are on pace for 81 HR, and they likely will hit more than double that. That's not the only thing wrong with the offense so far, but that is by far the biggest thing right now.

But that doesn't affect those stats. You can't give up 3 earned runs in the first and pretend to not share in the blame of a loss. Sure, but it wasn't a poor outing. No, it wasn't poor, it was terrible. cool, so anyone who doesn't pitch complete game shutouts is terrible? Just so I know so we can move forward That's a freaking stupid thing to write. Just stupid. There's a very big difference between 5 IP, 4 R, 3 ER and a 1.60 WHIP and a complete game shutout. Don't respond with that nonsense. well my exaggeration aside, what satisfies you from a guy like marquis? my guess is nothing, since you always find something bad to say about every situation No but as we're learning any pitcher having a bad game is subject to being chased with pitchforkes and torches until he turns arround and pitches a good game when he is lifted up and given the key to the city until he pitches a bad game and is chased with pitchforkes and torches......... Well thats not the case with Goony, he is generally one of the more impartial posters on this board. He is only pointing out facts, that a 5.40 ERA is NOT GOOD under any circumstances. I think most people are encouraged because without the errors, Marquis probably has a low enough pitch count to go another inning or two-and the way he was going with not giving up any hits in the last 4 innings he pitched, he had a pretty good chance to get another scoreless inning. When 1 scoreless inning turns from a bad outing to a pretty good outing (5.40 ERA to 4.50 ERA), then the outing really couldn't have been that horrible.

But that doesn't affect those stats. You can't give up 3 earned runs in the first and pretend to not share in the blame of a loss. Sure, but it wasn't a poor outing. No, it wasn't poor, it was terrible. So giving up 3 ER's is terrible? Sure. It's all subjective labels. But it's not 3 ERs it's 3 ERs in x innings. Anyway, he ptched well after he gave up the runs in the first and before he started walking people. Overall, not a good outing, IMO. I don't mind the walks in the 5th as much. He had to be a little shaken after all the errors. Walking Berkman with a man on 2nd and 1 out was all right considering how good Berkman has been against Marquis. Lee was the damaging walk on that questionable pitch, and the walk later in the inning to Burke to load the bases with 2 outs was just fine to get to Everett. So Lee is the only one in the inning I was really upset by, and he could have easily been called out on strikes as well.

I can understand the duality of the performance of Marquis. He definitely was one of the factors for the loss, and it wasn't a good outing by him. At the same time, it was an encouraging outing for the future by the way he bounced back-no hits after the first is a nice sign to see. So if you're just looking at the performance as how it affects today's game, then Marquis wasn't good-if you're looking at an indicator for Marquis as a whole, then I think it was pretty good.

They've done that 7-8 times already this year-of course half of them were called strike 3. how many times have they had full counts? they're only working the count so that they can swing later. Like I said, at least 7-8. Barrett and Izturis took pitches on 3-2 counts yesterday, for example.

They've done that 7-8 times already this year-of course half of them were called strike 3.

I can't really fault Marquis too much for any runs he gives up from now on the rest of this game-this awful ridiculous display by Izturis has to shake any pitcher up.

I'm well aware that Jones had a good year last year, at least against RHP. That's why we should have traded him in the off-season. I'm more than happy to put Murton's .350 OBP in the 2 hole against RHP or LHP. Please stop with the Murton man crushes! I like the guy too but goodness, he'll get his chance. It's not like has been killing the ball or getting on base any other way. It's game 8. exactly the reason he should be playing. No it isn't. Murton isn't a lock in the lineup but he will get plenty of at bats. the reason he may not look great is that it's game 8, which is my point. give him time means give him some plate appearances. so far, it looks like floyd is going to get most of them. Why does it look like Floyd is going to get most of them? They have each started the same number of games even though they have only faced 1 left-hander. That suggests Murton will get more starts, not Floyd. the trend appears to be floyd playing more and murton playing less. The trend? It's gone Murton/Floyd/Murton/Floyd/Murton/Murton/Floyd/Floyd. That's not much of a trend just to have two Floyd's in a row after two Murton's in a row.

I'm well aware that Jones had a good year last year, at least against RHP. That's why we should have traded him in the off-season. I'm more than happy to put Murton's .350 OBP in the 2 hole against RHP or LHP. Please stop with the Murton man crushes! I like the guy too but goodness, he'll get his chance. It's not like has been killing the ball or getting on base any other way. It's game 8. exactly the reason he should be playing. No it isn't. Murton isn't a lock in the lineup but he will get plenty of at bats. the reason he may not look great is that it's game 8, which is my point. give him time means give him some plate appearances. so far, it looks like floyd is going to get most of them. Why does it look like Floyd is going to get most of them? They have each started the same number of games even though they have only faced 1 left-hander. That suggests Murton will get more starts, not Floyd.

The team faced left-handers 1/3 of the time they played last year. This year, they have only faced left-handers 1 out of 8 games. Considering that Murton will start against every left-hander, the fact that after today he'll still have half the starts means that he's likely to get more than half the at-bats once the Cubs start playing against more left-handers. I'm not worried about it right now.

It was reversed in his very limited innings in the major leagues last year, but Sampson's splits in the minors indicate that his right/left split is a decently large one.

His peripherals weren't bad at all until his injury in August-he never really recovered from that last season. He was good most of the year until then.

From what I had heard, it's the coach of Wichita State.

I pretty much agree with that. I just found it alarming that they are going to skip him now. Either put him out there as your 5th starter and see what he can do, or put someone else in there. Skipping him is just delaying the inevitable. Z is the one who is in danger of abuse-if you're going to start him every 5th day anyway, you might as well skip the 5th starter and let everyone else pitch on the 5th day as well. Until a 5th starter option that will be better than the top 4 pitchers emerges, the less starts that spot gets and the more the team will win.

Ray King, Julian Tavarez, Dave Veres, Mike Timlin, Steve Kline. All signed for $2M or more. That was easy. - I thought King came in a trade with Atlanta - I'm nearly positive that Timlin came over as part of the Rolen trade - Veres came over in the trade with Daryl Kile - Kline came over in a trade for Tatis Only one of those guys was signed as a free agent by stl - Tavarez and that was only to a two year deal worth a total of $4.2M. The other guys were all acquired as pieces of a trade. So I think my statement stands. Maybe the letter of the point, but weren't you trying to make the point that St. Louis realizes the low value of the bullpen and weren't willing to expend a large amount of resources to build a strong bullpen and instead go to their farm system to build it? St. Louis actually did more than the Cubs-they put such a strong emphasis on their bullpen that they actually went out like you said and traded for several different high priced bullpen pitchers. They spent that part of their payroll on the bullpen and gave up talent to get these pitchers, and their bullpen was made up at one time of almost nobody from their farm system.

The tough thing about the Guzman/Miller debate is that there is very little information about both of them. They both are trying to come back, and so there is a limited sample size on each of them. In 06, Miller pitched better than Guzman in the ML: Miller-21.2 IP, 4.57 ERA, 1.71 WHIP, 20K/18BB Guzman-56.0 IP, 7.39 ERA, 1.88 WHIP, 60K/37BB Here are Guzman's numbers broken down as starter and reliever Starter: 42.2 IP, 9.28 ERA, 2.11 WHIP, 46K/29BB Reliever: 13.1 IP, 1.35 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 14K/8 BB Then, in ST Miller outpitched him again: Miller-17.1 IP, 3.64 ERA, 1.56 WHIP, 16K/4BB Guzman-13.2 IP, 5.79 ERA, 1.54 WHIP, 7 K/1BB When looking through the box scores, I actually found an extra outing for Guzman that they missed (if you add up the IP, they don't quite add up, neither do a few of the statistics). Here are his starter relief numbers for spring: Starter: 3.1 IP, 13.50 ERA, 2.40 WHIP, 0K/1BB Reliever: 13.2 IP, 3.29 ERA, 1.02 WHIP, 8K/1BB Even though Guzman was doing worse overall, it was Guzman who was benefiting by pitching later in games against minor league hitters while Miller usually pitched to the major league ones. They admittedly didn't give Guzman enough chances to start during ST. The one start that he did, he struggled mightily to miss bats. After that start, they also had him relieve Miller the next start so they could see both of them against the same lineup (although the team was starting to substitute their minor leaguers in at the end). Miller clearly outperformed Guzman that day as well. Between last year and spring, Guzman has had 46 IP starting in the major leagues compared to Miller's 40 IP. Miller outperformed Guzman in those IP, and it wasn't even somewhat close. The same can be said for Guzman that can be said for Miller-when his FB drops in velocity because of him starting and Guzman cannot simply throw it past major league hitters, he struggles, and the results are a lot worse than Miller's. Finally, if Guzman has the much better stuff, then when he's on he should be much better than Miller could ever be with his limited stuff. Here are their best 3 outings of either last year or spring against major league lineups: Pitcher A: 6.0 IP, 4 H, 1 ER, 8K/3BB 5.1 IP, 3H, 1 ER, 8K/3BB 4.2 IP, 3 H, 3 ER, 4K/2BB Pitcher B: 5.0 IP, 3 H, 0 ER, 2K/3BB 5.0 IP, 3H, 0 ER, 5K/0BB 4.2 IP, 4 H, 2 R/1ER, 8K/4BB Even though Guzman had more starts in able to put up 3 great starts, I don't really see much of a difference between the two's best starts based on the numbers. The difference is that Miller has other starts that could legitimately be put up there, while Guzman does not have any others that would qualify. Finally, it comes to upside. Clearly, Guzman is the better option here, and if Miller continues to struggle as much as he did on Sunday Guzman will be given the chance to continue learning on the job. However, based on all of this, Miller has earned the right to start for now in a year where the Cubs cannot let Guzman struggle in the way that he's struggled as a starter. If Miller proves to be similar to how Guzman has shown he can start right now, then he needs to go after another start or two because Guzman could produce that or improve. However, that is not going to be the case necessarily. You don't dominate a lineup like Miller did against San Fran a couple of weeks ago and then forget how to do it against similar lineups during the regular season. Now, Miller is not going to consistently do that-he's going to have a decent amount of outings where he gets rocked if his pitches don't have the movement on them that he showed during September and the spring. Hopefully he also can give a decent amount of good outings as well, which Guzman has not shown he can do from the starter's position.

That was awesome Wuertz-let's get some runs now!

it's a good move. derosa has been nothing short of miserable at the plate the last few games nice k by wuertz It would definitely be a good time for Theriot to get his first hit next inning-he is 0-7 so far on the season.

Great inning there-effective and efficient.

There we go-good job at bouncing back after those first 2 hitters.

I don't know where you're getting that impression. The people calling for Miller to be removed want Guzman in his stead, not Prior. It's more an overall impression since comming to this board. I've been suprised by some people calling for players to be removed or play this guy not that guy. I also remember a few posts about Prior and Miller from spring training and remember seeing frustration about Prior not making it again. I'm just wondering how much of this impatients stems from anger at Prior rather then anger at Miller. If there is anger at Miller for one bad start then I'm worried. If Miller came out with good stuff and got rocked around, I think some would be optimistic his command would improve and he'd be servicable. He didn't have either of them, and there isn't much reason to believe he'll ever recover his old form. I still don't know why Piniella picked him to be the fifth starter, Miller's recent history isn't impressive and I think its stupid to give away a spot based on spring training results. I don't think any of the "impatience" really has anything to do with Prior. Like TT said, we wanted Guzman to win the spot over Miller. If Guzman started and had a rough outing, he would still have the stuff and upside to bounce back. Does anyone really think Miller has become a finesse pitcher like some have made him out to be? I always thought that was a baseless argument. I don't think he's a finesse pitcher. From the 5-6 starts I have seen of him since he came back from his injury, his pitches had a lot of movement on them-which allowed him to get lots of swings and misses and helped minimize his mistakes. From the report yesterday, that wasn't true yesterday. If he has one more start and doesn't have that movement on his pitches, he will need to be replaced immediately after that start.

I don't know where you're getting that impression. The people calling for Miller to be removed want Guzman in his stead, not Prior. It's more an overall impression since comming to this board. I've been suprised by some people calling for players to be removed or play this guy not that guy. I also remember a few posts about Prior and Miller from spring training and remember seeing frustration about Prior not making it again. I'm just wondering how much of this impatients stems from anger at Prior rather then anger at Miller. If there is anger at Miller for one bad start then I'm worried. I think that one thing has to be remembered is that most people are not that familiar with the new stuff that Miller has. Most people weren't watching by the time Miller took the mound in late September last year. In spring, most people didn't get to see very much of him either. So they can only hear reports of his possible stuff, and Miller's stuff doesn't sound that impressive because he doesn't have the high velocity. So when they finally do see a start of his, and Miller looks really bad with his stuff not fooling anyone, it's easy to say that his stuff is not any better than that. Is it better than that? I would say it would have to be, because he was fooling hitters both in September and during the spring. I can't say that for sure though, and I can't blame people who thought Guzman should have been the guy who made it out of ST and pointing to that start as evidence of that.

How do we feel about Jacque hitting 2nd? I was hoping that Murton would be our 2 hitter - ? Murton will be our #2 hitter most of the time he's in the game. When Jacque hits #2, that's because Floyd is playing. BTW, I like Jacque in the 2 spot over some of the other options. You don't want DeRosa batting 2nd against right-handers because he is much better against left-handers than right-handers, and Jacque is probably better suited for that slot than people like Floyd, Barrett, or Izturis in this lineup.

He is. I don't understand why some people are so up in arms over this situation. It's hardly a straight platoon. Murton has gotten four of the six starts so far in left field, and the Cubs have only faced a lefty in one of those games. How many times has he been yanked for Theriot as a "defensive replacement" in about the 7th inning? Not only should he get the majority of the starts, but he should finish the games. He's not terribly slow and Theriot isn't much better in LF (if at all). It's a move that's been made a few times and, imo, is just wasting our already thin bench. Murton has gotten pulled for Theriot once in his 4 starts. Murton finished 2 games, and the other game (yesterday) he got pulled for Jones as part of a double switch when it was thought that Cotts would have to pitch a couple of innings, and Murton was the guy who batted last. Now Theriot has come in for Floyd both times Floyd has played.

Is there a problem with playing the hot hand? Yes, yes there is. So when Murton was slumping horribly last season you'd still play him? This isn't the prospect development league. It's MLB. Wins and losses matter. Murton isn't some wildcard unknown, he put up an 800+ OPS last year in pretty much a full season. Floyd needs to be pretty much at his best to be worthy of more than just giving him a day off. "Playing the hot hand" is way too arbitrary and puts too much pressure on either player to produce or get benched. Either platoon them, or let one get the lions share of the starts. Considering there's probably not going to be a significant difference between Floyd and Murton v. RHP(at least one large enough to justify stunting further development of Murton, the difference between them defensively, etc.), then Murton should be starting the majority of the time. First off, Murton is starting the majority of the time. He has started 4 games to Floyd's 2, and that includes 3 out of the 5 games against right-handed pitching. Second, you complain about the sample size of a hot hand, and then say that Floyd is only worthy of playing time at his very best and that there will likely not be a significant difference between Floyd and Murton against right-handers? Floyd against right-handers the last 5 years: 2002: .306/.420/.544 2003: .305/.394/.535 2004: .269/.373/.512 2005: .290/.382/.533 2006: .266/.342/.423 Murton 2006: .295/.356/.426 The question is how much you believe Floyd's 2006 was because of the injuries, and how much value you put in Murton's 2nd half against right-handers. If Floyd rebounds though (which the way he's crushing the ball right now seems at least pretty probable), Murton is not likely at all to consistently put up around a 900 OPS or more against right-handers like Floyd did consistently before 2006. The fact that even with these stats that Murton has played the majority of games against right-handers show how much the management values him, his development and defense along with rest for Floyd more than the other way around. If the only factor was offensive production, Floyd probably should have played a game or two more than he already has though, not a game or two less (even though I personally like them both developing Murton and giving Floyd rest by only picking their spots to insert Floyd).