CubColtPacer

it would be a crime to make a hitter of that caliber do anything but try to get a hit. if a such a hitter existed, you wouldn't be using him right. by the way, do you get what i mean now when i said that sometimes people get so wrapped up in the conventional logic of baseball that if conventional wisdom told them that down was up, they'd argue that it was until blue in the face? No, because I think that many more hitters have the ability to control the bat well enough to get it to a spot to score a run than to get a hit-I disagree with you on the quality of hitter needed to be able to hit a grounder to the second baseman or shorstop if they need one, and I think any decent hitter would be able to do that most of the time.

Read my edit on my previous post-I think that better defines exactly where I am, and I think you might like it at least a little bit better as well also.

check the bolded, you're not understanding me. a player has a better chance to score the run if he's trying to strike the ball sharply. if he tries to ball sharply, there's a much greater chance that he: 1. gets a hit, scoring the run. or 2. drives the ball deep enough to score the run in addition, when trying to hit a weak ground ball or a lazy pop fly, the hitter will have a less a chance of scoring the run while making an out....but i agree with you here, a hitter trying to hit the ball weakly DEFINITELY has a better chance at making an out. you might as well try hitting the ball hard. and you never addressed the issue: you seem to think trying to hit the ball hard will increase the chances that the player will hit a harmless pop fly, yet you champion the idea of a player trying to hit a pop-fly. which is it? I don't want the hitter to pop-up to the infield-I never champion that I want the hitter to hit a pop fly, but a fly ball-which assumes a fly ball deep enough to score any decent speed runner. Ok-so if a person had good enough bat control to be able to make a productive out every time with a runner on third and one out, you would take it right because it increases run production? I know nobody is that good, but my premise is that a person with good bat control can have their number of hits while trying to hit a ground ball or a fly ball=the number of times they fail to make a productive out. If they can do that, then that increases the run expectancies over a hitter who is trying to hit away like a normal at-bat. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree if a player has the ability to do that or not. Edit: BTW, one thing is that my argument has more to do with pitch selection than hitting the ball hard or weakly. I still want a person to hit it as hard as they can (albeit with a shorter swing) but there are many more type of pitches that a person can turn into a productive out than pitches that they can drive effectively. If they are looking to score the runner and see a pitch they can drive, then drive it-but if they get a pitch where they can hit a ground ball, instead of taking it and waiting for a possible pitch they could drive they should just take the ground ball and the run.

Ok, that's fine. Personally, as I've said earlier in the thread, I just want Aramis to hustle out of the box instead of admiring balls that might or might not be home runs, and that's not a big issue with me. I do think the Aramis issue is way overblown, and he is definitely good hustling or not. I was just addressing the argument in this thread of not understanding why people care if anybody ever hustles or gives their best effort as long as they are productive, and so why would an issue like this ever have to be brought. The first poster asked if anybody cared if people hustle-I responded with that people care, but for Aramis most of that caring is mitigated because of a very good reason for him not hustling (his legs) and I think some Cubs fans who value hustle do understand that and give him a pass on it because of that. In short, thank you for clearing that up-sorry my point wasn't more clear.

Those people are liars. Well, I've seen it-people who want to trade players they fully realize are the key to winning for their team, but because of either off-court issues or because of lack of caring on the court they'd rather lose without them than win with them. When it gets to specifics like that, I'm pretty sure they are telling the truth that they would trade those players in a second. if this is true, those people are either liars or losers, complete losers that have lost touch with professional sports. they can go watch college sports and root for their teams to lose. that's pathetic. Well, my guess is that you just called 60% or more of sports fans losers (no, I don't have a study for that like the study I had yesterday that conclusively said that certain productive outs increase run production :D) that study isn't really what we were talking about. a player trying to hit the ball sharply is probably more likely to make a "productive" out or get a "productive" hit or get a "productive" walk than a player who's not focused on what he does best. that study does not take into account that a player hitting with an even keel can score a run in a multitude of ways, not limited to making a "productive out". but anyway, you can take that over to the other thread if you want, i hadn't read your last post until just now. people who root for their teams to lose because they aren't winning the "right way" are losers, and i'm not afraid to say that here. i don't think there are many people who want to see their favorite team lose because they dislike the personnel. it's stupid. i'd root for the bears if TO played for them. but if they started to lose when the team lost focus because of him, i'd be one of the first railing for his release. teams that generally have to rely on blood-and-guts and all that whatever-it-is usually are losers themselves, but they can still feel like winners when they get the good sportsmanship award, if they gave one, which they don't. I'm not saying they root for their teams to lose if they don't have the right personnel. I'm saying that they would be willing to trade the player even if it meant having to re-build and lose more in the short-term in order to have a better team. For example, most Pacers fans want Jamaal Tinsley gone-not for his production (which most people consider good most of the time) but for his off-court issues and for his laziness sometimes on the court. He doesn't want to try, and the fans don't want to root for a player like that, and that (along with Jackson and Artest) is the reason that attendance has been falling rapidly at Pacer games. The team will get worse when Tinsley is traded, but the franchise will actually be able to represent its fanbase once again, which I believe is more important. They can always find another player even if takes a little while to get back onto the winning track. They'd never root for the team to lose, but they will boo Tinsley every chance that he gets and write letters demanding he be traded.

One of those situations, the runner on third with one out, was exactly what I'm talking about. As has been said, a productive out actually increases expected runs scored in this situation. Here is the link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/productive-outs-and-the-people-who-love-them/ i said "trying to make an out". a "productive" out can be made when a player isn't trying to sacrifice, if you can believe it. thus, a player who's giving it their all by hitting the ball as sharply in any direction as they can, would probably be more likely to score the run in any situation while a player who's waving weakly at a bad pitch in the dirt, can find themselves in an 0-2 hole very quickly. Ok, let me ask you this-here is my quote: Here is your response to my quote: Now how does your response lessen my argument whatsover? I see only one difference in our arguments now. You say that you're going to make the same number of productive outs if you go up there trying to score the run in any way possible (including hitting a fly ball or a ground ball that will likely get you out but score the run) or if you try to get a hit, but with trying to get a hit you get more hits. I'm saying that your productive out percentage goes way up when you're willing to possibly give yourself up and hit a ground ball to second or a fly ball instead of waiting for a pitch that you can drive that may never come, and that is sometimes worth depending on game situations/defense/hitters up the drop in hits that you give up in doing this. Do you disagree with this assessment of where we disagree?

Those people are liars. Well, I've seen it-people who want to trade players they fully realize are the key to winning for their team, but because of either off-court issues or because of lack of caring on the court they'd rather lose without them than win with them. When it gets to specifics like that, I'm pretty sure they are telling the truth that they would trade those players in a second. if this is true, those people are either liars or losers, complete losers that have lost touch with professional sports. they can go watch college sports and root for their teams to lose. that's pathetic. Well, my guess is that you just called 60% or more of sports fans losers (no, I don't have a study for that like the study I had yesterday that conclusively said that certain productive outs increase run production :D), just because people watch sports with different priorities does not mean they have "lost touch" or that they root for their teams to lose. They are the same type of people who don't want to sign a person like Barry Bonds or T.O. to their team (which polls have shown that a majority of sports fans would not support those players on their team)-they don't just want to win, they want to win "the right way", while most of the people on this board believe that winning itself is "the right way", no matter how you do it. Isn't there room for both philosophies without calling everybody who subscribes to one losers?

That's a great post for my view as well-I'm upset about players not hustling, but the way Aramis works on the other parts of his game still tells me that he works hard to try to get better, which makes up for those hustling mistakes as long as they are pointed out to him as well when he does do them.

That's another good point, and one that's sometimes hard to tell for sure-although again, Ramirez and Eyre have both been criticized for possibly being out of shape on the board the past couple of days, and only Ramirez did people object to it being unfair-it's all a matter of perception and production sometimes.

A good point, which is a reason that being upset against Ramirez not hustling is not nearly as good of an example as others-although I think many people would dispute that his chance of a leg injury is going to go up by more than a little bit if he hustles (although I think that could be debated). That's not all Ramirez is criticized for though-he had multiple balls that hit off the wall last year that turned into singles because Ramirez walked down the line or stood there watching assuming it was a home run. Again, I think his hustling lapses are way overblown (if he's the worst hustler on the team, than the Cubs are a better hustling team than most), but they are there and it's not all just running down the first base line to beat a ground ball.

That's a good point. For both the NBA and MLB, there are going to be a few games where your team just isn't there-the long season just makes it that way. Also, some players just don't have it at times-if it's an aberration, most people dismiss it as such. For most people, hustling doesn't become that big of a problem unless it happens on a decently routine basis.

For some. Not everybody. Exceptions don't always make the rule. Please. No one, at any job, ever, goes 100% all of the time. I'm sure a fair share go 100% for a large percentage of the time. And they would certainly do so for the whole 10-20 times per ballgame that a player is required to do so. Exactly-those people know that players aren't always going to be focused in practices or meetings sometime. For a major league ballplayer though, evaluations come 162 times a year, and they expect that for those times that the ballplayer if going to try their best, just as a person at a job does when it comes times for their work to be evaluated.

What adds to this is that a lot of the fans bust their butt in the workplace to make a pittance of what professional ballplayers make and have no patience for a player who doesn't give 100% effort to play a game. I'm not making a judgment on Ramirez one way or another here, but am just trying to give some perspective as to the reasons some fans have the viewpoints that they do. And yet a lot of the complainers don't really bust their own butts 100% of the time, but they get all sanctimonious when complaining about ballplayers because it makes themselves feel better. What is your point? I was merely giving an example of why some fans might feel that way. How does your post change what I said? He's pointing out the hypocrisy of the hustling issue. Well, many fans feel that they have the right to expect effort out of the ballplayers-many of them pay a lot of money to support the team, and they feel the least thing the players could do in return is to "leave it all out on the field." I'm not saying that you have to agree with it, but I'm shocked at the level of names that those people have been called already in this thread for just valuing effort and character first.

Again-just because I'm on the side of hustling for the larger issue, that does not mean that I was against signing Ramirez. I think the Ramirez hustle issues are overblown, and I am thrilled that he is on this team, because the Cubs desperately need his production.

I'm sure I have opinions that are stupid. People would be right to call me out on them. That said, I can defend most of my opinions. I don't get people that care more about effort than winning when it comes to a sporting event. I don't see a valid defense for that line of thinking; that there's somehow honor in being bad if you tried really hard. IMO they are thinking that effort goes with winning and not inspite of. That is certainly part of it-many people hate when they see a team not playing to their potential, and a lack of hustle as a reason for that is the worst way that a team could not live up to their potential (now, there are reasons why the Ramirez case in particular does not live up to that, but I'll disregard that for the larger issue of hustling right now). Let me give another analogy to help you understand how these people think: would you be more proud of a kid who got B's but you know could of gotten A-'s if they had done all they could, or a kid who struggled all the way through the semester to earn their C? Many people would choose the latter, and they apply that same principle to sports. It comes down to these people's expectations of ballplayers. They expect them to do everything that they can to win. They know that sometimes they are not going to win regardless because of the quality of other teams, but the most important thing is to do everything that the ballplayers can control to win-if those players aren't doing that, then it is the absolutely most frustrating thing. The underdog mentality that some people have of rooting for the underdog or small guy in all things also feeds into this mentality of no matter your talent level the first thing that you can control is your effort, and so that if the most fundamental thing.

Those people are liars. Well, I've seen it-people who want to trade players they fully realize are the key to winning for their team, but because of either off-court issues or because of lack of caring on the court they'd rather lose without them than win with them. When it gets to specifics like that, I'm pretty sure they are telling the truth that they would trade those players in a second.

Seriously? This is what people care about? I don't believe in it nearly as much as most people do, but yes, seriously that's what a large, large number of people care about-I've heard many, many fans say that they would rather want a mediocre team that is giving their full effort than a good team that doesn't hustle at times. Then those are some stupid, stupid fans with their priorities out of whack. This isn't little league, or AYSO soccer, where everyone just gets credit for trying hard. Winning is the only mandate. If ARam hits 40 HR's and 120RBI's I don't care if he crawls down the 1st base line on a groundout. So if we took a poll, and found that your line of thinking was in the minority, then the majority could call you stupid with silly priorities? Everybody has their own reasons for becoming a fan-wanting people to give it their all in sports is like character issues for politicians. It may not affect the job they do (if it be politics or sports) but people want to be proud to say that I am a fan of this and these people represent me, and giving full effort in sports is a key part of that. Some people watch sports for the journey, and others watch it for the destination-I don't see how some people can tell other people why they should watch something, or what they can value as a fan. At the same time, I think the Ramirez hustle issues are overblown-there are many people in the majors who have worse issues than he does, and his occasional lack of hustle then is not a big deal to me.

Seriously? This is what people care about? I don't believe in it nearly as much as most people do, but yes, seriously that's what a large, large number of people care about-I've heard many, many fans say that they would rather want a mediocre team that is giving their full effort than a good team that doesn't hustle at times.

How often in the Super Bowl have you seen a team pass on first and second down for no yardage, then try to run the ball on third down? I know you might be exaggerating a little bit, but there was nothing like that playcalling in the Super Bowl. In fact, the Bears ran twice on third down once on a 3rd and 6, where they picked up 4-this was from their own 9 yard line right after Tait got hurt, so they were probably playing a little conservative here. 2nd time was on a 3rd and 3, and they picked up 2. That's all of the Bears 3rd down running in the Super Bowl. They did run a lot on 2nd downs though, and for the most part, 2nd down running was terrible: 2-4-Jones for 1 2-4-Jones for 0 2-6-Jones for 0 2-2-Jones for 4 2-10-Jones for 2 (Note: he picked up 2 12-15 yard gains after the second INT-I've basically thrown out all statistics after that point as they are basically meaningless with the Colts in a prevent defense). I didn't see the play-calling problem in the Super Bowl at least-the players just weren't performing very well.

He's done alright with landing A-Ram and D-Lee for a pile of junk. Sure, he's had his share of bad moves as well, but he has secured four players who are likely all-stars this year (D-Lee, A-Ram, Soriano and Barrett. He gets way too much credit for Aramis and Lee. Both were salary dumps. Luckily, Hendry had the necessary parts and budget to fit both guys in. No one wanted Derrek Lee the year before Hendry traded for him. Baltimore was the most interested, but Florida wouldn't pick up part of the salary, and a deal never happened. Aramis was about to get expensive for Pittsburgh, and they were dumping anyone making any decent money that year. These were not big coos on Hendry's part. I'm happy the Cubs were the team that landed these two players, and I'm even more thrilled that it cost very little in talent to get them, but those guys would have been traded to someone regardless. I don't know about too much credit. You still have to be the team at the right place at the right time who gets the salary dumpee. I count Larry Walker as one of the feathers in Jocketty's cap during his tenure with the Cards and he's didn't approach the Lee and Aram coup (due to his age and injuries). One thing that has to be remembered also is that the Cubs had another option for both 3B and 1B. They weren't supposed to trade for Ramirez in 2003, but rather Mike Lowell-Hendry picked the right one. Also, Hendry still had to pick Lee over Choi, even if Lee was a salary dump. So both of them were salary dumps, but they were both highly questioned at the time, and there were a considerable amount of people who thought they should have went with the other two instead. So I have to give Henry credit for them-he only took advantage of the opportunities when they were in his lap, but he took advantages of the right ones at the time, and bypassed the wrong ones.

Well, it was reported that the West Coast teams were on the verge of offering him 100 million, so I'd say that it was last minute.

Not to mention the latest Ramirez deal-my guess is that Z's multi-year deal will be the same way.

That's true-Levine hasn't exactly been the best source, and has been really bad this offseason.

Yeah, I'll agree that they better not go to the hearing over a 200K difference when the difference in arbitration figures is 4.5 million-it's time to get this done before it goes to arbitration.

Well, let me be the first to provide a study for my case: One of those situations, the runner on third with one out, was exactly what I'm talking about. As has been said, a productive out actually increases expected runs scored in this situation. Here is the link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/productive-outs-and-the-people-who-love-them/