CubColtPacer

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie. It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard. having izturis up will still be worth not trtying to make an out. the only player who is not working with the percentages would abe a very bad hitting pitcher. Again...no one is making an out on purpose. Yeah-the chances of an out go up using our method, but there's still a decent shot of a hit.

A) Do we know the Cubs aren't going halfway? B) 4 million A) Yes, go to the link to Bruce's article on the first page B)4M to be gained, having a good chance at signing Zambrano (plus 4M) is lost......hmmm, is it just me or does this not work out when you do a cost benefit analysis. What does B mean? Bruce already said that he believes that the two sides going to arbitration would not likely hurt any feelings or affect anything but the starting point of the money for the negotiations.

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims? No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not. Instead of waiting or requiring Sully to post the link, google TangoTiger. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but his research on this speaks fr itself. I have read most of his data-as far as I know, he hasn't can't introduce a variable to see how much the run scored from trying to make an out vs trying to make a hit, because things like ground ball RBI's are ambigous-was the player trying to make a hit and ended up grounding into an RBI, or were they trying to do what they actually did? Without that question answered, this debate cannot be finished. If he has tried to tackle something like that, then I'd love to see the specific study, but since I have never seen anything like it from looking over most of his studies, I don't think it would be as easy for me to find as somebody who thinks they have seen it proven. it is my understanding that attempting to make an out is worth fewer runs in all situations. Well, I can tell you that's not correct. Sacrifices have been proven that they are worth it if the hitter is bad enough, so that's making an out that is worth more runs if the hitter is really bad (for bunts, the hitter has to be really bad though). So already, your assertion that attempting to make an out is worth fewer runs in all situations is not correct. Now, this discussion is not about sacrifice bunts, but there would stand for reason also be situations where bringing in the runner from 3rd would be appropriate with one out (in fact, there should be more situations for that then just moving the runner up a base), so the caliber of hitter could be improved and still have possible situations where attempting to bring home the runner with a ground ball or a fly ball would be the correct move. I'm just saying there are some situations where it is correct, not that is correct all the time.

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie. It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard. Exactly-in that type of scenario with those hitters up, better to have a much greater than average chance of a tie than a greater than an average chance for a loss with a small chance of a win.

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims? No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not. Instead of waiting or requiring Sully to post the link, google TangoTiger. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but his research on this speaks fr itself. I have read most of his data-as far as I know, he hasn't can't introduce a variable to see how much the run scored from trying to make an out vs trying to make a hit, because things like ground ball RBI's are ambigous-was the player trying to make a hit and ended up grounding into an RBI, or were they trying to do what they actually did? Without that question answered, this debate cannot be finished. If he has tried to tackle something like that, then I'd love to see the specific study, but since I have never seen anything like it from looking over most of his studies, I don't think it would be as easy for me to find as somebody who thinks they have seen it proven.

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims? No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder. in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard. I think the bolded part is where we all are disagreeing-I don't think it is the same chance at all-trying to put a good swing on the ball leads to more K's and more pop-ups that lesssen the chance of scoring the runner. that's simply not true. trying to make an out is worth considerably less than not trying to make an out. by swinging weakly, you lessen your run expectancy in all situations. Well, first I'd refer more to Cuse's post of wanting to hit a solid ground ball-that's what I'd want my hitters as well. Also, if hitting a ground ball makes the chances of scoring the run significantly higher, then that makes up for the difference between the out and a baserunner. It will decrease your chances of scoring multiple runs in that scenario (which is low anyway, because most of the time I want my players doing this is when there are poor hitters coming up behind them), but you will definitely increase your chance of scoring 1 run, and in those circumstances the 1 run that has a greater chance of scoring has more value than the small possibility of multiple runs. again, it comes down to not making outs. there's absolutely no proof that supports your hypothesis, while tangotiger alone has amassed more data than could ever possibly be known by me on the subject. a runner on third with nobody out scores just as many times, if not more, when a player tries to drive the ball rather than waving at it weakly. Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

My guess is that the Cubs planned on settling for about 12.5, so they didn't want to offer that and then have to work on a new mid-point that was higher than that. They offered 11, they thought Z would offer about 14, and when he offered 15.5 the mid-point of that was simply unacceptable to them.

How ironic. 7m a year for the next 3 years for a pitcher with an over 6.00 ERA is not considered too much, but 13.5/13.75m for a GOOD pitcher, a true #1 starter is too high. Good luck getting Zito money from Hendry, Carlos. He seems to think 15m is too high, so there isn't any possible way he gives out 18m for the same guy. At least Hendry pretended like he wanted to get a deal done. Now I'm pissed again. It's all about risk with arbitration hearings. Most times the two can agree to the mid-point because it is unclear on what the arbiter will decide. By going to arbitration and not accepting the mid-point, the Cubs are saying that they firmly believe that the arbiter will agree with them. If it works, then that will help negotiations later-it has little bearing on if Hendry is willing to give Z 17 or 18 million a year for a long-term extension, but he would like to have it as low as he possibly can, and going to an arbiter might help the Cubs get it a little lower.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder. in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard. Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post. there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right? micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total. if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do? It's a lot easier to hit a ground ball no matter what the pitcher throws then to drive the ball for a base hit-it is much, much easier to do the first than the second.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder. in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard. I think the bolded part is where we all are disagreeing-I don't think it is the same chance at all-trying to put a good swing on the ball leads to more K's and more pop-ups that lesssen the chance of scoring the runner. that's simply not true. trying to make an out is worth considerably less than not trying to make an out. by swinging weakly, you lessen your run expectancy in all situations. Well, first I'd refer more to Cuse's post of wanting to hit a solid ground ball-that's what I'd want my hitters as well. Also, if hitting a ground ball makes the chances of scoring the run significantly higher, then that makes up for the difference between the out and a baserunner. It will decrease your chances of scoring multiple runs in that scenario (which is low anyway, because most of the time I want my players doing this is when there are poor hitters coming up behind them), but you will definitely increase your chance of scoring 1 run, and in those circumstances the 1 run that has a greater chance of scoring has more value than the small possibility of multiple runs.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder. in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard. I think the bolded part is where we all are disagreeing-I don't think it is the same chance at all-trying to put a good swing on the ball leads to more K's and more pop-ups that lesssen the chance of scoring the runner.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well . this ratio is totally imagined, it doesn't exist. the proof we have shows that sacrificing holds no benefit over not sacrificing when trying to push a single run across the plate. however, there's proof that shows sacrificing greatly decreases your chances of scoring multiple runs. I'm not talking about sacrificing (I assume you mean bunts here)-I think that major leaguers have enough bat control most of the time though that when a defense is conceding the run in the infield that they can hit a grounder if they want to and score that run. It would be impossible to do a study completely on that (because it's hard to tell which batters are looking for a hit and which ones are looking to score the run first) but it is perfectly rational that with a man on third and one out with the defense conceding the run that it will be more likely that a team will score that run if that is their primary objective rather than hitting the exact same as if nobody was on. again, you will maximize scoring potential if you try to hit the ball hard. if you consistently attempt to give up outs by hitting the ball to an infielder, you will score less runs. this will cause you to lose more games. you do not ask your players to give anything less than their best plate appearance, ever. and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you. There's no guarantee you will score a run, but the chance is higher. How much higher? That's impossible to know for sure, and that number would be the key to know which situation was better-if it was significantly higher, than the out would be the right play, otherwise hitting away would be the right play.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well . Going to the plate intending to make an out is stupid. If you have two strikes on you, whatever, but the goal of any PA should be to get a hit, not hit a flyout to CF. I would argue that it depends on the game situation, hitter, and how the defense is playing. There are many situations where the first priority has to be to get the run in however possible-a hit is a nice bonus. If the defense is conceding the run, run expectancies would tell you that sometimes it's worth more runs just to take the more sure ground ball out (which could still turn into a hit) rather than risk an out that does not drive in the run. and i've yet to see the situation in which making an out is worth more runs than not making an out. the situation may exist, but i don't think so. That's not what I am saying at all-I am saying that striving to score the run in some situations which will likely lead to an out (grounding the ball to the second baseman with a man on third and one out) will lead to more runs overall than if in that same situation a decent to sub-par hitter with a high K rate goes up and hits just like he normally would.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well . this ratio is totally imagined, it doesn't exist. the proof we have shows that sacrificing holds no benefit over not sacrificing when trying to push a single run across the plate. however, there's proof that shows sacrificing greatly decreases your chances of scoring multiple runs. I'm not talking about sacrificing (I assume you mean bunts here)-I think that major leaguers have enough bat control most of the time though that when a defense is conceding the run in the infield that they can hit a grounder if they want to and score that run. It would be impossible to do a study completely on that (because it's hard to tell which batters are looking for a hit and which ones are looking to score the run first) but it is perfectly rational that with a man on third and one out with the defense conceding the run that it will be more likely that a team will score that run if that is their primary objective rather than hitting the exact same as if nobody was on.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well . Going to the plate intending to make an out is stupid. If you have two strikes on you, whatever, but the goal of any PA should be to get a hit, not hit a flyout to CF. I would argue that it depends on the game situation, hitter, and how the defense is playing. There are many situations where the first priority has to be to get the run in however possible-a hit is a nice bonus. If the defense is conceding the run, run expectancies would tell you that sometimes it's worth more runs just to take the more sure ground ball out (which could still turn into a hit) rather than risk an out that does not drive in the run.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

Other than the people implying that Aramis was lazy, out of shape and unfocused, earning the disrespect of his teamates, and maintaining the ire of the fans by signing a fat contract and showing up "late" (whihc turned out to be on time", you're right. No one said anything critical. Other than that. I saw one comment that he looked out of shape-which is a common thing said about at least a few players on the team all the time on this board (including in the last week)-nobody jumped all over them. I didn't really see the other implications you're talking about-the only other comment that could be seen as remotely critical of Aramis is that people wouldn't be impressed by him if he showed up late-he didn't, and the person even said that he really just wanted to know who was there/and wasn't there and was not turning against Aramis in any way. I guess I just didn't read the same implications into things that some others did.

The funny thing is that in reading through this thread, there really wasn't any of this harsh criticism of Aramis that everyone is speaking of-I think the perception is more than the reality in this case.

If the Cubs win, what would that mean in terms of dollars? I'm guessing, if vance's reasoning is correct, it would mean an Oswalt-like one year salary. According to ESPN.com, he's making 11,000,000. Off the top of my head, the firgures are like 11.5 from the Cubs and 15 from Z. I think the .5 is actually opposite there-from what I remember, it was 11 from the Cubs and 15.5 from Z-that's of course off the top of my head too, so either of us could be right.

I think the answer to your question would be Theriot, but I can't see the club turning around and suddenly putting Jones in CF-that's the scenario that the club has desperately been trying to avoid all winter (trying to trade Jones until Soriano agreed to play center).

Assuming I did the math right, the numbers are accurate, and the number of double plays on double steals is insignificant, the break even points come out to 53.3% for double steals with no outs, and 79.1% for double steals with one out. Thanks-so if that's correct, double steals with nobody out can be an effective weapon if you have a very good baserunner stealing 3rd and at least a decent basestealer stealing 2nd (making the catcher throw it to 3rd rather than 2nd) So who's the very good basestealer on the roster? Well, let's see, I only need a 53 percent break-even point for a double steal, so I just need a player who can steal 3rd 55 percent of the time or more. Soriano fits that bill: 2006-14 steals, 8 CS 2005-6 steals, 0 CS 2004-2 steals, 2 CS 2003-5 steals, 3 CS 2002-9 steals, 3 CS That's 36 steals of 3rd in the last 5 years with 16 caught-that's 69.2 percent, which means that Soriano is breaking even on stealing 3rd with one out, and can be used as that front baserunner in the double steal attempt.

Assuming I did the math right, the numbers are accurate, and the number of double plays on double steals is insignificant, the break even points come out to 53.3% for double steals with no outs, and 79.1% for double steals with one out. Thanks-so if that's correct, double steals with nobody out can be an effective weapon if you have a very good baserunner stealing 3rd and at least a decent basestealer stealing 2nd (making the catcher throw it to 3rd rather than 2nd)

That's specious reasoning. An AB can have multiple outcomes that result in a runner reaching without an out. A stolen base attempt has 2 outcomes. Soriano had a 68% success rate stealing last season. He had 3 net SB's. That's bad. It is a bad idea, with few exceptions, to take a runner at 2nd and have him try and steal 3rd. That's my point soccer, the few exceptions and I have never said all the time. You pick your spots and the post BbB just made gives me more confidence that Lou will do just that. What point did I make? I haven't made a single post in this thread until now. I think he was talking about my post-I'm honored to be mistaken for you :D

Can somebody help me out? My brain is very tired, and for some reason I can't get the numbers to work right now. Can you calculate the percentage that the team would need when trying to execute a double steal with 0 and 1 outs? Here is the relevant data: 0 outs 1st and 2nd: 1.573 2nd and 3rd: 2.052 2nd (1 out): .725 1 outs 1st and 2nd: .971 2nd and 3rd: 1.467 2nd (2 outs): .344 Thanks for any help you can give.