CubColtPacer

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/

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.