CubColtPacer

Wow, talk about 4 games that I could give a crap about The Rose Bowl will be good either way. I would love to see either Florida or WVU against ND because they both have good offenses which is ND's weakness. The Orange Bowl would be so/so and that Fiesta Bowl matchup would be bad. The National Title game, which under your situation would be OSU/UM - UL would be entertaining as well. I disagree that ND's weakness is a good offense-I think it is just the opposite. The scary teams to me are the ones with a good defense, because anybody can score a bunch of points on ND. The question is-can the other team slow down ND's offense? The ones that have-GT, Michigan, Michigan State (for 2 1/2 quarters), and UCLA have given ND trouble. With that said, Florida would definitely be a harder game for ND. WVU-ND would be very entertaining, and would probably be much like the game last night (maybe without all the WVU fumbles). MSU most definitely does not have a good defense. They've given up like 80 points to Northwestern and Indiana the past two weeks. True, they don't, but they were slowing down the ND offense, which caused the deficit. The ND defense has only slowed down 1 or 2 teams all year, and Michigan State with their inconsistent offense was not one of them.

That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup. I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon. Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used. But let's take this to its logical conclusion. If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy. Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea. So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit. Sort of, but you're talking about the GM's responsibility. If the GM doesn't do it right, then it's sunk cost already, and the manager shouldn't make it worse by refusing to play the player in the areas where he could make a positive benefit, however small it is, for the team.

they're also out their first round pick, since they forfeited their legitimate one so they could get this guy without spending any extra money. What does that mean?

Wow, talk about 4 games that I could give a crap about The Rose Bowl will be good either way. I would love to see either Florida or WVU against ND because they both have good offenses which is ND's weakness. The Orange Bowl would be so/so and that Fiesta Bowl matchup would be bad. The National Title game, which under your situation would be OSU/UM - UL would be entertaining as well. I disagree that ND's weakness is a good offense-I think it is just the opposite. The scary teams to me are the ones with a good defense, because anybody can score a bunch of points on ND. The question is-can the other team slow down ND's offense? The ones that have-GT, Michigan, Michigan State (for 2 1/2 quarters), and UCLA have given ND trouble. With that said, Florida would definitely be a harder game for ND. WVU-ND would be very entertaining, and would probably be much like the game last night (maybe without all the WVU fumbles).

Texas 41, USC 38. Does that score mean those two teams couldn't handle the "big boys"? Absolutely not because everybody said they both had great offenses. I realize it's a little different and I'm not saying the WVU and UL offenses are as good as 2005 USC and 2005 Texas but they both are good. WVU's is more of a gimmick offense but Louisville's offense is the real deal IMO. I was going to make the same point earlier, but was worried I was going to get ignored because of the differences. I do agree with you that WVU and UL scoring that much is no more indicative of how bad they are than Auburn and LSU playing a 7-3 game earlier this year is indicative about how bad they are. Instead, it's just two teams coming together who have similar strengths, and that leads to an extreme game weighted towards one side of the ball.

Yup. Bochy is the new manager of the Giants.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. Thank you.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game. Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi. yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them. Sulley, let me make sure I've got your position right first. Are you saying that a defensive replacement should not be used late because defense in the first is worth the same as defense in the 9th, and that a team shouldn't start their defensive replacment, so why should they put him in late? Or are you saying something else? have you been follwoing the conversation? i'm saying that players shouldn't be acquired for the sole purpose of using them as late inning replacements, it's worthless. Yes, I've been following the conversation, including the beginning of the conversation where there was a split over this. At the beginning, people thought that the original poster meant that defensive switches were useless in itself-that's why they defended the defensive switch as they did. The person you quoted was just saying that putting in your best defense at the end of the game when a team is up is logical, not that the team should use that logic to go out and acquire only defense-minded players. I think there is agreement that players should not be acquired for simply the purpose of being a defensive replacement because of his lack of offense. Sorry about the miscommunication.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game. Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi. yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them. Sulley, let me make sure I've got your position right first. Are you saying that a defensive replacement should not be used late because defense in the first is worth the same as defense in the 9th, and that a team shouldn't start their defensive replacment, so why should they put him in late? Or are you saying something else?

Agreed. What we were saying is if Arkansas and Auburn both win out, and then Arkansas loses to Florida in the SEC title game, who should go to a BCS bowl?

Arkansas has to play S. Carolina, Tenn, Miss St and LSU. If they win all those games and go 11-1 and then lose in the championship to Florida they deserve to go over Auburn, LSU, or Tenn IMO. They won't like you said but they would deserve to. I don't think they would deserve to go over Auburn in that case. Florida beat Arkansas Arkansas beat Auburn Auburn beat Arkansas It would be one of those triangles in that case. The difference between Auburn and Arkansas at that point would be that Auburn would only have 1 loss, while Arkansas would have 2. It would be close, but I think a 1 loss team with a similar schedule would have to take precedence, even with the head to head. When did Auburn beat Arkansas unless you have them playing in the SEC Championship Game which I would agree with you. Can Auburn play Arkansas in the SEC title game? Are they in the same division? They are. Arkansas or Auburn will represent the West, and Florida will likely represent the East, with Tennessee having a chance if Florida stumbles.

Arkansas has to play S. Carolina, Tenn, Miss St and LSU. If they win all those games and go 11-1 and then lose in the championship to Florida they deserve to go over Auburn, LSU, or Tenn IMO. They won't like you said but they would deserve to. I don't think they would deserve to go over Auburn in that case. Florida beat Arkansas Arkansas beat Auburn Auburn beat Arkansas It would be one of those triangles in that case. The difference between Auburn and Arkansas at that point would be that Auburn would only have 1 loss, while Arkansas would have 2. It would be close, but I think a 1 loss team with a similar schedule would have to take precedence, even with the head to head. When did Auburn beat Arkansas unless you have them playing in the SEC Championship Game which I would agree with you. I meant Auburn beat Florida. I have changed it. I don't see any way on how a 1 loss Auburn team could be passed over by a 2 loss Arkansas team. Would you think that a 2 loss Auburn team should be in over a 1 loss Florida team because they beat them?

Arkansas has to play S. Carolina, Tenn, Miss St and LSU. If they win all those games and go 11-1 and then lose in the championship to Florida they deserve to go over Auburn, LSU, or Tenn IMO. They won't like you said but they would deserve to. I don't think they would deserve to go over Auburn in that case. Florida beat Arkansas Arkansas beat Auburn Auburn beat Florida It would be one of those triangles in that case. The difference between Auburn and Arkansas at that point would be that Auburn would only have 1 loss, while Arkansas would have 2. It would be close, but I think a 1 loss team with a similar schedule would have to take precedence, even with the head to head.

By the way ND, with the new BCS bowl this year, it only takes top 14 to be eligible, so ND would have to fall out of the top 14 now to not go, not top 12. They have to make top 8 now to automatically qualify now, not top 6 anymore.

It's like the stupid preseason polls during the season. I'm not saying the Big East is the best but it's just as good as any major conference. I was listening to Mike and Mike and they were saying since Miami and the others left everyone assumes the conference is weak and they just brush it off. It's like we have to wait for 4 to 5 years for them to prove they belong while IMO they already have. This conference has 2 losing teams out of 8 or 75% of the teams in it. No other conference can say that. That's partially because the BE plays less conference games though. For example, the SEC has 8 of the 12 teams with a winning record. Most teams in the SEC have played 5-6 conference games already, while the BE has played 3-4. Two of the SEC teams, Kentucky and Vanderbilt, if they had only played 3-4 conference games so far, they would also be over .500, which would put the SEC at 10 of 12 teams over .500. As teams play their conference season, it becomes harder and harder for a large percentage of the conference to stay above .500-because if teams at the top are staying close to undefeated, then teams have to be losing to them and hurting their records. The BE certainly is not weak. It's just very much an unknown quanity right now, and the bowl games will be a good indicator where the BE is this year. If Cincy played bad teams instead of Ohio State and VTech they'd be 7-2. and if Syracuse played bad teams instead of Iowa and Wake Forrest they'd be 5-4. There are no gimme's like Mississippi St or Mississippi are this year. The SEC is good no doubt but it isn't the God people make it out to be. The bowls hurt the BE if they are the same as last year. If a 2nd BE team doesn't go to the BCS they go to the Liberty Bowl and play an inferior team which once again people will say they didn't play a tough enough team. If we win it's because we should have and if we lose we are over rated. Well, you could make the same argument for teams like Mississippi and to a lesser extent Mississippi State. Mississippi lost to Missouri and Wake Forest outside of conference, and Miss State lost to Tulane and WV. The only bad team of those 4 is Tulane, and if they had played less conference and good teams and more bad teams, those 2 teams would probably have a good record as well.

It's like the stupid preseason polls during the season. I'm not saying the Big East is the best but it's just as good as any major conference. I was listening to Mike and Mike and they were saying since Miami and the others left everyone assumes the conference is weak and they just brush it off. It's like we have to wait for 4 to 5 years for them to prove they belong while IMO they already have. This conference has 2 losing teams out of 8 or 75% of the teams in it. No other conference can say that. That's partially because the BE plays less conference games though. For example, the SEC has 8 of the 12 teams with a winning record. Most teams in the SEC have played 5-6 conference games already, while the BE has played 3-4. Two of the SEC teams, Kentucky and Vanderbilt, if they had only played 3-4 conference games so far, they would also be over .500, which would put the SEC at 10 of 12 teams over .500. As teams play their conference season, it becomes harder and harder for a large percentage of the conference to stay above .500-because if teams at the top are staying close to undefeated, then teams have to be losing to them and hurting their records. The BE certainly is not weak. It's just very much an unknown quanity right now, and the bowl games will be a good indicator where the BE is this year.

Well, Michigan did take out the number 2 team earlier in the season, and WV will be ranked about the same spot as the team that Michigan destroyed on the road. So why does Louisville get to jump ahead of them based on one game again? The thing is, if Louisville gets ranked behind Texas or Florida, I support you completely if you're upset. Why does Louisville automatically go ahead of Michigan though? Because they beat WV at home? Michigan beat ND on the road Because they beat Miami at home? Michigan beat Wisconsin at home, Penn State on the road and Iowa at home. Those are really the only impact games that either team has played. Michigan has more of them, and they have had more chances to be impressive because of that. Right now, IMO Michigan deserves to be ahead of Louisville. If you think Louisville should be ahead, fine. There certainly are good reasons to argue the other way though. I agree with what you wrote but it just makes no sense regarding the "leapfrog" of another team. If you think a team is better than you should rank them as that but just because one team is ahead of them being the reason why they can't move ahead, I just don't agree with that logic, I'm not saying you said this but talking about the polls in particular. The undefeated teams should be at the top and what worries me is if Michigan and Ohio State go to overtime people will want that game to be the BCS Championship game too. If Rutgers runs the table I know they will not play in that game and I think they should if they beat Louisville and WV. This brings me to another pet peeve. The teams with a Championship Game send in a possible 2-5 loss team to the BCS and the team with the best record goes. The Big East will only get 1 team no matter how good the second place team is even if WV wins the rest of their games and ends up 11-1 and Rutgers ends up 10-2. I think WV would have a shot to get into a BCS bowl at 11-1. It would really depend on how all the other conferences shook out. There are 4 at-large spots in the BCS. One of those will likely be taken by Notre Dame, and another one will be taken by Boise State. That leaves 2 at-large spots-but remember, for most of these 1 loss teams, that means they will win their automatic conference bid. If Texas stays at 1 loss, that means they would be already be automatically going. The same goes for a team like Florida. The winner of the USC/California game gets the automatic spot, and the loser will have 2 losses. The competition for the 2 at-large spots would be WV, either Auburn or Tennessee (no more than 2 conference schools can make it into the BCS in a year, so both of these teams cannot go along with Florida), and the OSU/Michigan loser. Your best hope then is for either 1)Boise State to lose, which means they won't make the BCS-2)Notre Dame to lose twice, 3)Auburn and Tennessee losing again before the end of the year (which is certainly possible, especially if Auburn makes the SEC title game) or 4) somehow OSU or Michigan losing twice. Any one of those 4 scenarios will send WVU to a BCS bowl game. Let me ask you this. What happens if Rutgers beats Louisville, WV beats Rutgers. What makes Florida or the winner of the SEC, winner of the Big 12, or the winner of the Pac 10, or Notre Dame if they run the table automatically better than a 1 loss BE team? The Big East team HAS to go undefeated to go while other conferences can have a loss. Well, first I want to clarify that what I said in the last post is what would happen, not necessarily what should happen. I was trying to project WV's chances through the lens of the national picture. I will answer your question here though. It's simply the number of quality wins that they have. Florida would have more than any Big East team with Tennessee, LSU, and the SEC title game loser. The best the Big East would have to counter that is Louisville, with wins over WV and Miami. The Big 12? You could certainly make a case for that Texas has had no more quality wins or played an extremely tough schedule either, and I would have no argument with it. I would put Texas's accomplishments on the same level as the 3 Big East teams at that point. The winner of the Pac 10? If it's USC and they have 1 loss, that means they will have beaten Arkansas, Nebraska, California, Oregon, and Notre Dame. If it's Cal, I think the BE has much more of a case-because Cal would only have victories over USC and Oregon, which is about the same level as a team like Louisville with wins over again WV and Miami. Notre Dame would have wins over Georgia Tech, Penn State, and USC. That would put them a little better than anything the BE has to offer, although not by all that much.

The rules have changed this year though. To qualify automatically, Boise State (or any other minor conference team) has to finish in the top 12 of the BCS standings, or if they are in the top 16, but finish ahead of one of the major conference automatic bids they get an automatic bid as well. Boise State is 14th in the BCS right now, and higher than any ACC team (Boston College is right behind them). If Boise State wins out, it is almost certain that they will match one of those two criteria to get an automatic bid to a BCS bowl game.

Well, Michigan did take out the number 2 team earlier in the season, and WV will be ranked about the same spot as the team that Michigan destroyed on the road. So why does Louisville get to jump ahead of them based on one game again? The thing is, if Louisville gets ranked behind Texas or Florida, I support you completely if you're upset. Why does Louisville automatically go ahead of Michigan though? Because they beat WV at home? Michigan beat ND on the road Because they beat Miami at home? Michigan beat Wisconsin at home, Penn State on the road and Iowa at home. Those are really the only impact games that either team has played. Michigan has more of them, and they have had more chances to be impressive because of that. Right now, IMO Michigan deserves to be ahead of Louisville. If you think Louisville should be ahead, fine. There certainly are good reasons to argue the other way though. I agree with what you wrote but it just makes no sense regarding the "leapfrog" of another team. If you think a team is better than you should rank them as that but just because one team is ahead of them being the reason why they can't move ahead, I just don't agree with that logic, I'm not saying you said this but talking about the polls in particular. The undefeated teams should be at the top and what worries me is if Michigan and Ohio State go to overtime people will want that game to be the BCS Championship game too. If Rutgers runs the table I know they will not play in that game and I think they should if they beat Louisville and WV. This brings me to another pet peeve. The teams with a Championship Game send in a possible 2-5 loss team to the BCS and the team with the best record goes. The Big East will only get 1 team no matter how good the second place team is even if WV wins the rest of their games and ends up 11-1 and Rutgers ends up 10-2. I think WV would have a shot to get into a BCS bowl at 11-1. It would really depend on how all the other conferences shook out. There are 4 at-large spots in the BCS. One of those will likely be taken by Notre Dame, and another one will be taken by Boise State. That leaves 2 at-large spots-but remember, for most of these 1 loss teams, that means they will win their automatic conference bid. If Texas stays at 1 loss, that means they would be already be automatically going. The same goes for a team like Florida. The winner of the USC/California game gets the automatic spot, and the loser will have 2 losses. The competition for the 2 at-large spots would be WV, either Auburn or Tennessee (no more than 2 conference schools can make it into the BCS in a year, so both of these teams cannot go along with Florida), and the OSU/Michigan loser. Your best hope then is for either 1)Boise State to lose, which means they won't make the BCS-2)Notre Dame to lose twice, 3)Auburn and Tennessee losing again before the end of the year (which is certainly possible, especially if Auburn makes the SEC title game) or 4) somehow OSU or Michigan losing twice. Any one of those 4 scenarios will send WVU to a BCS bowl game.

Well, Michigan did take out the number 2 team earlier in the season, and WV will be ranked about the same spot as the team that Michigan destroyed on the road. So why does Louisville get to jump ahead of them based on one game again? The thing is, if Louisville gets ranked behind Texas or Florida, I support you completely if you're upset. Why does Louisville automatically go ahead of Michigan though? Because they beat WV at home? Michigan beat ND on the road Because they beat Miami at home? Michigan beat Wisconsin at home, Penn State on the road and Iowa at home. Those are really the only impact games that either team has played. Michigan has more of them, and they have had more chances to be impressive because of that. Right now, IMO Michigan deserves to be ahead of Louisville. If you think Louisville should be ahead, fine. There certainly are good reasons to argue the other way though.

It's still possible even with all that though. The OSU-Michigan loser is 1. After that is possibly Texas, Tennessee, Florida-Auburn winner (possibly both if Arkansas beats LSU and goes to the SEC title game), probably at least 1 out of USC/Notre Dame/California, and possibly 2 if USC loses both of those games. That's 4-6 teams right there even after taking into account the teams that play each other. Of course, several of those teams still could get knocked off by other teams. It will be an interesting last few weeks.

If somebody hopes that both Big East teams will lose before the end of the season, then I think you should root for Louisville. Not that West Virginia is by far the better team-but with the speed of WV, a team with inferior team speed will have a hard time beating them. Louisville I think has a better chance of getting upset by Rutgers or Pittsburgh later in the season, although I don't know if they will or not.

I thought that I heard that McBride had been suspended for 4 games. It was about 2 weeks ago, so I'm not sure about that..can any Illini fans confirm?

this is certainly not bad news And no Mariners. So who does this leave? Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Rangers, Cubs, Red Sox, Tigers, and Padres (Not really sure about Rangers and Tigers.) Any other possible suitors? I don't think Padres will have the money. Red Sox, like the Cubs, have yet to make a splash in the Asian market. Yanks surely have to be the favorite, with Mets maybe not far behind. Here's hoping Hendry feels enough heat to make a splash. I'd be surprised if anybody but the Yankees, Cubs, Mets, Red Sox, or Rangers won the bid. Texas and the Yankees have to be the leaders for me, because those are the two teams who will literally throw large amounts of money around like crazy sometimes (the Red Sox and Mets do, but it is usually much more calculated, and I think one of the first two will have a bid way above market value, and the Cubs won't go that high either).

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that? Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team. I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit. The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage. That's a different argument then. Sure, people on the bench who can hit are more valuable, and players should not be kept on the roster who are seen as only defensive replacements. If they are on a roster though and a team is up late, there is value in a defensive replacement-just not nearly as much usually as an offensive player on the bench. People thought you were arguing originally that a defensive replacemnt in-game is never a good move instead of the value between an offensively minded bench guy and a defensively minded bench guy.