CubColtPacer

There's a shock!!! I'm not shocked :wink: CUBS are 21-19 when they average 3.4 P/PA or fewer.... 41-72 when they don't Go CUBS !! That statistic blows my mind It doesn't really to me with the roster we have assembled. We have a few players that do a great deal better when they hit a pitch early in the count-Jones is a perfect example of this. When they get deeper in the count, that usually means they are getting behind in the count, which leads to bad outs for these types of hitters. When aggressive hitters are hitting well, their pitch count tends to go down because they are attacking the first good pitch they see and hitting it hard somewhere-when they are having problems, they swing and miss at bad pitches and might never see a good pitch in the at-bat.

Yeah, it looks like a pick your poison type of thing. You either get Theriot/Blanco/Soto (and sometimes Pagan for Jones), or you get Bynum/Moore/Blanco (and sometimes Pagan for Murton). Which lineup set do people want to see more (because these seem to be the only 2 combinations Dusty wants to send out)

I say no to Durham - I'm still mad about him letting the ball go between his legs in the playoffs that one time. OK..without the smiley here I can't tell..are you joking or not? Because it's a good joke if you are, but it's not a very good serious thing if you are holding Ray Durham responsible for Leon Durham's mistake.

link I hope we go get Fredi Gonzalez before Florida does. But something tells me JH will welcome Girardi with open arms. I agree. It seems like a perfect marketing-feel-good-story move for the Cubs... I'm just listening to Mike and Mike in the Morning though, and in an interview with Gammons he says that he believes the Cubs organization is not nearly as enthused about signing Girardi as the media and fans would be. BTW, the rumor also is there are some teams who would actually fire thier manager to go out and try to get Girardi-I don't really understand that sentiment.

That isn't a smart move unless he only threw a few pitches. What part of the game was the delay? I just looked up the recap of the game. The delay was in the second, and both starting pitchers returned to the game.

Hendry was right. It will only take about 5 moves to bring the team back to contention. Does DFAing Rusch, Jones, and Dempster only count as one move? :? Sure let's designate them and loose $14 mil. Are you sure you don't want to try to trade them first? Why? I'd rather put Hendry under the gun w/ 10 days to do something (i.e. trade). DFAing somebody doesn't mean you aren't trading them. I'll take a bullproof cup in exchange for the 3 of them. At least we'd get something of use. If we had to throw in a couple million (like with Nevin) to get a decent prospect in return, that's fine too, but just getting rid of them (and their salaries) is the main thing. We'd just be freeing up space on the 40 man while buying us time to do something with those 3. If we need to DFA Jones-does that mean Detroit needs to DFA Ordonez (823 OPS, 16 Mill), Milwaukee's Jenkins (781 OPS, 7.8 Mil), St. Louis's Encarnacion (776 OPS, 3.5 Mil), Seattle's Ichiro Suzuki (768 OPS, 12.5 Mil), Oakland's Jay Payton (752 OPS, 4 Mil), and San Fransisco's Randy Winn (708 OPS, 5 Mil)? Those are only the qualified RF's who are making around the same or more money than Jones and doing worse than him this season in OPS, and some of them are doing significantly worse. (BTW-in addition to all those excluded already because of their low contracts and the RF's not qualified, I also excluded Giles-we could argue all day if his OBP was more important than Jacque's slugging (Jacque has a 51 point jump in OPS) so I left Giles off the list). There are 12 other RF's not listed-I'm sure if we looked at each of their right fielders, we could find at least several more who Jacque is outproducing this year. My point is, if you want to trade him then fine. DFA'ing him means though you're not going to get a deal that will give you the proper value for Jones-he has value in the league. Same for Dempster to a lesser extent. Rusch? wouldn't bother me in the least if that happened-at this point, I'd rather do it after spring training (to see if either he retires or if he has anything left), but any of those options would be better than letting him repeat this year next year.

Also on the front of: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ That's not good... Hey now, it's the website, not the magazine... Besides, how many times was Michael Jordan on the cover of SI? :) Or basically anyone else that is/was great in pro sports... Michael Jordan was sooo great even SI couldn't stop him. :D Anyone can be great and lose in the postseason, only to see someone else covered after the championship is over (see Dee Brown and UNC). Anyone have any stats that say the curse is limited to their worthless magazine and not their website :wink: Luckily for Bears fans, the SI cover curse has been replaced..now it's the Madden cover curse-what is it, 7 straight bad years in a row?

There's nothing 'sort of' about it. He came right out and said Murton should be the guy next year. And yet he won't start him everyday right now. I believe he's been playing Murton more than Jones the last few weeks-3-4 weeks maybe? I think you mean Pagan, not Jones. I think many people would argue that Dusty could play Pagan in CF if he really feels the need to see him play. No, I meant Jones. In early August, Pagan was playing 30-40 percent of the time in LF. Now, Dusty has switched some of Pagan's at-bats over to RF and taken Jones out instead of Murton, at least some of the time. Apparently Pagan is still getting a little more playing time in LF than RF, but it's gotten better. Yes, Dusty could play Pagan in center-but we know he's not going to do that, except for that one game where he came in late to play CF.

Over the last 30 games..... (20 Aug thru 19 Sept)..... Murton 23 starts in LF Jones 26 starts in RF Thanks Fred for the stat-I knew it was going to be pretty close either way.

There's nothing 'sort of' about it. He came right out and said Murton should be the guy next year. And yet he won't start him everyday right now. I believe he's been playing Murton more than Jones the last few weeks-3-4 weeks maybe?

Agreed-I think he's been pretty good in RF other then some isolated plays that have made him look really silly. Jacque is at his best I think when he is going back-he has made some really nice plays up against the wall this year or plays where he has had to jump as he goes into the corner. With his awful accuracy on his arm though and those misplays, he's only been decent out there though. Dusty is definitely overstating this. BTW, Dusty is not the only one who has said something like this. Len and Bob mentioned that he has had a pretty good defensive year in RF even with the terrible throws. They, of course, also based it on their assumption that RF in Wrigley is the hardest RF to play in the league, and that Jacque has done a good job of negotiating the elements for the most part out there. I'm not saying I completely agree with their opinion, but that's what they said.

Just to let you know, that's been our usual since the start of the season. I believe we had 22 questionables in week 1, and it turned into 26 players on the injury report (although a few were upgraded also) by Friday. Last week, that number went to about 16 questionables, and now it's back up. Here's what I know about the questionables that matter. Will Play-Brackett, Diem, Gardner, Harper, Sanders, Scott, Thomas, Utecht Expected to Play-Reagor Gametime Decision-Vinatieri, Freeney, Stokley-my guess is that Vinatieri and Freeney will play (with Freeney being the more likely of the two to play), and Stokely will probably sit out. Not likely to play-Simon

People have been predicting that every game for 3 years...and the Colts have won 5 out of 6 against the Jags in that span :D No, really though, the Jaguars even though they have only won that 1 game have played us tough each game the last few years. Their downfall has usually been that they could not keep Leftwich protected. If they do a better job of that, their running game has always been very good against the Colts. Also, Mathis is very prone to giving up the double move-Harrison usually burns him for a back breaking catch or two. Some injury news to report though from Indianapolis-MRI's are still not back for several players-Dwight Freeney, Adam Vinatieri, Brandon Stokely-their availability for this weekend is unknown. Add in Corey Simon who is still trying to come back, and those could be some key losses for the Colts in a very tough game.

And Miller looks good. Not all of a sudden though. More steadily. . Anybody think we have our #4 starter? I of course would like to see another good start in his last start, but Miller has really pitched well the last couple starts. I just hope that as he goes into FA that he isn't going to demand a huge contract, although I understand he definitely is going to get a decent-sized raise.

LOL..most of this has been happening already. This is the 4th time this month that the Blanco/Cedeno/Soto combination has been the bottom of the order. Now, Murton batting 4th-I don't think is that usual-it's usually been 5th. Though, I can understand why people have been taking time off from the team-it's certainly been well deserved after this year's team :D

And I know enough about the inadequacies of opinion, hearsay, hyperbole and people who trust their eyes over facts to discount this statement considerably. Not to mention, somebody who is basing his opinion on spring training. It's quite possible Izturis was once great with the glove. It's just as possible, that after several serious physical ailments he's just not the same. Izturis has been up and down with the glove in his short time here. He wa s very questionable the first week he was here..then he was amazing for the next two weeks before he got hurt (he made several plays that in my estimation other shortstops wouldn't have made). Then he's come back-in the couple games he's played, he's been very bad defensively-but he's also still been hurt in that time, as can be seen by the fact that he immediately has stopped playing again due to the hamstring. He's shown flashes of his reputation-he's also made substandard plays at a higher rate than a player with his reputation should have. Overall, I've been slightly disappointed, but with the injuries, the short sample size, and all the turnover I'm reserving final judgement on his abilities until 2007.

I've always wanted to say this. Can I borrow your time machine? Are you implying that Maddux is still a consistent pitcher? He has a 4.22 ERA this year, and is the type of pitcher that can keep you in the game, would be great around all of our rookies, and I beleive he still has the stuff to be a good #5. But as I said I would not offer him a whole lot. A 4.22 ERA isn't good. He took the Cubs out of games just as much as he kept them in them, and if he's such a good influence on our young pitchers then hire him to be a pitching coach or a bench coach. He's not worth committing a rotation spot to what should be a retooling team next season. If we got a 4.22 ERA out of our fifth starter, I would be ecstatic. In fact-if you told me before the season that I'd have a guaranteed 4.22 ERA from every single pitcher before the season, I'd sign on to that in a second-we'd move from 25th in pitching in the league rankings to 8th. If we can have a 5th starter with a 4.22 (or even a 4.4 or 4.5) he still would be better than just about any fifth starter in the league, and combined with a good bullpen we could have one of the better starting staffs in the entire league. I agree with a lot of this, but do you really want to pay your #5 guy what Maddux is likely to command/demand if he keeps playing? It depends on what he wants for how long. If it's a 1 year deal, then its not a big deal to overpay if you're mostly done with the rest of the offseason. I don't want to go hard after Maddux the first week-let's take care of the rest of our business (big bat, top of the rotation starter), and then when we get past those bigger needs to the pitcher slot where Maddux would be slotted into, if he's still available for one year it becomes a good deal. That money likely wouldn't go anywhere else at that point other then in the executives pocket anway.

Making contact isn't an accomplishment. The 2006 Chicago Cubs are some of the best contact makers in the league, if not the best. And they still suck. That's not ultimate. The Cubs are now 3rd in the NL in batting average, last in the NL in OBP (by a lot), and consequently last in the NL in runs scored. They have walked 200 fewer times than the Reds and Phillies. Actually, that's not true anymore. With the game last night, the Cubs officially moved ahead of the Pirates in Run per game by a small percentage (the Pirates are averaging between 4 and 5 runs a game, and the Cubs have played one more game than them and are 5 runs ahead). The interesting thing is that the next 2 teams up are Milwaukee and Houston-we almost assuredly won't catch Houston unless we're much better than them the next 10 days, but we have a small chance of catching Milwaukee (they've played 1 less game and have 3 more runs). The difference between the best offense in the Central to the top 5 offenses in the major leagues (I'm comparing them to #5 in runs) is greater than the difference between the best offense in the Central and the Cubs. That's an interesting statistic-it might not take a huge overhaul, but one or two bats to make us the best offense in the division.

I don't expect anyone to take this seriously because it's from an ND outlet and obviously it didn't have any impact on the outcome of the game, but I agree fully with this paragraph, and it hasn't just been the Michigan game. First, I do agree with him that they shouldn't have Big 10 officials to call this game. As I stated in the other thread, in a game between two teams from opposing conferences, the officials should come from a third conference. I do think that a game between two BCS teams should have officials from a BCS conference though. Second, I don't understand why this guy is complaining about the holding calls when in the very next paragraph he states: If the offensive line "sucks" as he so nicely put it, don't you think it's possible that they hold the players on the opposing team more because they, well, "suck" more than their opponent's offensive line? The offensive line has been horrible-but I think most of the controversial holding calls have not come from the line. In particular, Rhema Mcknight has been called for 2 huge holding calls this year, and replays showed that both times he was simply blocking. I can only recall one holding penalty against the line that I even questioned-most of them have been obvious calls. BTW, this next section is an observation, not a complaint about the officiation. If the rule is called this way, then it was completely the right call. Has anyone ever seen before though a block in the back called on the kicking team on a kickoff? I can never remember that call being made, and I didn't even know it was possible. In fact, that penalty at the end of the 1st half and Brady's dropping of the ball as he went to pass and couldn't fall on it and it going for a TD were the two plays that I think symbolized ND's day. They just could not do anything right, and when they started to do well in something they found a way to mess it up.

I've always wanted to say this. Can I borrow your time machine? Are you implying that Maddux is still a consistent pitcher? He has a 4.22 ERA this year, and is the type of pitcher that can keep you in the game, would be great around all of our rookies, and I beleive he still has the stuff to be a good #5. But as I said I would not offer him a whole lot. A 4.22 ERA isn't good. He took the Cubs out of games just as much as he kept them in them, and if he's such a good influence on our young pitchers then hire him to be a pitching coach or a bench coach. He's not worth committing a rotation spot to what should be a retooling team next season. If we got a 4.22 ERA out of our fifth starter, I would be ecstatic. In fact-if you told me before the season that I'd have a guaranteed 4.22 ERA from every single pitcher before the season, I'd sign on to that in a second-we'd move from 25th in pitching in the league rankings to 8th. If we can have a 5th starter with a 4.22 (or even a 4.4 or 4.5) he still would be better than just about any fifth starter in the league, and combined with a good bullpen we could have one of the better starting staffs in the entire league.

Gamecast had to reset, and now they show Pierre hitting a HR..is that right? Anyone watching the game in here?

I didn't know the Cubs were out of last in runs scored in the major leagues now-that's amazing with how far they were behind second to last earlier in the season.

I think he'll probably be on the roster, but probably not in the starting rotation. He's had 1 good year, 4 decent ones, and 2 terrible ones in the last 7 seasons-I hope he can get back to one of those decent seasons, and then we won't be too afraid to bring him out in long relief. If he is as bad next year as this year, I think he'll be gone by the end of May.

I definitely agree with that. I believe that hustling has an distinct effect on the field. I just wanted to point out that for those who dispute that contention (that the difference is more than negligable), there are still reasons as a fan for wanting a hustling player.

What do they gain besides making people "feel better?" An extra base? Not making an out? I edited my post above to expand on that. I think "hustle" is so subjective and varies so much from player to player, coach to coach and fan to fan that trying to set some kind of "hustling standard" to even begin to figure out if a player's lack of or having "hustle" significantly helps or hurts a team is next to impossible. I don't need anyone to come up with a stat to measure a player's hustle. That's ridiculous and unneccessary. I just want players to give their all. Period. Exactly. Hustle for me isn't about gaining a team extra wins, although it probably has a small effect on a ballgame. Hustle is about enjoying the game as a fan. Players hustling makes the game a great deal more fun. Does that mean I would get rid of a very talented, non-hustling player? No-I want to win also, but I wish he would hustle. For me, the most fun I had with this team was the day that Z beat out the infield hit and then stole second base. Did it really help out the team? Not really-I don't think he scored in that inning. Was it an awesome moment? In my mind, absolutely. I'd rather take talent over hustle, but hustling enhances the game experience in so many ways, at least for me. I equate it to character issues off of the field. It may not mean all that much on the field, but it makes a difference to me as a fan. For me, to say that I'm a fan means that the team is a representative of all their fans in some small part, and I want them to represent me well-both in winning and in character.