CubColtPacer

Well, it is ND's broadcast..of course they are going to try to bring in as many of their own former players as possible.

0.007037844 Hmmm...I had 0.006846325, but you may be right..Blanco has been hitting pretty well :D

What odds would you have put on Blanco-Cedeno-Soto getting 3 straight hits? Let's see how many they can get out of this with Hill and Pierre coming up next.

I think that about characterizes it right for ND..an easy catch by the tight end prevents the INT, a fumble on a kickoff, 4 penalties, and one big blown coverage-they just need to settle down, and fast please!

Hey Fred-just letting you know, this isn't today's game thread-it's yesterdays.

This is actually the 2nd time in 2 weeks that Blanco has played 1st, and the bottom of the order was exactly those 3-Blanco, Cedeno, Soto-it was a Sunday game the first time. Blanco actually wasn't terrible at first base-I was a little surprised by that.

As a collective whole, I'll certainly take that news. A lineup of Pierre Murton Lee Ramirez Soriano Barrett Jones Izturis would be a pretty good lineup. Sign a platoon partner for Jones, and it could certainly be the best lineup in the division.

Dunn played the last season with a broken right hand. http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/reds/daily/0128reds.html Don't know about this year though. That link didn't work, but thanks for the heads up on the injury.

Dunn is very likely going to be at least a 100 point upgrade in OPS over Murton. Having Murton put up a 780-800 OPS might be more cost effective, but we'd be better off spending to get Dunn to consistently put up a 900+ OPS. I wouldn't say he would be at least a 100 plus upgrade necessarily. Dunn has put up a 900 or more 2 out of the last 4 years-one of the years he didn't do that was this year. He's 89 points better than Murton this year. Murton's numbers still have room to go up, while Dunn is more likely to consistently stay around the numbers he's put up the last 3-4 seasons or so. Dunn is 26, Murton is 24. Dunn makes 7.5 million dollars this year, Murton makes 337,000. Murton plays better defense than Dunn (although Dunn is a little better than some of the mistakes we see him make on defense). Also, trading for Dunn would require more than Murton-so we have to factor in how valuable the other players we'd have to trade them would be, or how valuable those pieces would be in another trade (some of the players mentioned could be used to get Andruw Jones or possibly Tejada for example) It still might be worth the gamble, but it's certainly not an open and shut case. Why would you expect a 24-year-old Murton to improve but not a 26-year-old Dunn? Murton is more likely to improve IMO because he's coming off his first full season. His numbers have the chance to get better as he continues to learn the major league game. Dunn has been up for 6 seasons now. Here are his stats during that time 01 (only 244 at bats)-.262/.371/.578 02-.249/.400/.454 03-.215/.354/.465 04- .266/.388/.569 05- .247/.387/.540 06- .238/.368/.512 If he were 26 and had shown signs of improving steadily during his career, I would say he is more likely to keep improving. He is certainly young enough to improve, but his stats have been falling instead the last couple years (without any injury or something like that to explain it). Do I think his stats will keep falling? Not yet-I think he'll have a series of years that parallel either his 04, 05, or 06 numbers (some of each probably mixed in). Dunn definitely still has the chance to improve, but Murton just coming off his first major league season makes him far more likely to improve on this years numbers IMO.

Dunn is very likely going to be at least a 100 point upgrade in OPS over Murton. Having Murton put up a 780-800 OPS might be more cost effective, but we'd be better off spending to get Dunn to consistently put up a 900+ OPS. I wouldn't say he would be at least a 100 plus upgrade necessarily. Dunn has put up a 900 or more 2 out of the last 4 years-one of the years he didn't do that was this year. He's 89 points better than Murton this year. Murton's numbers still have room to go up, while Dunn is more likely to consistently stay around the numbers he's put up the last 3-4 seasons or so. Dunn is 26, Murton is 24. Dunn makes 7.5 million dollars this year, Murton makes 337,000. Murton plays better defense than Dunn (although Dunn is a little better than some of the mistakes we see him make on defense). Also, trading for Dunn would require more than Murton-so we have to factor in how valuable the other players we'd have to trade them would be, or how valuable those pieces would be in another trade (some of the players mentioned could be used to get Andruw Jones or possibly Tejada for example) It still might be worth the gamble, but it's certainly not an open and shut case.

The thing that scares me now is that several of these young pitchers have not had time (plus, I've only seen a couple examples that could be really used as abuse of the starting pitching this year (besides Z)) to be abused by the current staff, and yet they all still seem to be going down with injuries. I'm not sure what it is-these injuries are a lot harder to pin down.

He played yesterday, but not Wednesday. My guess is with the long stretch of games in a row that they are being extra careful with him, and sitting him more than even his 2 out of 3 plan would say.

Yup-we're set-we'd be the Yankees.

Marmol's not exactly having the best of 2 day stretches here: Right now, as I type this, here are his stats of the 2 days combined: 2/3 inning, 5 H, 7 ER, 3 BB, 2 HR Ok, make that 1 full IP now, and 1 K

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have. Let me be a bit more clear on my angle, because I feel there is a stronger emphasis on OPS than OBP when correlating Runs scored. When you look at offensive numbers, there is nearly a direct correlation between OPS and Runs Scored. For example, all of the teams in the top 9 for runs scored in the NL are in the top 9 for OPS, and the order only shifts slightly, with teams within 2 in ranking across the board. As expected therefore, the teams with the lowest OPS are also worst in Runs Scored As we would expect, the reverse is true when evaluating the stats from the pitching perspective. The 5 teams in the NL with the lowest OPS against are also the 5 teams that have given up the fewest Runs Scored. There are no anamolies on offense. But there are two teams with anamolies on the pitching side - The Cubs and the Brewers. Each has given up more Runs Scored than the OPS against would suggest. Maybe I am just allowing my optomism for the future to shine through, but it really seems to me that more runs are scoring than the mean would suggest. It sounds like you are overcomplicating things to make the Cubs look better than they are. They give up the most walks, and almost the most HR. But they also strike out the most. That is why they appear to give up "too many" runs per hit. The hits they do give up are big hits, and the walks mean more of those HR are with runners on base. It's just the same as batting. A team can be lucky one year, and have a high RISP one year. Look at Washington and San Fransisco this year for example San Fransisco-.328 OBP, .421 SLG, 749 OPS Washington-.340 OBP, .422 SLG, .762 Which team should score more runs? Obviously Washington-but San Fran has them by 2 runs this season-Here is the reason Why In Scoring Position San Fransisco-.368 OBP, .440 SLG, .808 OPS Washington-.353 OBP, .394 SLG, .747 OPS Of course, we know RISP isn't sustainable. So, Washington should have a better offense next year if they keep the same people. The same applies to pitching-here are two more teams. Cubs-.344 OBP/.435 SLG/.779 OPS Pittsburgh-.362 OBP/.440 SLG/.802 OPS The Cubs would be expected to give up less runs in this scenario-but they haven't (Pittsburgh has given up 21 less runs). Why? Scoring Position Pittsburgh-.367 OBP/.406 SLG/.773 SLG Cubs-.366 OBP/.429 SLG/.795 SLG The Cubs have given up a much greater percentage of XBH in key situations this year, even though Pittsburgh has given up many more runners. Again, stats with RISP are not sustainable-so the Cubs should have better pitching than the Pirates next season (if the teams had remained the same). The answer is yes-the Cubs have had a bad pitching staff this year, but their total number of runs is greater than their OBP, SLG, and OPS would seem to suggest.

Anybody know why Mateo is out?

With this lineup, it doesn't much matter if Cedeno is the 2 spot or Murton gets moved there, with Moore batting 5th and Izturis batting 6th. There really isn't a good way to construct a lineup with all the hitters that are in it right now.

It would be-but the production out of right field would be around the top 5 right fields in the game-and of course it would also add a huge bat to the bench every day.

Does anybody think that Alou would agree to be a part-time player next year? I'm not sure he would, but him and Jacque in right field would be a dynamic duo. What salary do you think he will command, and do you think he will be a starter somewhere?

I don't think very many people would question that-it's just if he was worth 13 million for a slightly above average offensive shortstop that has serious question marks defensively as well. Furcal has serious question marks defensively? That's news to me. To be fair, the price for Pierre is 3 pitching prospects, including 2 top-10 prospects. I live near Atlanta, and the overall feeling during his time in Atlanta was that Furcal made some plays that other shortstops might not make, but he made so many errors-especially throwing errors that gave the other team too many baserunners and extra bases that they shouldn't have. What did they say he had this year-24 errors? He's not nearly as bad as his errors would suggest, but I don't think his overall impact is any more than average at SS. As far as the second point, I think the price for Pierre was even crazier than the price for Furcal was-Furcal would have been a better move, but neither of them would have been good moves IMO.

I don't think very many people would question that-it's just if he was worth 13 million for a slightly above average offensive shortstop that has serious question marks defensively as well.

I didn't notice that was post #1000..should have looked at that I guess. Does anybody think the air is pretty heavy tonight? I thought at least 1 of those 3 balls we have hit should have gone out, and at least 1 more should have hit the wall. I was definitely surprised when all 3 of them were caught on the warning track.

Actually, we're both wrong. He had 2 hits (Furcal, Kent) and 2 BBs. Gooz: 2 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 2 BB, 1 K, 36 pitches. LOL..that we were, thanks for the correction.

Well, a couple of decently hard hit fly balls that inning, but the Cubs go down 1-2-3. It's 1-0 Dodgers after 1-it really looked like Guz settled down in the last part of the 1st, so hoepfully he can continue that. BTW Raisin, just for your pitching line, Guz had 2 BB's and 1 H given up in the first-you have it the other way around.

Yuck..one of my pet peeves recently has people spelling the word lose as loose. You see it all the time on message boards, but it was just on the WGN graphic. It said "The Dodgers have blown four 5 plus run leads to loose." It is just absolutely rampant recently.