CubColtPacer

Yeah, Jimmer sounds like a justifiable lotto pick. And even if he wasn't, Indiana or Utah would still take him. I think imb is right with the strategy the Bulls should use. Interesting reputation Indiana's got when they've drafted one white US player and maybe 1 or 2 foreign white players in the last 10 years (I'm assuming that's what you were referencing). Actually, the first mock draft I looked at has the Pacers drafting two UCLA players with their two picks-with them and Collison we'd turn you into a Pacers fan yet :-) And btw, the first 5 mock drafts I looked at all had Fredette in between 12 and 19 with Utah the most likely spot for him to land. And while I said the Pacers are probably not completely enamored with him, he very well could be one of the 4 players who Bird is apparently hoping that one of them falls to his spot.

Wells is pitching tomorrow for the Cubs. Coleman was also likely going to have to bat in the bottom of this inning because the Cubs are very thin on the bench right now.

My opinion is that the Cubs can't sustain this average but they probably shouldn't be 13th in HR's all season long either. But their average should be high at the end of the season because they've got a lot of high average guys in their lineup. I don't think the offense is inconsistent. The Cubs, Diamondbacks, and Rockies are all very close in the runs scored department so I looked at their run distribution to see if they were different: Cubs 0 runs: 4 1: 3 2: 5 3: 6 4: 10 5: 9 6: 1 7: 2 8: 1 9: 3 10: 1 11: 3 Diamondbacks: 0 runs: 1 1: 5 2: 6 3: 9 4: 11 5: 5 6: 5 7: 2 8: 1 9: 1 10: 1 11: 1 12: 0 13: 2 Rockies 0 runs: 2 1: 5 2: 6 3: 11 4: 3 5: 5 6: 6 7: 6 8: 0 9: 2 10: 1 11: 0 12: 2 So the Cubs have been shut out a couple more times than normal but they have scored 0-2 runs 12 times, the Diamondbacks have also done it 12 times, and the Rockies have done it 13 times. And the Cubs have been right around average (4 or 5) runs 19 times, while the Diamondbacks have done it 16 times and the Rockies have done it only 8 times. The Cubs offense is no more inconsistent than any other offense out there.

Cubs Ranks now through almost 2 months (all NL ranks) Offense Runs: 5th (3rd in R/G) BA: 2nd OBP: 2nd SLG: 4th OPS: 2nd doubles: 5th HR: 13th Strikeouts: 3rd (fewest) Walks: 16th (dead last) Starting Pitching ERA: 16th (dead last) Walks: 5th worst Strikeouts: 10th BAA: 16th (dead last) OBP allowed: 16th (dead last) SLG allowed: 15th OPS allowed: 16th (dead last) Relief Pitching ERA: 6th Walks: 2nd worst Strikeouts: 4th BAA: 10th OBP: 14th SLG: 9th OPS: 11th So the offense has been really good (although strange considering the low home run and walk totals). The starting pitching has been atrocious and the bullpen has been lucky. Considering the top 3 in the bullpen have all been very good to elite so far this year though, the bullpen numbers will get a lot better if the starters go deeper and the back end of the bullpen doesn't have to get used so much. Is this team a starter or two away from being good? And will that matter with how big of a hole they've dug?

I definitely think philosophy has something to do with it which translates to pitch selection. He threw over 70% fastballs all 3 years as a Ray. He's throwing 54.7% fastballs as a Cub. His swinging strike percentage is easily the highest it's ever been. That hasn't done terrible things to his walks so it looks to be a good change.

This Cubs team is quickly sliding up the NL ranks in offense. That's really surprising considering who they've had to throw out there at times this season.

George, one or both of Hibbert/Hansbrough (hopefully only one), Rush, Stephenson/Price if the Magic wanted either, and Posey to make the salaries work, and picks as needed. Don't know if that would be enough. Although if the Magic would take Granger/Hibbert/Rush and picks, I would really like that trade. But I'm not sure the Magic would want Granger other than for PR reasons because of his age.

I don't think most IU fans said the second statement you said. They argued that phone calls even though it was a second violation didn't deserve postseason bans or huge scholarship reductions. It wasn't deserving of the major punishments and the NCAA agreed with that. What devastated IU had nothing to do with the phone calls or NCAA violations.

I so wish Howard didn't want to play in a major market. The Pacers could give the Magic pieces they would like (at least I think so, others can correct me if I'm being crazy) and could probably build a great team around Howard. It would be too risky to trade for him though with the chance he would walk in two years.

I don't have the numbers to support this, but wasn't baseball far more popular during the steroid era, when home run records were falling left and right? I understand that some people, like yourself and maybe some others on the board, would like that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's good for the game if it doesn't appeal to the casual fans. By what measure? Attendance or relevance? I think attendance numbers were high during the 90's and 2000's for baseball (as with a lot of sports) but I would definitely say that baseball is less relevant than 20 years ago. And a large part of the complaint is that games simply take too long without enough action to support it. And the most dynamic action in the game is due to power hitters. That only happens about once every hour and a half though in a normal game. Not nearly enough for the attention span of most people.

I don't have the numbers to support this, but wasn't baseball far more popular during the steroid era, when home run records were falling left and right? I understand that some people, like yourself and maybe some others on the board, would like that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's good for the game if it doesn't appeal to the casual fans. By what measure? Attendance or relevance? I think attendance numbers were high during the 90's and 2000's for baseball (as with a lot of sports) but I would definitely say that baseball is less relevant than 20 years ago. And a large part of the complaint is that games simply take too long without enough action to support it.

What's horrific about it? Sure, scoring is down which is a negative. There are shorter ballgames (through both less hits and more incentives to find pitchers who throw strikes since walks would become much more valuable for an offense). This would lead to balls being put into play more and just more action on the field. I don't know how a game filled with more Juan Pierres and Scotty Podseseseses and Michael Bourns isn't horrific. Oh, yes, more thrilling action in the field...will they ground out to SS or to 2B this time? Michael Bourn is actually a great example. He's a somewhat frustrating player to watch right now. He does a lot of exciting things. He steals lots of bases at a good percentage. He plays great defense in CF. His batting average and OBP are both above league average (so he's hardly a guy who grounds out every time). If he's on your team though, you can't enjoy all those entertaining things because you know he's not a great player because he doesn't hit for enough power (although even that is in debate depending how much you value defense). If power continues to decline around the league, Bourn starts to stand out more because you know what he does is valuable to your team winning. I would love a combination of guys like Bourn and a few great power hitters. That would be a fun league.

Yup, but there's also more of them. So when one starts to decline you can just dump them for the next one. I will never advocate for having a speedy team if that will not lead to winning. I want the Cubs to win first. But if it gets to the point where having speed/defense is a viable way to play, I don't think that's a bad thing for the sport either. More of them? There's a handful of good fast players. Speed is absolutely worthless if you can't hit and the majority of fast players cannot hit at a major league level. That's my point. Right now you can only use the good ones. The ones who OPS 650-700 and have good speed and play good defense are bench players because they don't hit well enough to be in a starting lineup. Most of those type of players never even make the majors. If the average OPS of the league continues to go down though, those players will become more and more valuable. The fact that they can't hit much won't matter nearly as much because the rest of the league won't be hitting much either, and so teams will plug them in to use their other skills. That's only true if the replacement-level fast guys you're describing are somehow immune to the factors that are causing the league-wide decline in OPS. But if the replacement-level fast guys' OPSs are falling just like everyone else's, then their prospects haven't gotten any better. True, but those players tend to be immune to things like that just like their numbers tend to translate better from the minors to the majors or that their numbers don't swing up and down as much going from hitters leagues to pitchers leagues in the minors. Putting the ball in play and using your speed does tend to leave you immune from those sorts of effects (both positive and negative).

What's horrific about it? Sure, scoring is down which is a negative. There are shorter ballgames (through both less hits and more incentives to find pitchers who throw strikes since walks would become much more valuable for an offense). This would lead to balls being put into play more and just more action on the field. I don't want the game to try to push towards that, but the numbers are starting to show that the game is naturally heading that way and I have no problem with that. If it does though, the contracts for hitters who can hit for immense power might get even bigger though because they will be so rare to find. Looking at the position by position numbers so far this year, just some really strange things. RF has been the best offensive position this year. Then 1B. Then a huge gap to CF. Then another decent gap until you finally get to what is considered an offensive position of LF which is tied with C. And then 3B, 2B, and SS are all clustered at the bottom. Very odd.

Yup, but there's also more of them. So when one starts to decline you can just dump them for the next one. I will never advocate for having a speedy team if that will not lead to winning. I want the Cubs to win first. But if it gets to the point where having speed/defense is a viable way to play, I don't think that's a bad thing for the sport either. More of them? There's a handful of good fast players. Speed is absolutely worthless if you can't hit and the majority of fast players cannot hit at a major league level. That's my point. Right now you can only use the good ones. The ones who OPS 650-700 and have good speed and play good defense are bench players because they don't hit well enough to be in a starting lineup. Most of those type of players never even make the majors. If the average OPS of the league continues to go down though, those players will become more and more valuable. The fact that they can't hit much won't matter nearly as much because the rest of the league won't be hitting much either, and so teams will plug them in to use their other skills.

Yup, but there's also more of them. So when one starts to decline you can just dump them for the next one. I will never advocate for having a speedy team if that will not lead to winning. I want the Cubs to win first. But if it gets to the point where having speed/defense is a viable way to play, I don't think that's a bad thing for the sport either.

I'm torn. I love offense and all that goes with it but I enjoy the strategy of baseball as well. I've always liked small ball and its effect on baseball even though I know that in the past 10 years it was a losing strategy. If offense depresses a little bit, then there will be more of a variance of strategies around baseball which will be interesting. You could truly start to see a running team versus a power team and have it not be a huge mismatch.

Yeah . . . but who plays third next year? Someone along the lines of Blake DeWitt, Jeff Baker, Marquez Smith, Josh Vitters, or Ryan Flaherty. Or someone else. That sounds like a big bag of suck. It might be the best there is out there though. There are only 7 qualified 3B above a .750 OPS right now (out of 20 qualified total). Whether it's the end of the steroid era or something else, something has happened to the offense in MLB. The NL OPS by year: 2006: .761 2007: .756 2008: .744 2009: .739 2010: .723 2011: .702 Plugging in a poor offensive player or two into your lineup is not nearly as devastating as it used to be because nobody is hitting around the league. And third base is one of the weaker positions offensively in baseball.

At the moment he's got a line of .216/.359/.360, it's going to take a while to make that pleasing. For a guy like Pena not necessarily. He has the potential for wild swings in his numbers because he's so much extra base hit or bust. That's why his numbers can go up 300 points like they did in 17 days in May or go down 50 points like they did just this past weekend. Whatever swing his numbers will take, they have the potential to do it very, very quickly. "At the moment" he has a low 700 OPS. That is not pleasing. It would have to be another time and place in baseball history for such numbers out of a 1B to be pleasing. Agreed, his overall numbers are not pleasing whatsoever. He didn't say that though. He implied that he was at the moment pleased with the signing. Maybe he assumes that Pena will naturally hit more home runs in the Wrigley summer and that his numbers will continue to rise because of that (which wouldn't be a terrible assumption-fly ball hitters are naturally likely to get off to bad starts in Chicago).

At the moment he's got a line of .216/.359/.360, it's going to take a while to make that pleasing. For a guy like Pena not necessarily. He has the potential for wild swings in his numbers because he's so much extra base hit or bust. That's why his numbers can go up 300 points like they did in 17 days in May or go down 50 points like they did just this past weekend. Whatever swing his numbers will take, they have the potential to do it very, very quickly.

Bruce Miles tweeted that he thinks that both Davis and Castillo may be on their way to Chicago. I dont know how many times, or if at all we'll need that 5th starter between now and when Wells returns, but better him than Russell. Wells is probably still at least 2 weeks from returning and the Cubs need a 5th starter on Saturday and then again next week.

not that much, but i think that lack of funds is as much the reason for that as any sort of growth on his part. Well, I certainly think the reliever thing is not nearly as important to Hendry as it used to be. He's signed 1 free agent reliever to a multi-year deal in the last 5 years even though in a couple of years the bullpen looked to be a possible major issue and the Cubs spent a ton of money in those years. In those 5 years, the only year I remember a theme for the offseason was after 2008.

It's apparently his groin, but he was able to finish the top of the first after tweeking it so hopefully it shouldn't keep him out for more than a handful of games. welington castillo was PH for in the third inning of a one-run game in iowa this evening, so either he's also hurt or the (chicago) cubs are expecting that he'll be needed. Sadly, Quade has killed any hope I have that he'd start Castillo over Hill. I hope I'm wrong. I'm not sure. It's not like he's shown any love for Hill-he's only started 3 out of the first 34 games. I doubt Castillo would start over Hill, but I doubt Hill gets every single start either. Probably a 70/30 split or something like that.

For the year or for the game? I'd probably bet on 1-2-3 either way but it would be close. Soto being 8th is the only issue I have with this particular lineup. Just the game. I do like Kosuke at the top of the order, though. Byrd and Barney up there are still kinda barf. Byrd is hot right now so I have no problem with him up there. Barney hasn't been great lately. With Byrd hitting so many singles this year, I wouldn't have minded him 2, move one of Soriano/Soto up to 3, and drop Barney to 8th. That would have been a really good lineup.

For the year or for the game? I'd probably bet on 1-2-3 either way but it would be close. Soto being 8th is the only issue I have with this particular lineup.