stitchface

Jim, unlike Dusty, is accepting responsibility based on that quote. I did notice that and was pleased. is there some chance he will try new strategies?

my response Dear Mr. Nightengale, I am deeply disturbed by your recent article titled “Baker Endures as Cubs’ Expectations Fall Short.” Foremost, the stories of racism and hate mail disgust me. That Baker, Jones, Patterson, Hawkins and others had to endure the ignorance of these pathetic, small-minded people is upsetting. I hope these men understand that this racism is not representative of Cub fans. Unfortunately, this seems to be the message of your article. By mixing fan frustration with losing with racism, you are implying that Cub fans, tired of losing, are becoming racist and spreading hate. This is far from the truth. Cub fans are tired of poor performance by players of any race, tired of poor managerial decisions, and tired of the lack of direction of the team. Their frustration is directed at those responsible for the team’s play – primarily the players, the manager and the general manager. The race of those responsible is not a factor in this frustration. Unfortunately, racism still exists throughout the United States and the World. But let’s be clear that racists are racists due to their own ignorance and social failings and not as the result of a baseball team’s failings. The majority of Cub fans have suffered enough and do not deserve to be unfairly labeled as racist due to the actions of a few individuals who may or may not be fans and who certainly are not respected by the majority of Cub fans. This article was brought to my attention on an internet chat site for Cubs fans (NSBB.com). The site is populated by several thousand Cub fans from different backgrounds, from different areas, and of frequently differing opinions. One thing we all agree is that we are tired of Cubs futility. For a better understanding of the feelings of Cub fans, I would like to invite you to visit the site. Certainly there are racists at the site, but they are not tolerated. Finally, I have to ask – how do you produce the facts in your article? They are not correct. The Cubs had a 0.5 game lead over San Francisco and 2.5 over Houston for the wildcard with 8 games to play in 2004. This information and tons more is available at baseballreference.com – a great resource. Any well-versed fan understands that the downfall of the Cubs began not with the Bartman incident – a media creation to add to the folklore of the Cubs failings – but with an Alex Gonzalez error three batters later on a groundball that should have been an inning ending double play – with the Cubs leading 3-1. Nevertheless optimism persisted into 2004 and the Cubs were well positioned to claim the wildcard until a Victor Diaz three run homer on September 25 at Shea Stadium. The homerun came off Latroy Hawkins and magnified his high profile failings in what was a very good season for Hawkins. The other two runners were on board due to Dempster walks, by the way. I don’t think we need to look any further than that to find the beginnings of the current negativity surrounding the team and the dislike for Mr. Hawkins. Unfortunately this negativity seems to empower the ignorant. They do not represent the rest of us. Sincerely, Juan Sorensen Cub fan in Davis, California

more bones to pick with that article - one - the title makes no sense 2 - the facts are all wrong. the cubs had a half game lead over the giants and 2.5 over the astros with 8 games to play. I would also add that the current negativity surrounding the team stems not from bartman but from AGone's error and Victor Diaz's homerun off of Hawkins (scoring two runner walked by Dempster). To me, that event and the subsequent collapse fostered the negativisim surrounding the team.

the problem with this article is that it mixes too issues - one being racist fans who definitely exist but are a minority and the second being fed up fans who do not want to tolerate poor performance anymore. I think a response to this article is warranted.

my favorite, was that one time when the cubs were down two in that big game, and the batter in front of neifi walked on four pitches, and neifi rolled into a 4-6-3 on the first pitch. that was awesome!

he's still trying to figure out how neifi cleared waivers . . .

mhuber's point seems to be that you can't judge a hitter on stats using 6 ABs as a sample size - I would agree with that point. someone should tell dusty. it would also make a difference if the one hit was a homerun and the others were infield singles. contrary to many people's opinion, advancing runners, reaching on errors etc are statistics and can be tracked. they just aren't. anyone who has a BP subscription should be reading the report on baserunning - interesting stuff though by no means completely definitive.

I rarely mess with the lineup, so for whatever reason I thought it was Noon PST, until i read the rules. In either case, the move was late for the day he pitched. So, as you say, Adam can make the decision. In other news, Sox/Yanks in a t-storm. That should help out neither team. the sox would probably be helped by a rainout - though I guess you meant RK teams - obviously it hurts you more since you are behind.

wouldn't it follow that the more guys you have on base the more chances you have to do something good with them on base? Did you catch any of the red sox-yankees series? I'll present a little formula here for you to consider - you can work out the math - this is simply why obp is the single most important stat: runs scored (per inning)= total plate appearances-LOB-3 consider that the maximum lob is always 3 - so what number can you control to the greatest degree as an offense? plate appearances. this also means that what you have said has some truth as LOBs can vary between 0 and 3. This is why slugging percentage also plays an important role. the importance of OBP is not a product of fantasy baseball - its a product of simple math. if you don't make outs, you will keep scoring. ask the red sox after this weekend.

Wow, do you watch games? as for OBP being important, it is the single whole belief of the A's system to 9 OBP monsters...and exactly how many World Series' have they played in with that philosophy??? scoring runs matters, the other team not scoring runs matters more. OBP matters little. I am sure he watches games - I am also sure you never watch the A's. Since you don't watch them, perhaps you should look up their stats before you display your ignorance.

the record shows you made the move at 3:31 PM on the 18th, so his points for that day will not count - unless Adam wants to allow it since you mentioned the move earlier in the week.

There's a chance. It'll be interesting to see if either starter can work to a QS. That should make the difference. Also, Woody Williams points from friday still haven't been counted. I thought you said you put him in too late? In that case, they will never count. Is this a question to me?

the west division could be hanging on Ervin Santana - if he posts a QS NSBB will fall into a virtual tie (due to tiebreaker and our season ending matchup). We both would have our destiny in our hands.

I'm amazed anyone watches BBTN

how are the cubs against soft tossing lefties? :roll:

looked at another way, the cubs have one more hit than the yankees today and 7 fewer runs. yea, that's a small sample size but fairly indicative of the two teams offenses.

that yankee lineup is lethal. they all work the count. 10 walks for beckett today - and ten more yankee runs.

interestingly, he pulled Z after 7 and 108 today.

this has potentially large ramifications if I can win my game, which is also very close.

I don't think they are necessarily 'critical' to a teams success either, but something has to be said for the non-measurable attributes speed creates like annoying the crap out of the opposing pitcher and him throwing a fastball that catches too much of the plate. Also, what can be said about players like '03 Lofton, '05 Damon/D. Roberts and '05 Podsednik directly leading to a teams playoff success? I'll assume you mean '04 with Damon and Roberts (since that was the year the Sox won it all) and give you each guy's numbers for that season: Lofton (with the Cubs) in 2003: 327/381/471 Damon in 04: 304/380/477, 20 home runs Roberts (with the Sox) in 04: 256/330/442 Podsednik in 05: 290/351/349 The answers to your questions are: Lofton and Damon were shots in the arm because they got on base at over a .380 clip, and slugged nearly .500, which is pretty good for a CF, not because of "situational hitting" or stealing bases. (For Damon you also can add in the fact that he hit 20 homers, which any team can and should take out of their leadoff man or CF every time). Roberts probably hurt the Sox more than he helped most of his time there except for that one stolen base, which clouds everyone's judgment on him. Podsednik was no more than average for a leadoff hitter, and when you factor in that he was only 59/82 in SB (72 percent), his running around probably hurt the team more than it helped. Oh, and his .700 OPS was absolutely awful (AWFUL) for a LF. The fact that he is largely credited with that team's success is one of the biggest jokes in baseball history. Sorry, yea, '04 - was trying to think of someone in each year in order there. I won't respond to everything, but you can't tell me the White Sox would have won with C. Lee in LF instead of Podsednik leading off. the white sox would have won the world series with carlos lee leading off. do you even know that the white sox scored a large number fewer runs in 2005 than in 2004? Do you think that they were better by scoring fewer runs? Scott Podsednik may have had less to do with the Sox winning the world series than any player on the team (well, apply to regular season anyway).

um, 1945?

why pay bochy seven figures if someone as good can be had for less?

When we're paying his contract for a .600 OPS next year, I don't think I'll agree. What is the continual fascination with a 4M contract on a behemoth organization like the Cubs? Besides, what you want up the middle (C, 2B, SS, CF) is defense defense defense behind a solid pitching staff. Corner OF and corner IF are positions to produce your offense. I'm certainly not saying a .600 OPS is acceptable from anyone, but if he has the luxury of hitting 7th or 8th in the 2007 lineup, it's totally acceptable with his Gold Glove defense. Honestly, I'm more concerned about Cedeno. I'd rather have an average defensive shortstop who can hit like an average player or better. stellar defense is entirely overrated when it's in lieu of even marginal hitting. Stellar defense is what wins games assuming you have a good pitching staff that is heavy on strikeouts and ground balls. Assuming the Cubs are healthy, Izturis and Cedeno up the middle (IMHO) will save many more runs than their marginal offense will cost. The problem is the Cubs lack of offense in the corner OF, not 2B/SS. no, their defense won't save more runs than their lack of offense costs. the cubs problem is lack of offense - there is no reason to accept overpaid subpar performance from any position.

As a drunken softball player, I would never wear a uniform like that. true drunken softball players don't wear uniforms . . . they wear ragged old tshirts.

Jones isn't going anywhere, so scratch that idea. I'd love to see Lee and Soriano hitting for the team, but I think it would work best, given who is running this team, with Lee in LF and Soriano playing 2nd again. wow, if you thought walker was a poor defensive 2b . . . The way I see it, that's the only way keeping Izturis makes any sense. His defense combined with Aramis and D-Lee make up for Soriano's defensive shortcomings, and Soriano's bat makes up for Cesar's. there are worse options, that's for sure. Soriano is a bad fit for a team sorely lacking obp though. I'd like him a lot more as a #6 hitter on a team loaded with guys that get on base. He would definitely have to play 2b to be worth what he will make. Seems like Soriano would be a good pickup if he wasn't going to be so overpaid. I'd go for Loretta.