third eye

Personally, I have a lot of confidence that Hill will put it back together in AAA the way he did in 2006 and return to have a great second half. If he can have a repeat performance of 2006 (or even close), I honestly see no reason, barring other injuries, that this team can't reach the mid-90s in wins.

Wow, I didnt realize a Cubs catcher ever put up a line like that. Yeah, you always hear Hartnett's name in discussions of Cubs greats, but I always assumed that it was in relative terms to the stats of the day. .630 SLG?!?! In 1930!?!? Yeesh. :shock:

It did. Thanks for the well thought out, objective post.

:lol:

HUSH YOU!!! I've had enough of your facts and theories. [-(

Where the heck does Fontenot get his power from? The few homers he has hit have been rockets.

Okay, that made me nearly laugh out loud in the middle of a law school library. I got a coughing fit and got some dirty looks, you'll be happy to know. And that's what I call karma. Same thing happened to me at work after you posted the "I has a bucket" sea lion for your 16,000th post.

Reed's catch was ridiculous, but for my money it's Endy Chavez in the 2006 NLCS...wow

Watching the game on MLB.tv. How amazing is it to hear the opposing announcers praise the Cubs offense for being so disciplined?

STAY HEALTHY :beg: STAY HEALTHY :beg: STAY HEALTHY :beg: STAY HEALTHY :beg:

It would be flat out stupid to wait that long. Get our better hitters more AB's, ASAP. Dude, they're winning and scoring runs right now. Additionally, both guys are in a comfort zone where they are at. Leave them be for now. If the cubs go into a drought then they should think about re-doing the lineup. I know you want to be proactive, but lets remember that both of the guys you want to move around are rookies and thus should be left alone when comfortable. Ideally, though, eventually the high on base guy fuk should move to 2nd with the rbi guy soto at 5 protecting Ram. Free piece of advice... Never, ever start off your argument with "Dude," if you're looking for anybody to take it seriously. After being subjected to hearing Dusty starting off every asinine thing he said with that, it's become a signal for those on this board to realize "hey, nobody should take this seriously" And now to dissect your post... Fukudome != rookie. "RBI guy" = meaningless lineup protection = myth Not necessarily fact. This point is still up for debate by even the statistically inclined. I like the angle this study takes: http://mlbresearch.blogspot.com/

Yeah, no kidding. It definitely sounded like he had an axe to grind that year. I was really disappointed with that. On what terms did he depart when he left the Cubs booth?

I personally have no concerns about Wood as "closer" after today. I also agree that the best reliever should be used in the the most high leverage situations. However, I don't necessarily write off the idea of closer as an actual role completely. I suppose this is largely because of the residual bad taste in my mouth from the Latroy Hawkins experiment that effectively sunk the 2004 season. He was excellent in a setup role, but clearly could not handle the 9th inning role. Yes it is anecdotal (gasp). I recognize that it is not statistically rigorous and that his end of season rate stats were still respectable that year. Still, his stuff, WHIP, K/9, K/BB splits and whatever other peripherals we want to examine didnt translate into success in that role. Unfortunately, I still believe it is a label that not everyone can handle, even though this gets into the "clutch" argument again (dont want to go there). I'm tempted to throw the 2003 early season closer by committee model that Boston tried to trot out. But the problem there wasn't roles, it was a lack of good relievers. Still, they did concede and move back to the traditional closer the following year. :-" :blush:

The line isn't drawn between new school and old school. It's between stupid/wrong and not-stupid/right. touche.

Wow, I'm suprised this board embraces anything old school in baseball. I really couldn't give a crap, but I agree that Aramis does look kinda badass in that picture.

Let's hope so. I'll even take Pie is going to be a SOLID player! He'll be solid and then progress to fantastic. I have confidence in Pie producing. The key is playing time and this year is the year for him to get that. Meph disagrees. :mrgreen: who's Meph? oh, right, the nsbblol blogger... Really? Yes, really. When was this figured out? I wouldnt have guessed it , particularly given the rant on Meph himself. If so, he loses serious credibility. Because while some of it is fair, most of it is just crass.

I was thinking the same thing, except that I thought his arm didnt look particularly strong. Still, I agree that he looked better than advertised/discussed.

Soriano's numbers do not inherently drop just by not leading off. Soriano's numbers do not inherently drop just by not leading off. Don't even bother. He's 100% convinced that it's fact. The fact that Soriano is not a good hitter in terms of clutch statistics IS fact. Soriano is a poor hitter with runners on on. Soriano is even more of a poor hitter with runners in scoring position. So, where would he get by far the largest amount of these types of at-bats (in which he struggles so much). Leading off? Nope. Middle of the order? Absolutely. I seriously don't know why this is so hard to understand. It has nothing to do with the 2004 and 2005 seasons (although those are good indicators of a problem as well). It has everything to do with the fact that Soriano is a poor hitter with guys on base. I feel like you guys are completely ignoring logic because you can't fathom the fact that we gave ridiculous contract to a batter that can't perform where he's logically be most valuable. Whether we like it or not, Soriano is paid for and is on this team. Forcing him into being something he's not just to get a few extra RBI's (while taking a hit to all of his other stats) just because you're too stubborn to realize what kind of hitter he is sounds silly to me. I don't want to open up the "clutchiness" argument again, but isn't it more likely that he sees pitches that he is less comfortable with in RBI positions rather than developing some sort of mental block with runners on? It has been widely discussed that as a dead fastball hitter, keeping him in the leadoff spot works because that is precisely where he would see the most of those pitches. With people on base, and very little protection behind him, he sees pitches that he is generally less able to handle. I don't buy that it has anything to do with his psychological fortitude in clutch situations.

I was at that game too. He did pitch pretty well that day.

Having Lee as the RBI leader and Z as the wins leader seems to indicate that they expect the Cubs to score a lot of runs this year. I'm guessing they have Fukudome as the #2 hitter in front of Lee rather than Theriot. That's not what we're hearing right now though. Lee was on a pace for around 38 homers in the second half, so I can see him having a big year (based on the projections in the player prediction thread, it doesnt seem like most here buy that). A return to somewhere between 04 and 05 numbers for him would go a long way to securing a division title.

I thought about it a lot, and I couldn't come up with any reasons why it's a bad idea. 1) Dangerous? No, I think people sprain their ankles a lot more landing on the bag the wrong way. I've sprained my ankle 3 summers in a row hitting the bag at a wrong angle or landing on the 1B's foot. 2) If you run through the bag and the ball gets passed the 1B, you have to take such a wide angle to try and advance to 2nd. If you just slide and pop up, you can be on a direct line to 2nd. 3) If a throw pulls the 1B off the bag, then you're supposed to slide into 1st to avoid a tag. Yet we see it happen a million times where the guy doesn't slide and gets tagged out. If they are sliding the whole way then they don't even need to think about it. I would like to hear some reasons why it's bad. These are fair points. Avoiding DLee and Corey Patterson injuries should be an important consideration IMO, and a feet first slide in certain cases may not be a bad idea.

Hits are more likely to occur by chance while walks are not? I completely disagree. Walks are WAYYYY more about luck than hits are. You get a hit if your a good hitter end of story. You take a walk if the pitcher happens to throw you balls. that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. I find it hilarious that this guy is a baseball coach. HOW IN THE HELL DO HITS OCCUR BECAUSE OF LUCK??!!!! ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS RIGHT NOW?!!!! I'M DONE WITH THIS ****. YOU GUYS HAVE TO BE THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE IVE EVER COME ACROSS. BATTING AVERAGE IS A VERY IMPORTANT STAT WHEN DETERMINING HOW GOOD A HITTER IS. NO ONE HAS A HIGH BATTING AVERAGE BECAUSE OF LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is there any chance you have ever heard of BABIP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average_on_balls_in_play

See, the thing is that a Soriano leadoff home run guarantees your team a run whereas a Roberts walk or single doesn't guarantee you anything other than a baserunner. Yes, a walk/single increases the odds that your team will score but a team always scores a run when a home run is hit. To take it a bit further, the player batting immediately after a guy who hits a home run has never grounded into a double play while that happens all the time after a single or a walk. Additionally, a team is slightly more likely to score multiple runs in an inning when an inning is kicked off with a homer versus a walk. I forget if it was Buck or McCarver who got schooled by stats inc on a national broadcast debating that point.

That Orlando Merced at bat was sweet. Aside from the rivalry issue, I personally enjoy having the ability to watch games a Miller Park, even if it is not a Cubs game. Even if the Brewers move to the AL, I'd go to see games there just to see baseball at a good facility (not a knock on Wrigley, but I do enjoy Miller Park).

Thanks for the post. Very informative. Quick question about assumptions here (and my bad if you answered this in your post and I just didn’t get it) - Is there a specific reason for using 2 as the exponent here? I can understand if the relationship is nonlinear that you would want some factor to correct for it. But is the squared term based on anything, or just a simple way to represent a nonlinear relationship? Was there some sort of study to show that it is a quadratic and not a cubic or < 2 exponential relationship? If I reach way back into the college math toolbox (and I admit it is way rusty), could a cubic spline interpolation not more accurately represent a relationship that may not hold as x increases? I don’t know if that is even possible based on the info available.