Backtobanks

The problem is that he hasn't reduced his asking price in those 10 hours.

Dude, again, my dad is talking about how he thinks it's better to make a contact out as opposed to striking out, regardless of whether there's someone on base or not. He's not pining for them to get a hit when he says, "just make some contact," because, duh, we're all doing that; it's this weird thing he does when a player has 2 strikes and is swinging at everything, and he's just assuming the guy is going to make an out because they're just flailing/guessing or taking defensive swings, so in his head he thinks it's somehow always less bad if they hit into an out as opposed to striking out. Nobody is doing the goofy horsefeathers you're tossing out there trying to justify being on board with some spicy old man takes. As I posted before, there's a better chance of something good happening if you put the ball in play rather than striking out. I'm not trying to justify anything, it's simple math.

What about dropped third strikes? check and mate. BRB; just figured out Backtobanks is my dad. You didn't show up on my Ancestry page.

Making contact has the possibility of something happening (more good than bad) while striking out offers nothing. You just pretend double plays don't exist. Cool. As long as you pretend that homers, triples, doubles, singles, errors, fielder's choice, sacrifices, etc. don't exist.

You mentioned popping out or a weak ground ball, but making contact also could be a sacrifice fly, a fielder's choice, or an error all of which are preferable to striking out. Let's not forget that with some crazy winds, a pop out could drop in for a hit. or it could be a double play which is twice as bad as striking out...or a triple play which is 3 times as bad! Making contact has the possibility of something happening (more good than bad) while striking out offers nothing.

You mentioned popping out or a weak ground ball, but making contact also could be a sacrifice fly, a fielder's choice, or an error all of which are preferable to striking out. Let's not forget that with some crazy winds, a pop out could drop in for a hit.

He was a great player and fun to watch, but the sabermetrics fans weren't kind to him. It also shows how the game has changed - now everybody swings for the fences and and strikes out a ton. As a Cub (7 seasons) he struck out a total of 158 times in almost 4000 PA. Now 158 Ks in 1 season is pretty normal.

Because he's replacing one of our best hitters.

You want to argue semantics when you're busy throwing your opinion around. The FACT is that Baez and Contreras were brought to the Cubs' organization under Jim Hendry's tenure. Just because "it's your opinion" that Hendry doesn't deserve credit for anything good is your problem.

That's your opinion, but Hendry drafted Baez and Contreras. Found it: [tweet] [/tweet]That quote in the tweet is very illuminating. Also, Jim Hendry didn't "draft" Willson Contreras -- you sign young players from DR and Venezuela as FAs. Sure, he drafted Baez and signed Contreras, but he doesn't deserve that much credit in my opinion knowing what we know about Jim Hendry. Man, I really don't want to discuss this further and have this devolve into another weird "Jeromy Burnitz vs. Kyle Schwarber"-like tangent. No thanks, I'm done. You keep denying facts with the disclaimer "in my opinion". As I said before, you're welcome to your opinion but that doesn't make it a fact.

Okay, I know Hendry gets credit for "drafting" Javy under his watch just before he got fired, but I seriously doubt he did anything special or got highly involved. Hendry tries to brush off the Hayden Simpson debacle in the 2010 draft by saying he let his scouting director choose who he wanted. Christian Yelich was selected seven picks later at #23 by the Marlins. There was lots of good talent available. If Hendry tries to deflect criticism for the Hayden selection then he also doesn't deserve credit for drafting Javy. I'm trying to find the article or the quote, but I remember Hendry saying he basically let his scouting director do whatever he wanted (within the draft budget) under his tenure. I think all the credit (or most of the credit) goes to the previous scouting director Tim Wilken. He liked Javy Baez over Francisco Lindor and was super high on Baez. Hendry just went along with the selection and doesn't deserve that much credit IMO. That's your opinion, but Hendry drafted Baez and Contreras.

Juiced ball means more HRs. We are at record-setting era with the number of HRs. Maybe offense is down because everybody is swinging for the fences because the ball is juiced and you're rewarded handsomely for hitting .230 with 25 HRs and striking out 160 times a year. I don't really care why offense is down? This whole thing started because you said it'd be nice to have Burnitz's slash line in left field. You were then told that Schwarber basically already gives you that, with better defense. And then you were told that a roughly .800 OPS is more valuable in 2019, when the average OPS is .740ish, than literally every year Burnitz played, where the average OPS was higher. So...Schwarber > Burnitz, agreed? First, any discussion about Schwarber and Burnitz should never be about defense because both should be described as "adequate" defensively. As I posted before, Schwarber wouldn't be removed so often for defensive reasons if he was "above average" as many of you claim. Defensive statistics are questionable at best (i.e. Schwarber could be rated better than Griffey JR. according to some stats. You don't really believe Schwarber > Griffey JR. defensively, do you?) Secondly, Burnitz had an avg. .826 OPS and 138 runs scored over a 14 year career, while Schwarber's avg. numbers are .803 with 86 runs scored in his career. Also, Schwarber's numbers include more platooning against lefties. Obviously there are many players I would have in LF over Burnitz or Schwarber, but since Burnitz' name was brought up in jest, I would pick Burnitz over Schwarber.

The HR rate is skyrocketing now as compared to the steroid era when we know players were using steroids to hit HRs which sounds to me like the ball is juiced now. And...what does that have to do with anything? Are we really just at juiced ball vs juiced players after all of this? Who cares? Offense is down compared to where it was 20 years ago. By every meaningful measure. Juiced ball means more HRs. We are at record-setting era with the number of HRs. Maybe offense is down because everybody is swinging for the fences because the ball is juiced and you're rewarded handsomely for hitting .230 with 25 HRs and striking out 160 times a year.

Of course steroids had nothing to do with the statistics in those years. Look at the numbers of HRs hit 6105 in 2017, 5610 in 2016, and 5585 in 2018 while the ball is juiced. The other top years 5693 in 2000, 5528 in 1999, and 5458 in 2001 the players were juiced more than the balls. What are you even arguing at this point? Semantics? That line Tim referenced is better today than it was in Burnitz' era because the average production today is worse than the average production then. The HR rate is skyrocketing now as compared to the steroid era when we know players were using steroids to hit HRs which sounds to me like the ball is juiced now.

In case you haven't noticed we're in the juiciest of the juice ball eras right now. Current OPS league wide is .742 (245/321/421), which is 18th in the last 30 years. Jeremy Burnitz played over 100 games every year from 1997 to 2006. All 10 of those years had a higher league wide OPS than 2019. 2000 was the highest, at .782. Of course steroids had nothing to do with the statistics in those years. Look at the numbers of HRs hit 6105 in 2017, 5610 in 2016, and 5585 in 2018 while the ball is juiced. The other top years 5693 in 2000, 5528 in 1999, and 5458 in 2001 the players were juiced more than the balls.

Fine - How about Schwarber's actual 2018 production of .238/.356/.467? Considering most of Burnitz's best seasons came during the juiced ball era, that Schwarber line from last year is more than comparable. He's also rating as an above average defender again, no matter how many times you try to claim that he's best served as a DH. Oh, but I'm sorry. Go ahead and keep banging your head against this one. Look, B2B has this figured out. Schwarber should have been traded at some undefined time for some undefined players (maybe even to two undefined teams, for two undefined players/groups of players?), and because of that obviously successful trade, the team that has won the most games in baseball since 2015 would be even better. After all, based on the stories we're actually aware of, Andrew Miller was supposedly on the table for Schwarber, and we passed on Miller, which was clearly a huge mistake as he only gave up a game 7 home run to 74 year old David Ross in a game we won by 1. And then put up 2.7 total fWAR in the next two years for $18m, compared to Schwarber's 4.8 fWAR for $1.1m. And then became a free agent, whereas we have Schwarber for two more years. When you look at the facts, it's obvious.[/quote It's hard to figure out what players we could have received for Schwarber when Theo refused to even consider trading him.

There is a difference between actual production and projections. I don't hate Schwarber, I just think that the Cubs would be a better team if they had traded him a couple of years ago when his trade value was high and we probably could have received some young pitching. I admire his work ethic and his majestic HRs, but he is still a DH/platoon OF. Fine - How about Schwarber's actual 2018 production of .238/.356/.467? Considering most of Burnitz's best seasons came during the juiced ball era, that Schwarber line from last year is more than comparable. He's also rating as an above average defender again, no matter how many times you try to claim that he's best served as a DH. Oh, but I'm sorry. Go ahead and keep banging your head against this one. In case you haven't noticed we're in the juiciest of the juice ball eras right now.

Not a great career, but .253/.345/.481 slash line with a career avg of 30 HRs and 94 RBI would look good in LF right about now. lol - Schwarber's projection for 2019: .241/.351/.477 Why do you hate on Schwarber again? There is a difference between actual production and projections. I don't hate Schwarber, I just think that the Cubs would be a better team if they had traded him a couple of years ago when his trade value was high and we probably could have received some young pitching. I admire his work ethic and his majestic HRs, but he is still a DH/platoon OF.

Not a great career, but .253/.345/.481 slash line with a career avg of 30 HRs and 94 RBI would look good in LF right about now.

i know it's splitting hairs, but an average player lasting 10+ seasons would qualify as a good career to me Not just a 10+ year career, but basically a starter every year.

I'm sure a whole bunch of ML players would love to have Castro's career numbers. So far: 10 year career, 4 All Star games, hit .300 twice, .281 career BA, led the league in hits once, and has made $58 million. Certainly not HOF numbers, but a very good career.

The problem is finding a team willing to take him. Just release him. He'll make a great high school baseball coach with his mentality. We all know they should have dropped him rather than resigning him.

He's done enough to make Addison Russell expendable. Though Addy made himself expendable without anyone else's help. The problem is finding a team willing to take him.

except he was drafted by Epstein.

He's too valuable defensively to send him down. :lol: