Bruno7481

The Cubs actually had a discussion with Piven about this before it happened and he told them he wouldn't use the "B" word, but then did it anyway. You gotta love it. Stickin it to the man. besides Z flirting with a not hitter this been the best Cubs moment this season for me. Shades of Steve McMichael... :lol: Piven had a line about the Cubs in last nights Entourage as well. It was pretty funny. The movie he was promotong was in danger of losing money because there were blackouts across California. His wife told him not to worry about it because there as nothing he could do about it. He responded that it wasn't the Cubs fault when that (expletive) reached over and deflected the fly ball in the playoffs, Cubs fault or not they still didn't get a WS ring.

Well, "we" don't know, was just throwing it out there. Wouldn't be the worst pickup in the world. thats, IF, Dusty is set on Murton being platooned. He would be a better option than Bynum, but so could a great deal of others.

Ken Rosenthal was on the FOX pregame ans stated the Braves are shopping Langerhans for some bullpen help. I know he isn't the greatest option, but if Baker is intent on platooning Murton, I'd rather see Langerhans than Bynum. Cubs weren't mentioned, no teams were, just that the Braves were shopping him.

Which high school did he play for?

My thoughts.... Protecting your players is fine, if you want to hit somebody because they have hit your guy twice, I'm ok with that. Its part of the game. Sending a rookie out there to do the job isn't the best situation. Put somebody out there who has done it before. I understand Ozzie's frustration, but his treatment of that kid was uncalled for. You want to air him out? Fine, do it behind closed doors if you feel that strongly about it. Don't do it publically and embarass him even further.

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote: "So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter." A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote. Very good example of what I'm trying to say here. Problem with that though is that you can't predict the future. You don't know what he is going to do. I'll take the chance of the #8 hole putting the ball in play in that kind of situation 100% of the time. True, he could hit into a DP, but I'd rather take that chance over having the pitcher come up next.

Making outs is what keeps you from scoring. A double-play is terribly undermining when it comes to scoring runs. They effectively cripple a team's chances of scoring in a given inning. I'm almost positive that more than a few studies have shown that the possible advantage of advancing a runner on contact is counter-balanced by the possibility of hitting into some form of a double-play. In other words, the perceived disadvantage of a strikeout in that you can't advance a runner is balanced out by the advantage of the fact that there's no possibility for a catastrophic (in terms of scoring runs) double-play. In short, over the long haul, an out is an out is an out. So, in terms of the situation with Cedeno last night. Are you of the opinion him striking out was better than putting the ball in play? Even with the cance of him hitting into a DP? I agree that over the long haul an out is an out. I'm not talking long haul though, there are definite situations where contact is needed and a strikeout is the worst thing that can happen. That is the point I am trying to convey. Can't believe I am bringing Sosa into this, but he used to frustrate me so much. Sammy obviously was a huge offensive force who happened to strike out a lot. I know over the long haul he provided more offense and contributed to many wins. But I would hate to see him come up in situations where just some simple contact was needed. Be it late in the game, infield in, whatever the situation may be. In situations like those I would prefer Grace to be up to bat 100% of the time. Yes Sammy provided better numbers of the whole year, but Grace was a better executor in those situations. Wow, does that anology even make sense? Its been a long day.

Striking out with a runner on 1st, less than 2 outs = 0% chance of double play Putting the ball in play with a runner on 1st, less than 2 outs = >0% chance of a double play Fine, but the object of the game is to score runs. Double plays will happen obviously on occasion, but you have to score to win. In order to score, you have to put the ball in play. Why would you prefer the option that guarantees a 0% chance of a run scoring? Especially in this situation with the pitcher's spot coming up next? Doesn't make sense.

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low. I'm not saying a putting the ball in play guarantees sucess. But it gives you a better chance than a strikeout. Thats it. I think the point others might be trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the benefit you get from a guy who "puts the ball in play" is minimal, and if his important stats (OBP, OPS, VORP, etc.) are bad compared to a player who might strike out more, then the value he brings in "putting the ball in play" is virtually meaningless. If two players are completely equal in every way, and one strikes out more than the other-take the guy who hits the ball. However, that shouldn't be a determining factor when there are other, more relevant numbers that should be considered. In a much simpler way-Its not what you do in the at bats in which you make an out, its the at bats where you don't make an out that really matter. I see the side you are representing here. But its not like I'm trying to compare Freddy Bynum to Vlad. When you say, a "a guy who puts the ball in play", I'm not thinking of guys just like Pierre, or Neifi, guys who usually make contact but don't do a lot with the bat. I am applying this rational to the guys with the high OBP and OPS as well. If the hitter is up in a situation that requires some contact, like the situation we have covered, I beleive that is more beneficial than a K.

Whoops, my bad. That was me.

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low. I'm not saying a putting the ball in play guarantees sucess. But it gives you a better chance than a strikeout. Thats it.

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well? I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all. Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out.

I'm curious as to whether you've got anything to back this with? Not trying to be a smart ass, I'm honestly curious. I've heard differently...that for the most part, the positive effect of a sacrifice is, on the whole, balanced out by the negative impact of a DP. I'm not speaking strictly in terms of sacrifices. Hitting a groundball to the SS and scoring a runner from 3rd is an example. Grounding out to the rightside and advancing the runner to 3rd, etc. Sure sacrifices are included as well. A double play isn't going to happen each and every time. When I say the positives of contact will outweigh the negatives I am simply saying that when you put the ball in play you creat an opportunity for success. Whether that be a hit, sacrifice, RBI, error, etc. There is no benefit to a strikeout unless of course the ball gets by the catcher and you can advance.

The frustration with strikeouts comes in the situation where you only need a little bit of contact to make something happen. That could a man on 3rd and less than two outs. Man on 2nd nobody out, 1st and 2nd, etc. Remember a couple years back where the Cubs had this crazy streak of not scoring when they had the bases loaded? I think it was about two years ago. They would load the bases and end up not getting anyhting out if it, this happened about 4 or 5 times in a row. I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

I was born in a small town.....

I don't buy this. If this is how the Trib is run, it's run terribly. As an example, take McDonald's. They run an obviously very profitable business. By your theory, why should they change anything? Why should they make changes to their menu, change their advertising strategy, make adult happy meals and try to present a healthier option for food? Profitable business stay profitable by constantly making changes and improvements. The Tribune obviously recognizes this to a certain extent, as they've made "improvements" to Wrigley. Fielding a winning team will only make the team more profitable. This should be a goal for the Tribune. There are Millions of Mcdonald's throughou the world, there is only one Wrigley Field, and only one Chicago Cubs. The demand is always going to outweigh the supply when it comes to the Cubs. Just look at ticket sales the past few years. Wrigley is a destination for many "casual fans" as well. I see his point about the Tribune's perspective. People are always going to flock to Wrigley, regardless of the team's performance.

It's brought about more change than mediocrity has. Ask Jim Riggleman and Don Baylor. Well Riggleman was in charge in 98 when the Cubs sneaked into the Wild Card. Perfect example though, he was fired 2 years later and Baylor was brought in. What did that do? Nothing. Baylor gets fired and Baker is brought in the following year. Besides 2003, what has that done? Nothing. I'm not arguing some changes need to be made, some do. But the Cubs could lose every game the rest of the year, it still woudln't bring a winning team any faster. If anything it would drive potential players away from wanting to come here. It isn't going to be an overnight thing, 2003 was a fluke. They will have to start from the bottom and instill the philosophies and qualities of a winning organization.

I don't get this. I know the team is struggling, but I can't bring myself to actively root against the team. There isn't much point in following the team or watching on TV if you would rather see them lose. Some changes need to be made, not debating that at all. Look at the history of this franchise though, its not like losing has ever influenced the Tribune, management, etc to field a winner. I root for them to win, at all times. Losing won't bring about a dramatic change for this franchise, it never has in the past.

I support the team. . . . to FAIL!! :lol: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/impaler_240/orlyhitler.jpg NO NOT REALLY. But I can see the good in either side. I just don't want to see lingering around. I want to see either 10 out of their next 13 or .300 baseball. Go one way or the other Cubs, is all I'm saying. If you're gonna win, get back IN IT, or fail. Aren't you the same guy that was getting rid of your Cubs hat and buying a Sox hat?

I'm sure he was already up and warming once Ohman retired Lopez in the 7th. Especially with Griffey and Dunn to follow. Makes sense for him to come into the game in that spot. There's plenty of time to get Guzman up during the last half inning, it was 6-2 after the first HR, and 8-2 after the second HR with only one out. Besides today, he's only pitched once in this series and that was on Friday. He'll be fine. Today makes twice in4 games by my count. I don't doubt that. I care about Guzman, who's going to rot away if he's not even going to be used in situations like this. I see what your saying. Certainly looks like he's not going to back into the rotation with Marmol's performance today. What, why the hell not? Rusch is very replaceable. I was speaking in terms of Wood's spot, which Marmol took today.

I'm sure he was already up and warming once Ohman retired Lopez in the 7th. Especially with Griffey and Dunn to follow. Makes sense for him to come into the game in that spot. There's plenty of time to get Guzman up during the last half inning, it was 6-2 after the first HR, and 8-2 after the second HR with only one out. Besides today, he's only pitched once in this series and that was on Friday. He'll be fine. Today makes twice in4 games by my count. I don't doubt that. I care about Guzman, who's going to rot away if he's not even going to be used in situations like this. I see what your saying. Certainly looks like he's not going to back into the rotation with Marmol's performance today.

brandon Phillips has really turned out to be a good pickup for the Reds.

I'm sure he was already up and warming once Ohman retired Lopez in the 7th. Especially with Griffey and Dunn to follow. Makes sense for him to come into the game in that spot. There's plenty of time to get Guzman up during the last half inning, it was 6-2 after the first HR, and 8-2 after the second HR with only one out. Besides today, he's only pitched once in this series and that was on Friday. He'll be fine. Today makes twice in4 games by my count.

I'm sure he was already up and warming once Ohman retired Lopez in the 7th. Especially with Griffey and Dunn to follow. Makes sense for him to come into the game in that spot.