davearm2

That's fair, but baseball has the most provincial interest of pro sports, and the public's interest in professionals playing in events like the Olympics, World Cup, even the WBC belies the idea that there's zero interest if the ultimate championship is not at stake. I mean, if the Cubs were about to play in a playoff right now that didn't involve the World Series(because the Yankees and Phillies will play for that) are you saying you wouldn't watch? The casual fan wouldn't care about Giants/Angels in the first round of that setup any more or less than they'll care about the Brewers/Braves NLDS. This way you're at least pulling in more fans in sum because there's more fanbases involved, and in time it can potentially develop an NCAA tournament atmosphere because of the variability of the short series and the amount of teams in the playoff. Assuming for a minute that the Cubs were actually halfway good this year... Under your system, interest in the regular season would have died 6 or 8 weeks ago, when their chances of catching the Phils evaporated. And with football season in full swing, it's not too likely that a ton of fans would come back to baseball to watch a meaningless also-ran tournament. Under the current system, interest in the regular season would continue to build through September as the race to reach the postseason intensified, and that intensity carries over into October for the fans of teams that make it in.

LOL I see. So your theory is that Soriano struggled in "one spot" because of the relentless and onerous lineup shuffling, and struggled in all of the rest for some other reason(s)... possibly because he can't hit. Curious, which spot was which?

:shrug:

Golf has 4 majors

The fact that Sandberg has an ax to grind with Hendry really reflects poorly on him (Sandberg). If nothing else, Hendry was universally viewed as a good guy.

I think that is a whole bunch of nonsense. Soriano is a bad baseball player in a mediocre lineup. He should expect to have to move around. In his case, the vast majority of his time has been in the 6th or 7th hole, which are virtually indistinguishable from a player's perspective. Being a 5/6/7 hitter isn't like he's going from 1/4/8. He just can't hit. No excuses about where in the order. Unbelievable. It's like if you say anything beyond trashing the guy certain people here assume you're praising his hitting ability. Nobody's assuming you're praising Soriano's hitting ability. We're calling you out on your BS theory that moving between 5 6 and 7 in the lineup is some huge burden, and gosh, no wonder Soriano struggled being asked to do something so difficult as that.

Haha well played.

FWIW in the NFL, the 2nd best team in the conference can end up a wildcard, be seeded 5th, be on the road throughout the playoffs. Yet you don't hear a lot of complaining about the NFL's setup.

nobody is disagreeing with that, what people are disagreeing with is how much of a disadvantage is fair to a team that loses their division by a game. the 2004 red sox won 98 games, had the third-best record in baseball and went on to win the world series, but under this system even though they were 6 games better than either of the other division winners, they'd have been forced to use schilling in a one-game playoff against the a's, probably having like a 60% chance of even advancing to face the angels. seems like it punishes the #1 wild card team way too much for playing in a division with a really good team. If you've got an idea that's 100% fair with no downsides or trade-offs, we're all ears. This new system would have more pro's than con's. It'd be a net improvement, despite being imperfect (as all postseason setups will inherently be).

I think meal money is around $110/day. That's a lot of taco bell. 60K/month is huge for anybody. Why couldn't I have been born with marginal big league baseball talent? That can't be right though, as I believe league min is 400someK. And who the [expletive] needs $110/day for meal money? On the road you're eating out all 3 meals. $110 sounds about right considering that these guys aren't going to be eating at Denny's. On the road you're probably eating catered food at the ballpark for 2 of 3 meals. Sleep til 10, late breakfast at hotel ($20). Head to the ballpark at 2, have a late lunch in the clubhouse ($0). Hit the postgame spread for dinner ($0). Pocket $90.

You're challenging me on points I'm not making, so please stop trying to goad me into fights I'm not starting. I've stated numerous times now that this is likely primarily a "head" issue and indicative of the mess that Quade has made out of the lineups. I'm challenging you to provide any sort of concrete rationale for this statement: "almost any player, regardless of ability or skillset, is going to struggle in at least one spot if they're being bounced across at least 3 spots in the lineups for significant PA" I haven't been able to come up with anything myself, and you've given us none, either.

No, what specifically about being moved around the lineup between 5 and 7 do you think causes a problem? His pregame routine is the same, right? The pitches he sees are basically the same, right? His approach in any given AB is basically the same, right? (And if not, that would change much more as a function of game situation (score, inning, # outs, runners, etc) than lineup spot, and that effect would be there even if he hit in the same lineup spot all year long.) So what specifically would make it so challenging to hit 5th one day, 7th the next, then 6th, etc? What's changing?

Well, the bold part simply isn't true. A hitter can easily see different pitches from lineup spot to the next based on who they're hitting in front of. In this case the effect is going to be negligible. It's not like Soriano alternated between hitting in front of Pujols and Theriot. He had mediocre hitters behind him in every situation. I'm not arguing that it necessarily did have an effect on him. I wasn't sure if you were saying that specifically in regards to Soriano or in general. You're arguing that *something* had an effect on him. What?

Well, the bold part simply isn't true. A hitter can easily see different pitches from lineup spot to the next based on who they're hitting in front of. In this case the effect is going to be negligible. It's not like Soriano alternated between hitting in front of Pujols and Theriot. He had mediocre hitters behind him in every situation.

Seems like a convenient excuse for a(nother) crappy season. It's not like the guy prepares differently based on where he bats in the lineup, or that he's facing different pitches, or anything else that could reasonably be challenging to adjust to.

I saw it live. Couldn't believe the drop. Then heard Santos' call, and couldn't stop laughing. We made the playoffs that year so ultimately it didn't matter much. That weird first base line play against the Stros was probably more instrumental to our playoff appearance. But it was fun seeing Santos simply lose all control. Laughing?? Fun? WTF is wrong with you? I was thinking "Santos"???? WTF is wrong with you?

I'm totally over the fact that the Cubs lost. The fact that this dude's life was essentially ruined I still find very hard to process. It's sickening.

And my contention is, that's completely absurd. Based on your own sense of contrarianism No, based on common sense. Some here would have us believe that Hughes has survived for decades at the highest level of the industry despite not grasping a concept so basic as, HS players are more risky than college players. Use your friggin brains for a second, people. It's beyond ridiculous.

And my contention is, that's completely absurd.

This isn't a question of right or wrong on larger issues. Your contention throughout this thread is that Hughes does not even understand a very basic scouting dynamic -- namely that HS and college players profile differently. It's completely ludicrous and I can hardly believe you continue to defend that belief.

I think it was more of a straw that broke the camels back thing than just that offense. Exactly. I'm willing to bet there have been a lot of things going on behind the scenes with Z that we'll never know about. Heck there was a quote or two (can't remember who) basically saying this.

Your interpretation of his quote is that Hughes obviously knows less about scouting than the average NSBBer, and the HS v. college concepts we're discussing here are all way over his head. You're entitled to that opinion, as crazy as it sounds to me. Suffice it to say I have a different interpretation, so we may as well leave it at that.

mccracken said "more of an unknown" (meaning harder to evaluate, one would assume) and hughes criticized him for it. i honestly don't know what you need to admit you're embarrassing yourself. As compared to a college player, a HS player... * is less physically mature. That's known. * is almost certainly facing inferior competition. That's known. * has less experience. That's known. * will require more development time. That's known. * faces a greater risk of arm injury, if he's a pitcher. That's known. All of these factors, and probably several others I'm leaving out, make the HS kid a greater risk. So you do a classic risk/reward evaluation, and fill out your draft board, with the HS kids slotting in with the college kids however your risk/reward analysis, combined with your organization's risk tolerance, dictates. So what is it that's unknown in this scenario? Between the scouting grades and the statistical data, you have all the information you need to make a fully informed decision. That is what I believe Gary Hughes' point was.

It looks like something out of a Subway commercial where they're poking fun at the burger joints.

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem. He didn't say that. That's your spin. I'm going to go ahead and continue to cling to the apparently bizarre notion that a lifelong professional scout grasps the difference between projecting HS prospects and college prospects. He doesn't agree that they're MORE of an unknown. Your context actually helps my argument. He doesn't think it is any harder to project (or any riskier to pay) high school players than college players. That is all there, and you are the only person who doesn't see it (Ping does not count). I reject that conclusion on the grounds that it's preposterous. Of course there are inherent differences between HS players and college players, and a professional scout would be the person most aware of those differences. If we were to have a beer tonight with Gary Hughes, and we asked him, "is it harder to project HS players?" he would answer yes. If we were to ask him "are HS players more of a risk", he would answer yes. People are going way overboard with this and letting common sense fly right out the window.