scarey

A whole lot of nothing is Ryno's own words. And who of the people bashing Sandberg in this thread have heard or seen words of his on this particular topic? If you have a source, I would love to read it. If you're referring to his hall of fame speech, I think you're blowing it way out of proportion. I don't think he's saying that star players should learn the value of sac bunting... he himself had all of 31 SHs through his whole career. I think he's saying there's is a time and place for it and certain players that should be able to do it don't know how to effectively. See: Mike Fontenot However, that's just how I interpret it and that's mostly based on the fact that he really doesn't bunt much relative to a guy like Lou who doesn't use the sac bunt particularly often.

This thread is ridiculous. It seems to me that you guys are all jumping to conlusions based on... a whole lot of nothing. The only thing I've seen that gives anyone fuel is Rob's post about Ryno's public mockery of advanced metrics and small ball managerial style (which, no offense to you Rob, but I haven't seen any statements to back these accusations up). I honestly don't know what his managerial style is like other than he seems to get ejected quite a bit. However, I looked up some statistics and they don't seem to go along with these "sac bunt with cleanup hitters!" comments being thrown around. I compared Piniella's sac hits the last three years with the Cubs to Trammel's three years in Detroit and Sandberg's last three years in the minors (I took his numbers and extrapolated them for 162 games). Piniella averaged 59 SH per season. Trammel averaged 53 SH per season. Sandberg averaged 61 SH per season. Compare that to Dusty Baker who averaged about 80 SH per season while with the Cubs and I think you'll see that Sandberg isn't as much a sac bunt type guy as you guys are making him out to be. You guys are totally buying into the mob mentality. You're hearing something uncomfirmed and piling on based on that info. I'm not even trying to say that Sandberg does NOT like to sac bunt. All I'm saying is you need to be better informed instead of using this. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/70384439_ba1fd5b9de.jpg

It's a pretty stupid one. Does it always have be about race. Maybe it's just about Bradley being a petulant ass while in Chicago, just like he's been his entire career. This really just needs to be done with. Not because the team will be better or worse with or without him, but because he is too much of a mental midget to deal with the situation like an adult. It's only stupid if you don't know what is being said. I never said hating Milton Bradley makes you racist. I never said wanting him gone makes you racist. I never said anything of the sort. I've said repeatedly I think he's an ass. My point is that the mythological creature that is the Cubs fan who would abandon the team due to the presence of Milton Bradley is probably going to be a racist person. It's really not a controversial statement. It makes no accusation about anybody here because I'm fairly certain nobody here is going to abandon the Cubs (even if several people threaten to every season). I'm talking about somebody saying, "I love the Cubs. But Milton Bradley is still on the team so I'm done with the team." A) It's very unlikely to happen. B) That rare creature is probably motivated by racial tendencies. Are you saying that it's impossible for a black fan to abandon the Cubs in a similar fashion? Like, in a Dave Chappelle/Clayton Bigsby kinda way??? I was waiting for someone to take that lob ball for a ride.

It's a pretty stupid one. Does it always have be about race. Maybe it's just about Bradley being a petulant ass while in Chicago, just like he's been his entire career. This really just needs to be done with. Not because the team will be better or worse with or without him, but because he is too much of a mental midget to deal with the situation like an adult. It's only stupid if you don't know what is being said. I never said hating Milton Bradley makes you racist. I never said wanting him gone makes you racist. I never said anything of the sort. I've said repeatedly I think he's an ass. My point is that the mythological creature that is the Cubs fan who would abandon the team due to the presence of Milton Bradley is probably going to be a racist person. It's really not a controversial statement. It makes no accusation about anybody here because I'm fairly certain nobody here is going to abandon the Cubs (even if several people threaten to every season). I'm talking about somebody saying, "I love the Cubs. But Milton Bradley is still on the team so I'm done with the team." A) It's very unlikely to happen. B) That rare creature is probably motivated by racial tendencies. Are you saying that it's impossible for a black fan to abandon the Cubs in a similar fashion?

Personally, I question the ability of a 37 year old Mike Cameron one year removed from PEDs. All the numbers people are throwing around are far from a given.

Not sure how you can say that. Sizemore's best prime year(s) are still ahead of him. Granderson is basically almost past his, and the slide is eye popping. It's almost as dramatic as Patterson from '03 thru '05. Patterson was never as good as Granderson, but my concern is the drop off in production in general. Losing over 100 points of OPS while getting a big spike in pay is probably why Detroit is shopping him, not just that he's getting expensive. Buyer beware. Sizemore is only a year younger. And Granderson's huge drop was due to a BA drop, which is probably due to some bad luck. Patterson went from being a rising star to a completely worthless player in 3 years. It's not a good comparison. I don't know why it's so difficult for some people to admit Granderson is a really good player. He might be a bit overvalued by Detroit, and has a serious flaw with his inability to hit lefties, but he's one of the top players at his position. You're right, except there's no probably about it really. He had a 21% LD%, a .275 BABIP, and a .249 BA. That's unlucky. I'm confident Granderson will have a bounce back year, especially if he's playing home games at Wrigley instead of Comerica. What's great about Granderson is although he's approaching 30, he hits for enough power to warrant a move to right field in 2 or 3 years as he ages to make room for Brett Jackson or whoever else may be capable to filling in the centerfielder's position. As long as it doesn't destroy the farm, I think Granderson needs to be a Cub.

Nobody is trying to find the next Castro here. The numbers these guys put up are pretty decent though. Alcantara is a switch hitting middle infielder who has either pretty good speed or good base stealing skills judging by his 91% success rate. Plus, he put up a pretty decent IsoD meaning he should have some sense of plate discipline. If he can be a middle of the road defender, he could be a good SS prospect. Rosario's peripherals are excellent and he's been pushed through the system pretty quickly early on. Rarely do these guys turn into anything, but there's some nice results from some no names so far. I would love people to bring up some similar no-names with a semblance of potential. Farm systems have built up to some decent coverage, but the rookie leagues are still hard to follow. That's all wonderful but these guys are so young and played at a low level league that none of this is really worth talking about because there have been thousands who have done this and gone on to never get to even AAA ball. I just enjoy conversing about it. I'm not saying they'll turn into anything, and I realize there's a long shot that they even to reach the even the upper levels in the minors. It's just interesting to talk about.

Nobody is trying to find the next Castro here. The numbers these guys put up are pretty decent though. Alcantara is a switch hitting middle infielder who has either pretty good speed or good base stealing skills judging by his 91% success rate. Plus, he put up a pretty decent IsoD meaning he should have some sense of plate discipline. If he can be a middle of the road defender, he could be a good SS prospect. Rosario's peripherals are excellent and he's been pushed through the system pretty quickly early on. Rarely do these guys turn into anything, but there's some nice results from some no names so far. I would love people to bring up some similar no-names with a semblance of potential. Farm systems have built up to some decent coverage, but the rookie leagues are still hard to follow.

What makes the 20 steals more impressive is that he was only caught twice. Not bad, nothing to flip out about but definitely someone to watch out for. Here's another one to look out for Jose Rosario: http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=542231 Again, most of his work was in the DSL and Arizona Summer league, but has 52 Ks in 41.2 IP, a 1.18 WHIP, given up only 1 HR, and showed the Cubs enough to give him a chance in the FSL at the end of the year. Pretty good for an 18 year old.

... he's 17 years old and I think the $850k bonus tells us more about his potential than 29 games in the DSL.

I only count 33 players on the 40 man roster. http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=chc

I know Russell has been so up and down through the minors, but he had a good year at AAA and pitched incredibly well in the AFL. Any chance he's a decent lefty out of the pen in the next year or two? His recent success has made the Grabow signing even more intollerable in my mind. Also, am I remembering incorrectly or did Russell get busted for PEDs at the same time Robert Hernandez did?

.792 career OPS as a left handed batter is terrible? It's not exactly all world, but is it terrible? Especially considering the last four years before signing as a Cub he had OPS of .940, .937, .793, and .856 as a lefty? Really? And a career OPS of .820 is mediocre? Really? Even whille hitting in non-band box type stadiums at home like in 2007 when he OPSed 1.000 as a Padre? I'm sorry, but all these people like you with I-told-ya-so's about Bradley have no ground to stand on because the chief complaint was that he would be injured. At this pont he's played in 5 less games than our iron man Derek Lee. Nobody was predicting that he wouldn't perform when he played. It all comes down to the fact that he's having a terrible year at the plate. Nothing more, nothing less. Slumps happen in baseball. Just look at our beloved Jim Edmonds who OPSed a whopping .728 in the '07 season and .458 to start the '08 season before miraculously turning it around with the Cubs and hitting for a .937 OPS.

I want to make clear that I'm not cherry picking arguments, I just want to put an emphasis on this. I have made it a point, as I do with all forums I visit, to not make any personal attacks. Feel free to check. I have told people their arguments are hyperbole, nonsense, etc. I have not made a single personal attack and quite frankly I'm getting tired of the misconceptions and presumptions people are making. Other than that, I want to make sure I summarize my feelings on this topic because it seems like people are still really confused about my feelings. -I am not totally against getting Dunn, I would rather have players that in my opinion are better. -I value OBP very much. I am a big believer. However, I do think there's times where the most obvious stats don't tell the whole story. I understand that people think my RISP ideas are very situational, but for a middle of the order hitter, it's a situation that happens A LOT and I personally feel it's very relevant. -I have never claimed to be right about anything. If what I've said makes people believe that's what I'm saying, I apologize because I don't feel like I am in anyway an authority on baseball. I've only ever wanted to make my point heard. -I am not saying this stuff to ruffle feathers. I only wanted to talk baseball. I visit a few different forums and like to get other people's POV as well as stake my argument. I find it enjoyable. I don't do anything like this to anger anyone and I may be mistaken, but I get the feeling that people here think I'm trying to be a smart ass. So, I'm sorry that I upset people here. I'm going to make this my last post because I have not found defending my stance to be enjoyable here and I'm fairly certain that most people here don't want me here. As I've said, there are other boards that I enjoy more than this one and it's not a big deal if I stick to them instead. It's not that you guys have different baseball ideas than I do, but I just don't think I fit in. So, if Dunn happens to end up being a Cub, I'll cheer as hard or harder then you guys for him. Let's just hope for good production from any player the Cubs pick up as well as a successful season and post season in 2009.

I just wanted to jump in here and point out one thing. One thing Adam Dunn does really really well is hit homeruns. If I were his manager I would never ask him to cut down on his swing so he can bloop single. That is for people like Theriot, who had like 1 homerun all year last year. I mean someone pointed out earlier the situation that maybe Dunn could swing at a few more 3-0. 3-1 pitches that are borderline that he currently now takes for a walk. He said he swings at 12 and puts 10 into play, which would be really nice because maybe 1-4 more runs score, but he makes 2 more outs. He effectively raises his avg, but lowers his OBP and it makes him LOOK better because his RBI's are up and his avg is up, but it makes him a worse hitter. Also what is the trade off or asking him to shorten his swing? How many homeruns would he miss out on? I mean if Dusty had been successful making him do that sac bunt last year, he would have only had 39 homeruns and 3 less RBI's. The point of this entire argument has to be that Dunn isn't the type of hitter you like, contrary to the fact that he is a highly productive hitter, and that you are a Dusty Baker type baseball fan and simply want to see guys do things the "right way" and don't care as much about wins and losses. Because the stats are basically proving you wrong over and over and over again, no matter how you keep spinning it. Oh, and this is what I was talking about earlier with the failed sac bunt/launching a 3 run homer. With the Reds trailing by one run in the ninth inning Saturday, Adam Dunn's initial intention with runners on first and second and one out was to bunt his teammates into scoring position. After two unsuccessful sacrifice attempts, a frustrated Dunn chose to swing away. Dunn's backup plan sailed 449 feet into the right-field Sun Deck for a three-run walk-off home run... Adam Dunn, batting seventh, with (I believe) 2 sac bunts in his career, asked to bunt in the bottom of the ninth with Paul Bako and the pitcher's spot behind him. (courtesy of FJM) Ok, so I can get my point through thick skulls such as this, I'll try to make this as clear as possible. I've made my points over and over again, but let's sum it up by going for a simulated scenario. Adam Dunn signs with the Cubs. A base runner gets to third base with Dunn coming to the plate with two outs. What does Scarey want Dunn to do? HIT A FRIGGIN HOME RUN!!!!! What would Scarey accept as alternatives? 1. Hit a triple (lol) or a double. 2. Hit a single. . . . . . . 3. Draw walk. Dunn gets two strikes against him. What does Scarey want Dunn to do? MAKE CONTACT FIRST!!!!! Now, if you disagree with that than that's just how the world works. People disagree. However, if you want to try to make me out to be some kind of Dusty Baker worshiping lunatic, please throw your slander elsewhere. I hated Baker's approach with his hitters. Piniella's approach is all about getting runs in. I'm not asking for sac bunts in the 1st inning or swinging for a single on the first pitch, but I think striking out with runners in scoring position is as bad as it gets much like Lou. I don't care what nonsense you guys wanna make up about Dunn's swing angle, if a guy is striking out in 25% of his plate appearances with RISP, he can make strides towards trying to put the ball in play with two strikes.

Quote something that I'm "ignoring" and I'll gladly address it. Please. I;m not going to go through 11 pages and qutoe evrtyhing you've ignored. There are a ton of things that people have brought up that you haven't replied to. There will be like 10 posts in between yours and then you'll make one small post cherry picking a statement you want to reply too. Name one thing. If I'm truly purposely ignoring it because it's not easy or I can't speak against it, then I shouldn't be able to answer it right? Just pick one. You made a very good point, there's 11 pages of stuff here. Do you expect me to answer everybody here? This isn't even the best Cubs board I visit, so why would I spend that much time here?

How do you sacrifice walks by shortening your swing? :-k :-k Although I disagree that it does in Dunn's case, if you make weaker contact and put the ball in play more you reducing the opportunities to work into a deeper count. Let's say it's 0-1 and Dunn doesn't want to fall behind 0-2 and he decides it would be more important to make contact than working to get a pitch he can drive. The numerous slap hitters the Cubs have had over the last 5-10 years were notorious for doing this. I never said I wanted him to shorten his swing completely. I think it would just be beneficial in a two strike count. So, let's move on here. I'm sick of arguing about Dunn's ability on this Cubs team. In the case of the extremely long shot they do sign him, where does that leave our batting order? Does Dunn bat 3 with Lee moving up to 2? Also, as limited as Soriano in the outfield, they would have to consider moving him to right and Dunn to left, right?

Quote something that I'm "ignoring" and I'll gladly address it. Please.

I never said they weren't valuable at all, they're just not the ideal result. If you're paying a guy like Dunn 10s of millions of dollars to be a middle of the order hitter, I think he should be a guy that can drive in runs, not just leave it up to the other guy in most cases. I don't understand how he's making more outs by shortening his swing. I'm not saying he should be swinging for contact on every pitch he sees. But instead of swinging for a homer run on a two strike count, maybe if he tried just getting contact he could make less outs with lazy flyballs and strikeouts. The guy strikes out 40% more then he actually gets a hit. I never intended to ignore OBP in any manner. If the pitcher doesn't give you something to hit, then you have to take a walk. My whole point this whole time is a hit would be better then a walk in this situation and Dunn just doesn't seem to be able to put the ball in play much. I'd rather get someone who is willing and able to adjust to the situation and try to get the runner in (IE: swing for contact when needed and take advantage of pitches he can hit). For the guy that tried to act like "shortening his swing" is some kind of made up fairy tale term.. grow up. You know exactly what it means, it's a well used cliche in baseball. Everyone knows what it means.

winner plus like the other dude, the difference over the course of a full season is pretty marginal i can't believe we're arguing about ba w/risp. it's like cubs.com Dunn's RISP by year: 2001: .203 2002: .208 2003: .170 2004: .239 2005: .248 2006: .221 2007: .241 2008: .241 I wouldn't say those averages vary that much, and his high water mark is .241. You guys are totally missing the point. It's not the fact that over the course of a season Dunn will have failed to score a run 10 times less then a .300 hitter with RISP. It's his approach. A guy that's averaging .225 BA with RISP tells me that he doesn't take into account the situation. Rather then shorten up his swing in a two strike count to make contact and try to score a runner, he is still swinging for the fences. He needs to understand that getting 1 or 2 runners from putting the ball in play can benefit his team more then trying to hit a home run and striking out/coming up short. Please don't give me the "low career average = low average with RISP" argument again. If he wants to bat the same way he does with a runner on first, that's just not baseball smart. That (among the usual other reasons) is why I don't think Dunn is a good fit for this team. This Cubs team tries to take advantage of every scoring opportunity and Dunn just either doesn't get it, or is too stubborn. I don't trust him to come to the plate in a critical situation. I would rather put my faith in whatever guy replaces him in the lineup whether it be Bradley, or Fontenot/Johnson(take note, IN A CRITICAL SITUATION).

I don't think it's meaningless at all. A middle of the order hitter is going to get anywhere from 150-200 plate appearances over the course of a season with RISP. I happen to think that's quite significant. I never said a home run could drive in fewer runs than a single. What I did say is more singles could drive in more runs then significantly less home runs. My example would be... Adam Dunn. In 182 PAs last year, he hit 11 home runs. He had another 21 hits with RISP and a total of 65 runs batted in while in that situation. Only 26 of his runs batted in in that situation were from his home runs. I can't get the exact amount of RBIs he got from singles alone, but out of his 21 non-home run hits with RISP, 18 of them were singles. I know for a fact that he knocked in most of his RBIs in that situation via the single since the most he could have possibly driven in with this 3 doubles is 6 runs. So, say he knocked in all 6 runs in all 3 of his doubles. That means he knocked in at the very least 33 of his RBIs from batting with RISP via the single. 33>26

If there's more runs batted in by the singles... then yes, they are better. that all depends if the bases are clogged with those darn guys that keep walking, it called the "Dusty factor." You guys and your nonsense. I'll say this one more time. I LOVE WALKS! LOVE THEM! NO JOKE HERE, I AM A BIG FAN OF PEOPLE TAKING A WALK! I DON'T THINK WALKS "CLOG THE BASES". I'M NOT DUSTY BAKER!

If there's more runs batted in by the singles... then yes, they are better.

Fixed.

Chit chat? On an internet forum? We wouldn't want that!