Sammys Boombox

11 of 16 hitters reached base via a hit or walk by the Cubs. 4 of those 5 plate appearances that did not lead to a hit or walk were in AB by Hill and Garza.

1. I absolutely hate listening to the STL announcers. 2. Can we stop running into outs already. The majority (literally, majority) of the hitters are reaching base tonight. Stop running into outs! 3. Did I mention the Cards announcers suck? I can't even finish a post without them finding something else about the Cubs to complain about.

well they don't walk enough and don't hit for much power, so with those things in mind, it's not that hard to lose games when you outhit the opponent. Actually, many of those losses they have walked more than the opponent as well. The number of extra base hits is very low. However, the main issues are: 1. Horrible approaches with the pitcher in trouble. 2. Bad defense (mental and physical). 3. Bad baserunning. 4. Grounding into double plays. the cubs have the second fewest walks among NL teams. I agree, as a whole that is a problem. I'm talking about the last 10 games. EDIT: And I think what makes it so frustrating is that many times our hitters will work a great count and then swing at a horrible pitch on 2-0, 2-1, 3-1, etc. That definitely contributes to the low walk totals. EDIT2: Horrible approaches covers walks. Should have made that more clear.

well they don't walk enough and don't hit for much power, so with those things in mind, it's not that hard to lose games when you outhit the opponent. I can understand the argument about not hitting for power, but do you mean that they would win more games if they substitute some of their hits for more walks? i mean that the main way they get on base is via hits and they aren't getting on base much besides getting hits. it's not like they're getting 12 hits a game and also walking 6 times. if your team hits a bunch of singles and doesn't do much else on offense, you can easily lose games where you have more hits than your opponent. Yes, but 5 out of 10? EDIT: In only two of the 5 losses have the Cubs drawn fewer walks than the opponent.

well they don't walk enough and don't hit for much power, so with those things in mind, it's not that hard to lose games when you outhit the opponent. Actually, many of those losses they have walked more than the opponent as well. The number of extra base hits is very low. However, the main issues are: 1. Horrible approaches with the pitcher in trouble. 2. Bad defense (mental and physical). 3. Bad baserunning. 4. Grounding into double plays.

Cubs have not been outhit since the 11-2 blowout at the hands of the DBacks on April 28. If they lose tonight, they will be 5-5 during that 10 game stretch.

Yep. After watching that inning it definitely seems that way. Made a lot of bad pitches and very few good pitches but didn't even let a runner reach 2nd.

Soto left with an injury. I am aware. Not a knock on Quade.

Sure would have been nice for Soto to get all of those big AB today and receive that throw from Fukudome in the 7th.

Oh, runners in scoring position. Time to throw the approach out the window.

2 runs because Soriano sucks! EDIT: 1 runs! Yes!

7 H, 2 BB in 3 innings, but only 2 runs. I can't believe how many baserunners this team leaves on base day-in and day-out.

I love Matt Garza!

None of us can really know whether or not he's juicing. I think he's probably not. Just my opinion. However, it really sucks that any time somebody has a career year or turns their career around nobody can tell whether or not it's legitimate.

Cubs have not won on May 8 since 2005.

# of pitches thrown: Reds 133 Cubs 89 Awesome.

Just curious, do most teams have at least two games per week where they seem to outperform the other team and lose?

Cubs did a wonderful job of manufacturing a run out of that leadoff hit.

The strike zones the last week or so across MLB have been horrible. And Reed Johnson makes another stupid out at third...

First pitch to Barney wasn't even close.

I'd pay money to do it if I could. In a year I get my doctorate and I'm out of this hell-hole. are you talking about the same chicago and the same st louis as everyone else? i can't believe there are people who prefer st louis. There are nice areas around St. Louis and it's not crazy to think people like to live near a small city rather than one of the largest in the world.

apples and oranges. Very bad example to support the idea. I like the idea of promoting regular season winners, ala NHL's president's trophy. But you can't manufacture pride such accomplishments. We only care about who holds the trophy at the end. You do that by handing out the 1 seed to best record and allow them play a one off wild card winner that was forced to play at least one win or go home game with likely their best pitchers. Don't bother with a 3 game series that allows them to reset their rotation. Winning the regular season would then mean something again. It gives the 1 seed a theoretically easier route to the series, gives the WC a definitely tougher route. Play-in games will be must-see TV as well, like going straight to a game 7. What about the situations where the best team(s) get screwed by the 5-team system, which is not too far-fetched, especially in the AL East?

I'm still not grasping the dynamic that has more games = fewer viewers. In my model a typical slice of LCS week would look like this: Monday: PHI @ CHC, 5pm; NYY @ BOS 8pm Tuesday: NYY @ BOS, 5pm; PHI @ CHC 8pm As it is now, we have: Monday: NYY @ BOS 8pm Tuesday: PHI @ CHC 8pm So how is the current setup going to generate more viewers for the networks? With the current format every weekday game is in primetime. With your format, half the weekday games are in primetime. I'm not saying I agree with the networks, but it has been shown that the networks would much rather spread the games out than bunch them up. Again, adding two play-in games will not be worth it to them to bunch up the rest of their postseason schedule. If you have to sort out tie-breakers before the post-season starts, then it gets even crazier. The bunched up schedule will not work because of the networks.

That wouldn't resonate with fans(and therefore the owners) nearly as much as having regular season champ World Series. Especially if there were a less selective Champions League-esque tournament afterwards. It gives incentive to be the very best(just like people like to reminisce about), while still keeping the interest of the other 25 teams who know before Memorial Day that their team can't reach that standard. And "relegate the worst teams to AAA" is an impossibility. AAA teams are the same franchises at a different level of play, not completely different entities that can be swapped. You can't crown two champions every year. That's completely unworkable. And if you say one playoff is for the championship and the other is just for fun, nobody will pay attention to the just-for-fun one. You see multiple champions in soccer with attention being paid to all of them. Part of that is because it combines leagues, but part of that is that people like rooting for their teams in tournaments. Offsetting the selected teams a year helps keep it from being considered just a consolation bracket, and if they wanted to incorporate NPB teams into it that'd be pretty cool as far as I'm concerned. You see it happen in college athletics too. People go nuts over championship week and bowl games even though the real tournament/title game happens afterward. If you wanted to give incentive to win that 16 team tourney with an auto-bid in the following year, that's a decent idea too. The point of the exercise is to solve conflicting desires. In baseball especially, people want to see deserved winners, and not make the 6 month season moot because of a poor game or two. Likewise, no one wants(or shouldn't want) to be so exclusive that we go back to having a 2 team playoff and world series in one, because 80% of baseball fans would lose interest by May. What I outlined is an attempt to satisfy both of those desires, and far from the only potential idea. Sorry, not seeing it, especially the part where you expect fans to embrace multiple champions every season. I can't think of an American team sport that uses that model, on any level. Your solution creates more problems than it solves. JMHO of course. This would only work if there were 4 or 5 leagues that never interacted with each other except for this tournament. And, fans would still watch it with passive interest.

Great then give it to CBS. They seem to know how to handle the situation with their March Madness coverage. Fox and TBS are under contract for 2012 and 2013. So your thinking is that Fox and TBS would have a problem with having more games available to broadcast throughout October? Why would that be? The reason why the schedule is so spread out right now is because of TV. The networks are paying a ton of money for the rights to the games and want certain games on at certain times and do not want them to overlap each other. It was cut off, but originally this discussion was about stacking the series more tightly so they don't go into mid-November. The networks will not go for that just to add a couple of games at the beginning of the postseason. Putting the LCS games on at times where they don't overlap are going to be more important than the play-in games.