Cubswin11

Yeah I’m guessing they either did a second interview/have had follow up stuff with Ross or spent more time with him in the first interview. Also wonder if Espada maybe only had a few hours in his initial interview because of the CS/travel so maybe a two part interview was already planned.

I want a Game 7 but I also want Astros-Nats (just think that’s the more entertaining World Series).

Hicks would be an interesting trade target. He’s owed a decent amount so I don’t think he’d cost a lot. There’s a lot of a Fowler type player in him.

Gleyber and DJ with critical errors tonight, Cubs win the trades!

It would presumably be available out of market like any other RSN is, just would black out the games. Well then I may be accidentally paying for it if it’s bundled with the above mentioned networks. I will not up my package to get it.

I read the press release as the deal is with all of DirectTV, AT&T and Uverse. Shouldn’t matter if they’re ever split up/sold off. They have a deal with each provider.

I’m out of market so luckily I won’t have to pay for Marquee unless it’s somehow thrown in my existing cable sports package (that gets me like MLBN, NFL/Red Zone/SEC/CBSSN/etc). Which Idk if it will even be available out of market since they couldn’t show Cubs games. I’m going to get MLBTV still.

It’s not an exclusive deal is it? Don’t think so. Think they still are negotiating with Comcast and whatever other cable providers would carry it in the Cubs market.

It definitely seems like at the least Espada asked for a little time to think/wait for Houston to be done and/or they’re still trying to woo him. Seems like Ross is theirs if they want him so makes sense to wait out Espada’s decision, Ross can be hired tomorrow or in 3 weeks or whatever when the WS is done.

If Eno thinks they’re good moves I’m for it [tweet] [/tweet]

That’s because 10-15 of the 20 times he’s gonna be Mookie

I still always see or think the name Erlich Bachman every time I see his name

I don’t think they changed the manufacturer, did they? They just said the manufacturer is given specs and allowed to be within a range of error/variance and they may have changed some things but were within the range allowed and it was just manufacturing variance I thought. They also lowered the seams a bit on top of the pill change. MLB owns the manufacturer (Rawlings). Didn’t know that, I do know the balls are manufactured in like Costa Rica or Honduras or some Central/South American country. Even though MLB owns Rawlings I doubt they get much in to the actual manufacturing business, guessing Rawlings has a decent amount of autonomy to do what they do best with the nuts and bolts of the day to to minutiae. Not to say MLB didn’t put them under a directive to change the ball.

I don’t think they changed the manufacturer, did they? They just said the manufacturer is given specs and allowed to be within a range of error/variance and they may have changed some things but were within the range allowed and it was just manufacturing variance I thought. They also lowered the seams a bit on top of the pill change.

[tweet] [/tweet]

Yeah the launch angle focus/revolution and players changing approach, scouting better/smarter with more tech and data available and players embracing it, conditioning, etc definitely is a factor here. I still think the ball is mostly responsible for the spike but it’s not the only reason.

I think it’s generally accepted they were juiced for all of 2018 and 2019, they possibly were here for all of 2017 and if they weren’t they came in some time during the year.

Same argument, but in reverse. It's going to help starters on every team. Looking at the lack of a 'boost' for our main guys and attributing it to 'well they just hit no doubters regardless' and then just expecting a regression for everyone else except them is not really an approach I want anyone making decisions to take. Well, yeah everyone in theory gets a boost but I think some of the Cubs players haven't benefited as much (or been hurt by it more) than a lot of others and will benefit more from it going back to the old ball. Quintna especially seems like he might get a boost, HR/FB rates of 5%, 8.9% and 9.5% in 2014-2016 then it spiked to 13.2%, 14.7% and 12.1% 2017-2019. Overall from 2014-2016 he had the 3rd best HR/FB rate in MLB, finishing 2nd, 10th and 6th in the three years individually. From 2017-2019 he fell all the way to 51st overall during that span. I think there's an argument he's been disproportionately affected by it. The last two years Hendricks has given up more HRs than any time in his career, Darvish has always given up a good chunk of HRs but he saw a spike this year too, Lester was at 16, 21, 21 14-16' and has been 26, 24, 26 the last 3 years (there's probably some age/diminished stuff at play here so maybe that's just what he is). I think it's a reasonable argument to think we may benefit more on the margins than other teams if they go back to the old ball. I'm not saying don't change anything and bank on things improving just because the ball might switch back, but it could be a nice unexpected boost to us (again on the margins) more so than other teams.

I don’t know how it wouldn’t help a lot of our starters, Hendricks, Q, Yu and Lester all would seem to get a boost. I agree with the idea it does seem our main offensive guys didn’t get a real boost so in theory would benefit/maintain value or power in a de-juiced ball league.

https://twitter.com/purpledinocast/status/1184306244686712832?s=21

The Nats took out the Brewers, Dodgers and Cardinals. I have a new favorite team.

I thought this was a problem only unique to the Cubs

Agree, if were committing 200+ mil to someone I’m picking the bat over the pitcher every time. It’s just such a safer bet.