cubbinalltheway

also lost in the shuffle was mike fonenot going 3-4 and scoring 2 runs.

aw man, best part of that was when the fan snapped his fingers after giving mb the brother shake. great win. nice to see soriano hit that homer in the first. not to be all sutcliffe like, but soriano's due for an mvp type season. why not this year??

the last pitch was vintage

what?

marmol coming in?

lol.... "certainly peavy is the 800 pound gorilla in the room" sutcliffe: "what?"

lie. You actually believe Neil Cotts is a good pitcher? Seriously? i didn't say he was good. i said he doesnt suck. for a reliever, he's decent.

lie.

No yes and wtf, guy hits it 8 feet and they get a run. eff that.

pence looked safe......

i love sut, but he says such stupid crap. oswalt got in his head by throwing inside on soriano? absolutely beautiful, heilman!!!

then he'll drop bunts down the third base line everytime...

what? he's at like 90 pitches. why wouldn't he bat?

seems like zambrano should have 7 K's by now

It was a hit and run, and he hit it fairly crisply...just on the ground and right to the 2B. seriously. on that same play (hit and run) there's a very good chance that it could've been 1st and 3rd after that swing. pretty dumb to complain about that at bat.

mb is seeing a lot of pitches tonight. i like.

do you not have cable? the game's on espn2

nice pick by d-lee

cubs are making a lot of the right decisions so far this year. i like!

what he's trying to say is that hill won the job http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090330&content_id=4089714&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

conceded.

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. I'll just repeat some of that simple logic then: but you don't know why those errors occurred. you cant just look at raw data like that and make that conclusion. other than going back and looking at every error, it's impossible to tell why the error was committed. and thus impossible to say that pierre's speed doesn't have an effect on the defender. which is why i just suggested that fundamental logic (crazy, i know) might be a better way of coming to a conclusion here. that fundamental logic of course being, when a defender knows he has 4 seconds until the batter reaches first base versus three seconds, he'll react accordingly. You're missing the point. Regardless of why or how the error took place, he's not causing a higher rate of errors than a hitter with less speed. you don't know that. for all you know, all 56 of the times that pierre reached on an error could've been caused by his speed. obviously at the same time, none of the 56 could have been caused by his speed. point is, we just don't know. so when you look at stats to determine if his speed has an effect, and the stats don't give you a clear answer... and i know this board is absurdly stat-heavy (vs. scouting)... but don't you think it's time to just stop and think for a moment about the logical answer?

then why are you arguing with me? i never suggested that he won't get a sizable one. i stated that he wont get the same one he COULD get had he brought save numbers to the negotiating table. No, what you stated was, "is it really this hard or are you intentionally being obtuse? a closer is someone who pitches the 9th inning when their team is winning. he's the person who racks up saves. he's also the person who gets paid more than the setup men and the long relievers (assuming service time, of course). yes, teams could and will consider marmol as someone who could be a great closer. but unless carlos has been a closer, he wont get paid like a closer." Did I obtusely misunderstand that? i think you did. do you have someone nearby that can read it to you? i honestly have no idea how youre not understanding what i'm saying.

then why are you arguing with me? i never suggested that he won't get a sizable one. i stated that he wont get the same one he COULD get had he brought save numbers to the negotiating table.

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. I'll just repeat some of that simple logic then: but you don't know why those errors occurred. you cant just look at raw data like that and make that conclusion. other than going back and looking at every error, it's impossible to tell why the error was committed. and thus impossible to say that pierre's speed doesn't have an effect on the defender. which is why i just suggested that fundamental logic (crazy, i know) might be a better way of coming to a conclusion here. that fundamental logic of course being, when a defender knows he has 4 seconds until the batter reaches first base versus three seconds, he'll react accordingly.