Bryants Disco Ball

I wonder the last time an AL manager had to decide whether or not to take out his best offensive player because he just made the last out of a tie game in the late innings. And holy [expletive], no strategy in baseball? Are you [expletive] kidding me? Not kidding you in the least. That's why complete buffoon meatheads can be "successful" managers. And there are shitty coaches who have won or gotten to Super Bowls. Obviously, having great talent is the No. 1 key to success. But to say there is no strategy in baseball goes higher than just the managers. I'm talking the entire game that's played on the field, from pitch selection, etc. There is a ton of strategy in this game.

I wonder the last time an AL manager had to decide whether or not to take out his best offensive player because he just made the last out of a tie game in the late innings. And holy [expletive], no strategy in baseball? Are you [expletive] kidding me?

There's still plenty of fans of it. Just a lot of people are willing to give it up if it means standardizing the rules across the league, as they realize that the DH isn't ever going away in the AL. There's no GD strategy in baseball. It's out out out out out 1 run out out game over. Ah, but to get that one run could require 15 decisions in the NL. I love it! and every one of those decisions is: should we pinch hit for our [expletive] hitting pitcher? Not yet. should we pinch hit for our [expletive] hitting pitcher? Not yet. should we pinch hit for our [expletive] hitting pitcher? Not yet. So much more than that. Hell, ask Joe Maddon about it if you ever see him on the street.

There's still plenty of fans of it. Just a lot of people are willing to give it up if it means standardizing the rules across the league, as they realize that the DH isn't ever going away in the AL. There's no GD strategy in baseball. It's out out out out out 1 run out out game over. Ah, but to get that one run could require 15 decisions in the NL. I love it!

Of course, I'm also a big (and perhaps last?) fan of the non-DH format in the NL. I love as much strategy needed in a game as possible, and the DH often takes a lot of that enjoyment away.

They have been doing it since 2010, and it's really mostly to keep the scorecard clean.

they are not getting cole hamels. ppl need to let it go already! That wasn't at all the point of the post, but yes, I agree.

It also could be based on matchups. If the team the Cubs are playing suck against left-handers, well, then you probably go with Lester. Arrieta is the choice right now if that is not a factor. But the choice might be Lester by then. Or Cole Hamels. I have a good feeling the answer will be obvious when that time (hopefully) comes.

Whoops I just counted again because that seemed high. Only 10 more against the Mets my bad. Damn, 15? Hamels won't likely even be pitching any of those, either. Much happier to hear that.

Damn, 15? Hamels won't likely even be pitching any of those, either.

I hit the quote option instead of the edit option. Not once. Not twice. But, yes, three times. By that time even I wanted me to shut the [expletive] up.

Holy [expletive], I really fucked up this posting. Just pretend I never said anything.

Yes, correct. And the point this whole time is it doesn't matter what other teams pitching is ranked. We don't hit any of them. So if a team can score four runs consistently against us the trend is that we will lose. But teams can't score 4 runs consistently against the Cubs, because they are good at pitching. That's why they're a playoff team at this point in the season. This is stupid logic. Better teams win more games than and against lesser teams. The Cubs have gone 24-28 against NL teams that entered today with more runs scored than them. It includes losing records to Milwaukee and Arizona. In those 52 games, the Cubs allowed four or more runs 27 times. (51.9 percent of the time). So in all those games, our pitching has allowed 4 or more runs more times than it hasn't. The Cubs have gone 17-5 against the three teams that entered with fewer runs than them (Reds, Miami and the Mets). In those 22 games, the Cubs allowed four or more runs just five times. To me, we are great against teams that can't score runs and can struggle against teams (even bad ones) who can. The Brewers are 12 games below .500, but I believe the way they are built, they are a horrible matchup for a team like ours. Meanwhile, the Mets are above .500 and on our heels in a playoff chase, yet I believe they are a great matchup for us. Not even sure any of these numbers really mean anything. It's just my way of saying that, when looking ahead at teams like the Brewers on our sked, I'm not sure we can predict with any confidence that we are going to get on a sustained run of success. ETA: I suck at these kinds of breakdowns, so I apologize if this was all just a bunch of worthless junk.

Yes, correct. And the point this whole time is it doesn't matter what other teams pitching is ranked. We don't hit any of them. So if a team can score four runs consistently against us the trend is that we will lose. But teams can't score 4 runs consistently against the Cubs, because they are good at pitching. That's why they're a playoff team at this point in the season. This is stupid logic. Better teams win more games than and against lesser teams. The Cubs have gone 24-28 against NL teams that entered today with more runs scored than them. It includes losing records to Milwaukee and Arizona. In those 52 games, the Cubs allowed four or more runs 27 times. (51.9 percent of the time). So in all those games, our pitching has allowed 4 or more runs more times than it hasn't. The Cubs have gone 17-5 against the three teams that entered with fewer runs than them (Reds, Miami and the Mets). In those 22 games, the Cubs allowed four or more runs just five times. To me, we are great against teams that can't score runs and can struggle against teams (even bad ones) who can. The Brewers are 12 games below .500, but I believe the way they are built, they are a horrible matchup for a team like ours. Meanwhile, the Mets are above .500 and on our heels in a playoff chase, yet I believe they are a great matchup for us. Not even sure any of these numbers really mean anything. It's just my way of saying that, when looking ahead at teams like the Brewers on our sked, I'm not sure we can predict with any confidence that we are going to get on a sustained run of success.

Yes, correct. And the point this whole time is it doesn't matter what other teams pitching is ranked. We don't hit any of them. So if a team can score four runs consistently against us the trend is that we will lose. But teams can't score 4 runs consistently against the Cubs, because they are good at pitching. That's why they're a playoff team at this point in the season. This is stupid logic. Better teams win more games than and against lesser teams. The Cubs have gone 24-28 against NL teams that entered today with more runs scored than them. It includes losing records to Milwaukee and Arizona. In those 52 games, the Cubs allowed four or more runs 27 times. (51.9 percent of the time). So in all those games, our pitching has allowed 4 or more runs more than it hasn't. The Cubs have gone 17-5 against the three teams that entered with fewer runs than them (Reds, Miami and the Mets). In those 22 games, the Cubs allowed four or more runs just five times. To me, we are great against teams that can't score runs and can struggle against teams (even bad ones) who can. The Brewers are 12 games below .500, but I believe the way they are built, they are a horrible matchup for a team like ours. Meanwhile, the Mets are above .500 and on our heels in a playoff chase, yet I believe they are a great matchup for us. Not even sure any of these numbers really mean anything. It's just my way of saying that, when looking ahead at teams like the Brewers on our sked, I'm not sure we can predict with any confidence that we are going to get on a sustained run of success.

Yes, correct. And the point this whole time is it doesn't matter what other teams pitching is ranked. We don't hit any of them. So if a team can score four runs consistently against us the trend is that we will lose.

Brewers are actually a horrible matchup. They can score runs. Hopefully they have sold some pieces by then.

Were you the one hoping yesterday that this game would get rained out?

When a team only scores 1 to 3 runs against most all pitchers, it's far too difficult to look ahead and project wins or dominance.

You have to think somewhere out there Ripken opened a bottle to celebrate.

Feel like he lost some speed looking back for too long.

I chose to see the positive. It means he's been consistent since he's always around 3 for his last 32.

I feel like if Arrieta needs well over 100 that it means he started struggling and we wouldn't want him in any way.

That's because we stole their hitting coach.

I'm still really surprised Soler has just four homers in 57 games.