dalgreen

I don't understand why Prior may only need one more minor league start instead of 2-3. During a normal spring training, don't starters get 5-6 starts? I'm just sick of seeing one or two appearances then back to the DL.

That's basically what the Cubs have right now. A bunch of guys that don't strike out that much. Neifi Perez rarely strikes out. The Reds have K'd 140 more times than the Cubs, and I'll take their offense over the Cubs all day long. I'd disagree. If we had the Ecksteins, Graces and Gwynns, we'd have a much better OBP and higher averages.

That's what I don't get with him. Back in the day when he had some value, he was one of the toughest guys to strikeout. Other than just not being good, what happened?

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well? I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all. Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out. I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement. Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time. Here are some numbers to support his statement. Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol: Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home. The problem with being obsessed with avoiding the strikeout is when it's an overall strategy, not just an outcome of a certain scenario. When there is a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs, yeah, you want to make contact. But when you are so deathly afraid of striking out that you hack at the first pitch anywhere close to the plate just to "get it in play", you start to make outs at a breakneck pace. Instead of waiting for a pitch they can drive, weak hitters like the ones the Cubs seek out are so afraid of striking out that they hack at everything they can reach, resulting in weak contact, oftentimes early in the count. That's why we see starting pitchers throw complete games with 85 pitches thrown against the Cubs. In my opinion, the anti-strikeout paranoia is one of the biggest problems the Cubs have. it's almost as if they assume death if they are called out on strikes. Note that the Cubs as a team are among the toughest to strikeout in baseball. We see what dividends that has paid. I think that's a good point, and it might just be semantics. I hate guys who have a bunch of strikeouts, but I want guys who don't strikout because they simply know how to hit and have a good approach at the plate. Give me a lineup full of David Ecksteins, Tony Gwynns, and Mark Graces any day. LOB due to strikeouts would be non-existent.

So if you think that by asking a pitcher that question, you'll get a relevant answer, I believe its the equivalent of asking this: You have two players. One only struck out 47 times last year, the other struck out 168. That's the only information I'm giving you. Which one do you want? Is that a fair question? I love the discussion but I don't understand your question. My question is basically simple based on when a batter steps into the box there are two things that can happen-- get on base or not get on base. Striking out means 99.9999999% of the time you will not reach base. Making contact at least gives you a better chance of getting on base. And, no, I don't want guys to make contact just for the sake of making contact, but with two strikes I do think hitters should choke up and just try to make contact in certain situations. I wonder with the bases loaded last night if Phil Nevin would've just tried to get on base instead of swinging for a non-game tying grand slam if he'd struck out? I don't know, but it would've been nice to have some kind of contact there --- again it could've been a double play, pop up on the infield, single, double, line out, sac fly, etc.

Question... is it really that much more likely (significant enough to make a noticable difference over the course of the whole season) that an infielder will committ an error on a DP ball than it is that a catcher will drop a third strike and the runner will make it to first? I realize that errors aren't as rare as runners making it to first on a dropped 3rd strike, but both events are rare compared to the number of times these plays play out successfully. I was using the double-play as one of a lot of possible examples. Again, the better question is would you rather strikeout or make contact? Making contact could mean anything from a homer to popping out to the catcher. The point being (other than a dropped third strike) the strikeout ends the at-bat immediately. I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base.

What amazes me is some people who think strikeouts are overrated when their team is at the plate are enamored with strikeouts when their team is on defense. I'm one who thinks the strikeout is one of the worst things to happen. The reason is because when you strikeout that immediately ends the at-bat. Even if you hit into what looks to be a double -play, the play is still in progress and an ifielder could boot it, make a bad throw to second, or a bad throw to first or you could beat it out. The question is when you're at the plate would you rather make contact (no matter what kind) or strikeout? At least with contact there's a chance of good things happening.

That's the problem, he and Baker are baseball men. Their arrogance prohibits them from thinking that fans, sabrematicians, media, statisticians, etc. could possibly know what is valuable to a baseball team. This is three and a half years now of not having any respect for OBP, so I don't think Hendry and Baker are ever going to get it. Here's what I don't understand, Hendry and Baker moan, gripe and groan about the number of walks our pitchers give up that turn into runs, but for some stupid reason they can't see the value in having our team be patient and receive walks.

Speaking of Kingman, does anyone remember when he got into a fight with Cub shortstop 5'6" Mick Kelleher?

Okay, it's an off day so just some thoughts Where were you when..... The Cubs had to walk down the left field line to get to the clubhouse? Some ballparks had baseball-shaped golf carts to bring in the relief pitchers from the bullpen? ABC had Monday Night Baseball? Brant Brown dropped the fly ball in Milwaukee? The 1994 World Series was canceled? The Atlanta Braves and the Cincinnati Reds were in the NL West? Shawon Dunston would charge the mound just about everytime he was hit by a pitch? Harry Caray would call Andre Dawson "Andre Rogers"? Kirby Puckett became the first $3 million player? George Foster became the first $2 million player? On 8/8/88 the first night game at Wrigley was rained out? Jack Brickhouse would say, "The upper deck is closed today." Vince Lloyd and Lou Boudreau were the best in the biz? 30 homers was considered a "monster" year? Marla Collins was the hottest woman in sports? The worst words you'd hear after a Cub home game was "Game suspended due to darkness?" The Cubs had Andy Frain ushers? Lee Elia went on an obscenity laced tirade against Cub fans? Again, just some thoughts. Feel free to add as you wish.

At least Corey has a much higher ceiling than Pierre. Had Hendry constructed a better team, Corey could've just been placed in one spot all season instead of being shuffled to different spots in the lineup. But it also seems that Corey is now maturing and willing to learn as well (looks like his swing has shortened a bit) in Baltimore, although I still see where he loves swinging at high fastballs.

Why is it people want to blame Baker whenever a player just isn't that good? Pierre has been on a decline in OBP for the third straight year. Any good GM would've recognized that, but our GM and manager think that speed is the only thing needed out of the lead-off spot. From an offensive standpoint, speed means nothing if you can't get on base. Pierre is swinging at way too many non-strikes, and when pitchers throw him good pitches he just doesn't know what to do with it. I don't know why he's hitting so many fly balls. He's just not that good and we were saying this same thing last year, so it's not Baker.

The minute the author stated that Matt Murton was his favorite Cub I knew it would be probably an emotional post. I like Matt Murton, but he's really not that good for a team that has little power and little OBP. He's not as good now as I thought he'd be four-six months ago, and I'd question anyone who isn't disappointed with Murton to this point. He's not shown the same patience as he did last year, and, sorry, I refuse to believe that he is a robot and just decided to swing at everything because Dusty told him to. I have no problem with guys who are free-swingers as long as they swing at a pitch in their "hot" zone. Swinging at breaking pitches (which Murton does all too often) when ahead in the count is not smart. Perhaps, once again, we as fans overrated another young Cub position player. I hope not since I really like Murton, but he's been disappointing at various times this season. And Cedeno is going to be good, but let's not excuse his poor OBP. That's great that his average has been around .300 and he's pretty good defensively (still too many errors), but I don't care for his .320 OBP. Oh yeah, I still don't know why Bynum is on this team. You'd have to ask Hendry what "tools" Bynum brings. Hendry's ability to evaluate talent just sickens me-- although I'm glad he was right about Lee.

I have to disagree with those who think that Wood may somehow be resurrected once out of the Cubs' system. Wood has been hurt way too much since his '99 surgery, and that surgery was for his elbow not his shoulder. Matt Morris had the TJ surgery right around the same time as Wood and he hasn't come close to being the pitcher he used to be, either. Back to Wood, shoulders are worse injuries than elbows anyway. Maybe he can become a spokesman to youngsters to make sure they have good mechanics.

In my opinion, Guzman had his chance and I don't think we should use him again until September. How many pitchers do we have to see who can have good numbers at AAA but then can't pitch well while with the Cubs?

I am going to have to completely disagree with this. Minor league hitters are not better than major league hitters. This is just an excuse. Now if you want to say that Prior struggled because he threw mostly fastballs and his fastball isn't up to speed yet, that would make sense since most minor leaguers can't hit fastballs (or they would be out of baseball by now). The argument that they swing more is preposterous. Where did someone say that minor league hitters are better than major league hitters? Also, I don't know if it was a typo or not, but you wrote that minor leaguers can't hit fastballs. I don't understand. If there's a pitch minor leaguers can hit it is the fastball. It's whether or not they can hit the breaking pitch that determines if they'll be successful in the majors or spend most of their career in the minors.

Perez had already signed by the time the negotiatons were heating up between the Cubs and Furcal. Perez was supposedly friends with Furcal and was going to try to convince him to sign with the Cubs. Thanks for the knowledge; I didn't know that Perez had already signed.

Good question, Serena. My take is that I don't look at this as a moral issue, but instead a strict contractual issue that helps ensure that any potentially reckless or dangerous behavior will not occur. Similar to the many contract clauses prohibiting riding motorcycles, playing pick-up basketball, sky diving, flag football, etc. Yes, every professional athlete who drinks runs the risk of drinking and driving, but if you've been convicted two times already, I think that puts you at a higher risk than someone who has never been pulled over or convicted. That's how I look at it. And, also, just suppose that it's known in the baseball circles that Furcal is an alcoholic (again, suppose) who doesn't admit it and won't seek help. This could also be one way of helping him avoid a potentially hazardous situation. Again, I don't know, but it could be a possibility. I would be interested in knowing if there is anything Derrek Lee is prohibited from doing like playing pick-up basketball or something.

You'll have to forgive some of the posters on here, Bruce. Some love to search for Dusty quotes so they can be the first to put them up, especially if they don't understand it so they can call it "crazy" or "stupid." Baker does say some things that don't make sense, but not everything. Some people despise every fiber that's Dusty and can't get past that emotion.

I finally can give Hendry credit for doing something right. I agree with adding the clause. I wonder if his previous drunk driving incidents were two times he made poor decisions or if he's an alcoholic who just doesn't want to get help? Here's the question regarding Furcal's contract offer: if he signed with us (I'm glad he didn't ), that would likely mean Rusch doesn't sign for the amount of money he did, Perez doesn't sign for the amount of money he did and Jones may not have gotten the money he did, and the trade for Pierre doesn't happen meaning Nolasco and Pinto stay in the Cub organization. I guess the question is, which was worse signing him or not signing him?

If you want fun and nostalgia then I'm all for Zim. If you want wins then I'm against hiring Zim. The '89 season made him look better than what he was -- and if it weren't for career years by Walton and Smith, we wouldn't have won the division. If you want to bring back somebody it should be Dallas Green as GM. If the stupid Trib (I think it was Stanton Cook) wouldn't have given him the ultimatum of being field manager or leaving, we would've at least made one WS (maybe more) appearance -- definitely more postseason appearances than what we did. He's still the best Cub GM in my lifetime. He got productive players and still was able to produce top talent in the minors. And Sutcliffe had a career year in 84. It often takes players having career years for the Cubs to win. Let me also add Zim also let the rookies play. I have no problem with Green as a GM either. Cuse, he let the kids play because the GM, Jim Frey, gave him no options but to play kids, something Hendry has just started doing. Dallas Green left Frey with a good core group of young guys. Remember, Smith only played because Palmeiro, another young guy, was traded away.

So I read where Paul Sullivan suggests that Zambrano's anger was "seemingly" directed at Baker's decison to lift him for a pinch-hitter. I read the article and nothing Sullivan wrote gave me the impression that he was upset at Baker. When asked, Zambrano said repeatedly he was upset at himself. I wasn't there, but Sullivan could've provided more evidence suggesting that Zambrano was upset with Baker's decision than what he did, which was none. I read nothing that suggested that Zambrano was upset at Baker. I'm no Baker apologist, but, Carlos, you do realize you can throw a complete game shutout sometime, don't you? That would eliminate you from getting pulled. But you can't throw 90 pitches by the fifth inning to do it.

If you want fun and nostalgia then I'm all for Zim. If you want wins then I'm against hiring Zim. The '89 season made him look better than what he was -- and if it weren't for career years by Walton and Smith, we wouldn't have won the division. If you want to bring back somebody it should be Dallas Green as GM. If the stupid Trib (I think it was Stanton Cook) wouldn't have given him the ultimatum of being field manager or leaving, we would've at least made one WS (maybe more) appearance -- definitely more postseason appearances than what we did. He's still the best Cub GM in my lifetime. He got productive players and still was able to produce top talent in the minors.

The booing was definitely audible tonight. I didn't understand your comment about booing Pierre and Perez. Are you comparing vets to a young guy who was rushed through the system? Plus, offensively, Perez sucks and he has for a while, and Pierre now is sucking for the third straight year. I don't understand your comparison when you say fans shouldn't boo those two, either.

SMALL? It was a smidge over a half season. He produced that for 5 months in 2004 too - while coming back quicker than anticipated from an injury. And whether or not Corey has a similar avg/obp to Pierre, he'll be well ahead of Juan in the slugging department. And as Tim pointed out, all while being much cheaper than Juan and not costing the Cubs three solid young pitchers. Given the same coaches were here, what makes you think any adjustments would be made with him and he'd be performing like he is away from Chicago? I'm not certain the coaches had a lot to do with him. They may not have helped much, but I don't think they were the sole reason for his disappointing time in Chicago. Corey was always an overaggressive hitter with poor discipline--- that's the Cubs philosophy even in the minor league system, so for him, being in the Cub organization should have been heaven. I still think he was rushed through the system, though.