Agony and Ivy

Red Sox. In terms of real life, much as i've pondered it, I'd be stunned if they deal Benintendi or Betts. From a hypothetical perspective, sure, it might make some sense for them to package Price's contract with one of them to address some needs, while swinging the door open to maybe make a deal for Stanton. The biggest issue, IMO, is the addition of Eduardo Rodriguez, a promising young arm coming into this own, at least, on paper. That just seems way too much. davell may be right that that package might not net Betts alone in a hypothetical. _____ No way do I think the Phillies move on from Aaron Nola. Young, cost-controlled front of the rotation type arm. He fits their window. Shark is interesting. In this market, though, it's hard seeing minor leaguers being enough, considering our farm system and where the guys are. I could see something like Happ and minor leaguers perhaps being enough. Thing is, Shark was quietly very solid. I think it would get quite a bidding war going for him, as the remaining contract, while big, isn't that bad that you say no to a productive guy coming off a good year. This presumes that the Giants even want to move on from him, which seems debatable. Even in a "down" year Betts was a 5 WAR player and a top 15 position player. None of those guys listed in the hypothetical would net him.

I make a pretty solid meatball too. I smell an NSBB meatball cook-off fundraiser!

Most smart people I know can construct a sentence properly, but I understand that a ton of smart people can't actually write well. Also, smart people can be meatballs, because, as I said earlier, a meatball opinion is one based on unquantifiable factors like the eye test or your feelings. When I said Bryant is a near perfect offensive player you simply came back with "I disagree there" without anything to back up your opinion. As we continued this dick dance, it became clear your opinion is literally based on things that don't matter and things you don't understand, even though you could never state specifically why you feel the way you do. I wasn't trying to go down the road with insults, but the moment someone said you were wrong you went to the tried and true internet classic of "your parents' basement" and then doubled down with another message board classic with the "I'm smarter and more successful" post. When you resort to insults online, it's like raising your voice while debating in person, when you should be reinforcing your argument. The only thing that's left for you is to claim your 700 series BMW makes you the authority here.

This is where we disagree. He's not. And as good as he is, he has flaws and he can get better. As many 24-25 year olds do. Even Barry Bonds or Mike Trout. And I'm not sure coaching is the answer. But how are you guys so sure coaching isn't the answer? The Cubs fired Bosio when you'd think Arrieta alone would've been worth some job security. And the historic 2016 pitching season. And I love it how everyone likes to use the word "meatball" so freely to describe any opinion that differs from theirs. And ridicule their opinions. This is so horsefeathering condescending and disdainful. God, how annoying is it when people throw around the term "meatball" here. Some people think they are so horsefeathering smart on an internet message board. For all I know, you guys who like to call other people meatball live in your parents basement. I know I don't. Well when you have nothing to backup your argument it's usually because it's uninformed and meatball opinions tend to be uninformed. Bryant has posted wRC+ numbers of 136, 148 and 146 in his first three seasons in the Major Leagues. He's improved every important offensive statistic every season he's been up. K-rates have dropped from 30.6% to 22% to 19.2%. BB-rates have improved from 11.8% to 14.3% with a slight dip in year two to 10.7%. OBP has increased every year from .369 to .385 to .409. He's been a top 10 hitter since the moment he debuted, so yes he's as close to perfect you can get. Since his debut one player has produced more fWAR than him and that's Trout. Bryant was also above average against changeups this year, so I'll need you to explain the flaws you think you see. Also, comping Bosio to Mallee is not even close to the same since the Cubs offense has been upper echelon the last two seasons while multiple pitchers took steps back this year under Bosio. So that's a false equivalency.

Changeups are just hard to mimic in a training setting especially MLB caliber ones.

I was bored tonight. Usually I can't take it and what Clapp does on Twitter is the lord's work.

If there's one team that struggles under the postseason pressure, it's gotta be the one with a bunch of 25 year olds who have been to the LCS 3 straight years. Like everyone else here, I understand the concept of "sample size". But I'm also openminded about certain things that people often write off to "sample size". For instance "clutch". I'm just using "clutchness" as an example. And yes, I do believe "clutch" exists. http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/clutch-hitting-swing-difference-081414 But the main point is that an improved approach and improvement of play should be coachable, shouldn't it? If not, then why have a hitting coach at all? For instance, we know that KB, even as MVP, was horrible against the changeup, or a low breaking ball. If he improves this, he would likely not only become better against the low change, but probably against a high fastball as well. He would become an overall better player. And he would be less vulnerable to good pitchers go can throw those pitches effectively with control. The kind of good pitchers you might face in a postseason game. And to the "guessing" question that has been raised. I don't know if they guess too much or not. But I'm open minded to the possibility that a coach may have an impact on strategy. For instance, this pitcher will attack you this way and we should think about doing this... Maybe this does help and maybe the Cubs are bad at this. I don't pretend to know how baseball players are coached in terms of hitting. But I do understand that Maddon and his staff believe in a hands off approach. Players are discouraged to take BP and instead rest. Team meetings don't occur. Maybe 25 years olds need more instruction. And I'm not completely happy with the offense has performed. We can argue about clutchness or overall numbers. But one thing I'm not totally happy about is the improvement of the 25 year olds. And improvement should be coachable. So I don't see why coaches shouldn't be accountable for performance of the players. We blame NFL coaches all the time for poor performances on the part of the players. John Fox was fired after Denver lost in the Super Bowl. I don't think you actually understand small samples. How do you improve on an approach that led the league in walks and finished second in runs? One thing that hurt this team a ton is grounding into double plays. A lot of that is bad luck and Ben Zobrist. In 2016 the team had a 9.8 wGDP which was by far the best in baseball to -2.4 in 2017 which was 5th worst in baseball, with pretty much the same offense. That number will regress back towards league average next year unless 2016 was some kind of massive fluke. A good changeup is the most devastating pitch in baseball because you really can't just practice hitting them. The reason they are so good is they are impossible to identify when they're kept down in the zone by major leaguers. In the minors, you'll see some guys slow their arm speed, but those guys don't make it to the show. Every player is going to have something they struggle with. For years, Mike Trout had trouble on fastballs up and in and he got better at hitting them or laying off them, but those are infinitely easier to identify out of the hand than a major league change. Kris Bryant is a damn near perfect player offensively, and Cubs fans need to pull their heads out of their asses regarding him. Barring injury he'll be the organizations greatest player of all time. As far as guessing goes, what in the horsefeathers are you talking about? Again, their offense has been in the top 3 by almost every metric the last two years. Their "strategy" is fine and this is you reacting to something you claim to understand but clearly do not. Pre-game batting practice and things like tee work and soft toss are terrible ways to train. First, pre-game BP is done with no intensity and anything that doesn't mimic game action isn't all together helpful. It's probably not harmful and for some guys it's part of their routine, but it doesn't do anything to make you a better hitter. Tee work and soft toss are dying because they are even worse than BP and do actually damage things like approach and contact skills. Plus, when you're half assing BP etc you're not using the same muscles and mechanics you'll use against a real live MLB pitcher. There is plenty of data out there you can dive into instead of using old tired baseball axioms, but basically you want guys to train using high levels of intent with explosive movements. None of that happens with traditional BP or tee work etc. The Cubs (and most MLB teams) utilize a lot of data and hitting instruction driven by intent. Also, you're going to have to show your work on how clutch exists, and if it's a skill you should probably have an example of how you can train this skill, but I imagine it's just more not understanding the true nature of a small sample. As a team, they're non pitchers finished first in WPA in 2016 and were better in 2017, but managed to finish a measly third in baseball. So even your clutch narrative doesn't fit. As far as accountability goes, you want to fire someone for a 10 game sample against some of the best pitchers in the league and not the 3 years of results he's already gotten out of his players. You also fail to mention they won the [expletive] World Series. Change for change's sake is what desperate and bad organizations do.

As far as specific names, I have no clue. I don't follow baseball closely enough to have specific names. Heck I can probably only name two hitting coaches in baseball, and that would just be guessing ex-cub coaches and Jacque Jones. Teams that I think have a good approach from what I've seen, the Astros, Brewers, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Indians. But those are for the most part, just really good offenses with really good players. Again, I think the Cubs are in good hands, I just also think there might be room for improvement (see above). the brewers rank in the bottom half of baseball in every meaningful offensive category except BB%, where they're 11th. let's cross them off the list of teams to emulate. Holy horsefeathers another Vaunted Brewers truther? THE BREWERS horsefeathering SUCK. The Astros were historically good so if that's your bar you're going to be massively disappointed. The Diamondbacks? Get the horsefeathers out of here, they're not close to being as good as the Cubs. The Indians should probably fire everyone too because they didn't even make it out of the DS this year so they're clearly hopeless. The Dodgers got career years out of something called Chris Taylor and Austin Barnes. They'll be awesome again next year but we're right there with them even with production from guys like Taylor and Barnes.

Not a fan of this move at all and seems like a knee jerk reaction to the October pen issues.

So you were expecting a 1-0 win to have a shot tonight?

Really excited for him to back to being terrible next year, even though I'm not convinced it will happen.

Chris Taylor is more annoying than Daniel Murphy.

I think I heard him say it last year in the ALDS and I was unbelievably annoyed

Cannot wait for Chris Taylor to go back to being horsefeathering terrible after this season is over.

A hotel with a ceiling fan?

I hate when they try to hit it hard, especially early in the AB. No. Swinging out of your shoes when the wind is blowing out and the bases are empty is not smart. We got a hitting coach in here? I had no idea. Swinging hard is exactly what you want to do, but I guess weak grounders are in or something.

Wonder if he’ll go to Cleveland soon to break their drought? Theo would never live in that shithole.

Good thing my family is just a fan of the National League and not the Cubs team.

4D chess by Theo and Co. Get swept in the NLCS to get a head start on Ohtani pitch.

Uh what? Most first pitch balls are mistakes no matter the team.

Where the horsefeathers is Ian Happ? This is a dumb lineup.

Yeah that was pretty bad too, especially considering he took him out the next half inning anyway. And we didn't even need power. LaStella there would've been defensible because if he happens to whip one down the line it could very well be a run. We just needed someone to have a prayer of getting a hit, which Almora didn't. It's not worse than not pitching Wade, but it's not much better. Rizzo isn't scoring from first on a ball to RF unless Yasiel Puig somehow horsefeathering dies while going to get the ball.

Sharma just responded to me on Twitter I think the save thing is semantics. Davis was basically just unavailable. I wish Joe would've just said that instead of invoking the "save" part of the equation. He shouldn't have warmed up in the top of the 9th if he was unavailable. Lots of guys will warm up and not have it. And even if they won't say it, that's why you have a bullpen coach. I have no idea if that's what happened but it feels like it. Using the "save" to define the leverage seems weird to me, but who knows.

Man, I thought Kaplan was stupid but I just heard his rant and he's gone to a new level tonight.

Sharma adding some context that while Wade was available, he wasn't exactly free for any potential outing: [tweet] [/tweet] I'm not so sure I think that type of restriction is the right call given 2 days off and another tomorrow, but setting that aside, I can at least see the logic for not wanting to go to Davis for 1 out in the 9th knowing you need at least a scoreless 10th too to win the game. Even with all those caveats though, you don't double switch Lackey into the game. He's not the best or even 2nd best reliever for that spot, and by double switching him you're exposing your decision to let Almora hit with a man on base in the 9th as terrible. Maddon just played that small ball-leave your better outfield in to face the deathman. He wanted Almora's glove because the big 3 couldnt get it done. We're just worn out Sharma just responded to me on Twitter I think the save thing is semantics. Davis was basically just unavailable. I wish Joe would've just said that instead of invoking the "save" part of the equation.