TheDude

I don't know about putting names on lists, but I would try to change the dynamics of the team on the field. I love Murton and Cedeno, but both offer alternatives to the current baseball preferred environment. And as such, inclusion of them makes Jones a poor choice and Pierre a weaker choice. Murton doesn't have the power to be a classic LF. He has excellent value in a lineup, but value you traditionally want at the 2B, SS, or CF position. Cedeno is a classic NL SS for old school baseball, where excellent defense is the prime consideration, and any offense is gravy. As such, the production for inclusion of those two young, bright players requires offsetting elsewhere in the field. The Cubs RF needs to be a stud 4/5-hole power answer. The Cubs have excess power at 2B and C to make-up for either Cedeno or Murton, but not both, so the compensation has come from a prime power hitting corner. The alternaive to no stud RF is a power hitting CF, which is where Pierre becomes a poor choice given the overall dynamic. Compensation has to come somewhere for Murton's and Cedeno's lack of power production. So for folks to keep Murton and Cedeno in the rebuild of the core of this team, the lineup has to look something like this: LF/SS Murton/Cedeno 2B Walker 1B Lee 3B/RF Ramirez/[insert stud] 3B/RF Ramirez/[insert stud] CF [insert mid-power CF] C Barret LF/SS - Murton/Cedeno The idea that everyone needs to go is excessive. The core is still very solid. I have zero issues with most of the pitching names. Rusch is my only gripe. The performance overall is sub-par, but not the talent, and with a solid pitching coach, the Cubs staff has potential with the current names (minus Rusch) to be best in the NL.

I've pointed out many, many times in the past that Cox does most of the same things as Dusty Baker as a manager, from lineups to in-game management. Using Cox as an example of a manager that does things right isn't quite the way to go if your intent is toput down Dusty, because strategically they are similar managers.

Sorry but they are not directly correlated stats historically. Bad pitching is bad pitching, and there are a number of teams that give up a lot of walks and a lot of hits (both Florida teams). It is a misconception to think that there are fewer opportunities for hits because of walks. More plate appearances means more opportunities for hits - all a walk does it delay one plate appearance. Not only that, but having baserunners often puts a pitcher into an alternate pitching pattern that is not as good as a full motion, decreasing his effectiveness and thus increasing the hitters' opportunities. You can have wild pitching that is also good pitching, primarily with starting pitchers. Anytime you target guys with lots of movement as the Cubs have done in the MacPhail/Hendry era, you take the wildness with the top rate performances. But there accepted wildness (Zambrano's previous years) and the current team's unnacceptable wildness.

I think the low hit total is a good sign. There are guys on this team with serious movement. A guy like Zambrano isn't going to give up many solid hits on good pitches - only on occasional mistakes. That applies to half the staff, though to a lesser extent as Zambrano is the guy with the most bat-missing capability. I mean hell, the year Zambrano stops walking guys is the year he wins a Cy Young. This whole staff is good. When healthy, it can be the best in baseball top to bottom, but not until the free runs stop.

166 Walks in 37 games. Are you kidding me? That's 2nd worse in baseball. The Cubs pitchers' BAA is actually 5th best in all of baseball at .248 and the 300 hits against is bested only by Detroit's staff league leading 284 hits against. Fans are tired of watching Cubs pitchers give up one hit in an inning that results in 1-2 runs. We're tired of seeing boxscore lines that show the Cubs hitters with equal or more hits than the opposing team, but with significantly fewer runs. For the love of baseball stop giving away free base runners. If you can't walk fewer than 4 guys per 9 innings, then you are going to lose. Props to Howry for only 2 walks in 18 innings. Props to Maddux as always. Slops to all other pitchers. I don't care if the hitting is slumping right now, the fact of the matter is that the Cubs should still be .500 given the current numbers and could be a few games over .500 without this obscene walking problem. Pitchers need to step up, throw strikes, and quit giving away free runs. Take control of this floundering magpie and make the other team earn their victories.

What's with all the bickering? The Cubs are winning folks. We don't get to say that much these days, so be happy!

That ball was smoked! Gooooz!

Oh, that lineup is ugly. Walker and Jones have the highest OPS values on the team behind Barret (and well Lee). They're left-handed and a right-handed pitcher is scheduled. I just don't get it. I normally don't mind guys getting off days, but 2/3 of only production on the team sitting now, against a team that just swept a 4 game series on you?

I have trouble with the inconsistency of your argument. Here you are stead-fastly refusing to acknowledge that an umpire's strike zone can be influenced within a game, but then readily admitting that an umpire's strike zone changes (noting your 'high strike zone' comment). If they are automatons as you suggest, there would not exist this 'high strike zone' you mention. You are also willing to grant an umpire the ability to make mistakes because he's human, but not be affected by other human elements of the game, such as reputation. A clear example of how they are influenced by reputation is the quickness with which an umpire will issues warnings when a notoriously hot-headed pitcher beans someone. Maddux might not get that same warning in that situation. This entire argument aside (and to bring the topic back to point), if Zambrano is going to keep walking people at his curent rate, performances like the last two will be rare. I'm rooting for him to get his command together because I dig Zambrano the most.

Entirely ruined sounds pretty harsh. The quote does not have enough context for me to really make judgement myself. There just aren't enough specifics as to what the actual advice given was... But what limited advice listed in the quote is accurate, so I'm not worried.

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is.

Jones and Pierre are different hitters with very different approaches to hitting and do not deserve to equated together as you have done. However, I agree with the sentiment and intent of your post.

That's the only pitch of the game I saw, when it was replayed on Sports Center. That was a devastating pitch. Too bad half the time it won't be called a strike for Zambrano due to his wildness. If it was called on Bonds, who has the strikezone of a midget at the plate, then Z will consistently get it called. I don't think so. Strike zone is a big issue for Zambrano. In a perfect world, I think he has quite a few less walks given strike zone tightness. But when a pitcher is wild to the tune of 4-5 walks per game, umpires generally don't give that guy the close call as often as someone with good command. Fewer walks and border calls go hand in hand. Maddux benefitted for years on an extended zone, which was built on a reputation of minimal walks. It's not uncommon for fans to constantly complain about their teams' pitchers getting squeezed, particularly in a loss. Perhaps it's just my perception, but the complaints about getting squeezed occur more frequently with Zambrano than any other Cubs pitcher. Unconscious movement and a reputation for lack of command will inflate the perception even more. So honestly, I am surprised he got he call, and am generally surprised he gets any close calls right now.

That's the only pitch of the game I saw, when it was replayed on Sports Center. That was a devastating pitch. Too bad half the time it won't be called a strike for Zambrano due to his wildness.

He had more than a K per inning in the first 6 starts also. In Z's case, that is not an indicator of performance. He's going to get a K per inning in both good and bad outings.

I'm trying to figure if Zambrano's last two outsings were a return to form or infused with much needed luck. I didn't get to watch either game, being on the East Coast. I'm not hip to the generation of those types of pitching splits over a handful of starts, so maybe someone more keen than I could put them up. What causes me to raise my brow and ask the question is the base stat line: 15 IP, 8 BB, 16 K, 9 Hits Against It's great to see 15 IP and 1 ER, but 8 bloody walks in incredible. He's still wild as hell, but for the first two times all season the walks didn't bite him. I don't understand why any opposing team right now would bother swinging the bat against him. I really just want to see if the splits show a turn-around in performance for future indicator or good defense behind balls that didn't find holes. Results are results, and being the stopper of the losing streak is important. So great job Zambrano and keep it up.

Over .900 for the first 10 days of a month is better than decent. That's good. Let's hope it continues. I'm happy to see a positive thread following a win. The highly abused Pierre/Jones duo went 5-7 in the win, with Jones having a 4 RBI night. Here is hoping the win sparks a turn-around, particularly for these two players. It would be awesome to actually have Cubs fans backing these guys for a while.

Pierre said some other things as well, with modest humor. He said if he is getting any hits, then neither is anybody else while he plays outfield. When you're in a slump like his, you better play damn good defense. At least we know he won't stop hustling and trying.

The Cubs need to gain more slugging. They have enough single's hitters. They'd gain over 200 points in ops, and Cedeno looks like he can be an adequate leadoff man. If Cedeno was struggling, I'd be pretty hesitant to deal off Pierre, but the Cubs need a shake up and a lot more power. They don't need to gain 200 points of OPS out of their CF. If the team wants to upgrade OPS production, you do it in RF or SS.

Aren't there a dozen other threads calling for major shake-ups? Can't all the fire Baker threads be merged?

1) Quit trying stupid stuff like Sac bunting all game long 2) Quit playing crappy players like Bynum for Murton 3) No, nothing is going good. 4) There isn't anything you can do about it, because you're a crappy manager and this is a crappy team 5) If it's so simple, then do something. I wonder what it's like to not even have to take Acid or Mushrooms and get the delusions and hallucinations that Baker experiences daily? I love how you quote Baker and list out 5 points, and yet only two of the five points (3,5) actually addresses any material from the quotes, and those two don't have any substance. That doesn't make any sense. If you want bash Dusty, go right ahead. But don't wrap it comments that don't have anything to do with your particular criticism. Most of what Dusty said is true and the rest is fluff typical of all managers that give 350 questions and answer media talks every year.

Not really. The Cubs have had an execution issue for a long time. You have to factor that into your decision on whether or not you call for it. Sac bunts are dumb even when they work. Giving up an out for 90 feet doesn't help the team. But they don't always work, which just makes them even worse. Also, just because most managers would sac bunt doesn't make it a smart move. Conventional wisdom in baseball has been shown to be wrong often enough that you can't simply defend a decision by saying a lot of others would make it as well. You have to be able to prove the conventional wisdom wrong for your claim to have any relevance. In one run games the numbers show an increased likelihood of scoring with conventional small ball approaches. In every other scoring situation, the numbers show conventional small ball doesn't increase run production. Dusty had a one-run scenario late game to work with all three times, and the conventional wisdom was the correct approach if you believe in following the numbers. However, there is a legitimate claim that Dusty doesn't have these guys game ready when it comes to execution. That he deserves to criticized for as a manager. But the failure to execute doesn't disprove the value of the bunt in that situation. It just shows poor fundamentals and lack of coaching wisdom by the manager for not putting the best bunter on the bench out there to ensure successful execution.

It's a flawed perspective because the window for evaluating the worth is so narrow that only a handful of players each year actually fall into the window. Typically with a legitmate superstar, by the time they hit market, they've already crested the climax of their value (ages 28-29). They receive contracts that reward past performance for what is likely decreased future performance - in other words destined to have negative worth by a production per dollar analysis. So teams have to gamble on the guys that hit free agency around age 27 (not that many do anyway) that have potential superstar value. See Beltran. These players are exceptionally good, but receive superstar value for potential superstar production. If they remain just exceptionally good and do not evolve as anticipated to superstar producton, they become another example of negative worth for production per dollar. You can count the sure thing free agency signings each year on one hand.

Dusty may have been unnecessarily stubborn, but the majority of the managers in baseball (100% in the NL) will bunt late in a tie or one-run game to get a runner in scoring position. Also, failure to execute doesn't disprove the value of the decision.The only thing the scenario is a ringing endorsement for is failed execution. It would like saying everytime Dunn strikes out, it disproves the value of power hitting.

The team OBP should have been improved with the current team on the field over last season. A funk is funk and that has to factor. But Pierre, Cedeno, and Murton are all OBP improvements over the course of the season from last year's numbers. If OBP is cited as a major team issue, perhaps Ramirez and Barret with their career ~.320 OBPs should be cited as the real problems. There isn't a person I've met that thinks the Jones signing was good or smart. But I don't see how you replace him full-time at this point, but now you should at least see a platoon. The Mets are currently dire for pitching. They have Diaz not playing for the big league team. The Cubs should swap prospects with the Mets to fill needs on both teams.