TheDude

Another game without radio? Bummer.

It may take 5 years. The Cubs get knocked on all the time for not signing the big name, but that's because they usually don't offer the years the big names require.

Sorry, but you immediately contradict yourself here. Moving a runner over is playing for one run. Playing for one run is small ball. I have no issues with calling it fundamentals either, because nearly all aspects of small ball would be considered fundamentals by those who advocate it.

The Graffanino rumors still won't go away. ESPN Insider is now indicating that he will definately get moved before the season starts, and the Cubs are still listed among the same 4 interested teams as has been reported for a few weeks. I'm still trying to understand why the Cubs need a 4th 2B. As others have said, it must hinge on a Walker deal, but that doesn't seem likely.

Insider does in fact site the Chicago Sun-Times article as its source.

You have to get on-base to be able to play small ball. Stealing bases isn't small-ball, stealing bases is aggressive & small ball isn't aggressive. Bunting him over would be small ball, the Cubs don't have to automatically go for one run when Pierre is on 1B. You can steal 2B and still have Walker try and knock him in with a base hit thru the 4-3 gap, if it doesn't get thru, it becomes a SH. I'd want Pierre to run as much as possible, I don't want Walker bunting him over. With Pierre it's not an either or scenario as the 2nd hitter dictates whether they're playing for one run or the big inning. This is more important in the 1st when most big innings occur. I'm sorry, but based upon this post, it looks like you don't understand small ball. You are indicating that small ball = bunting, which is a gross simplification and is simply incorrect. Moving a runner over in any form is small ball. You can't limit it to just a bunt. In your example, asking Walker to bunt is silly, because that's not his game or his strength. All Walker has to do is pull the ball to the right on the ground, or fly it deep to RF, and Pierre is on third. Obviously he is looking for a basehit in that situation. You don't have to ask him to give up the at bat (another misconception of small ball). All you want Walker to do is pull the ball and not pop it up and he's done his job. Also, small ball is aggressive. You're proactively going after runs (by taking extra risk usually) in a situation where Beane-ball would sit and wait for the big hit. That's the whole point. It's a far more aggressive style of baseball than Beane-ball.

Root for small ball? This isn't going to be a small ball team. Juan Pierre will slap some singles and steal some bases, but other than that this is not a small ball team. It's a baseball team. Why do people insist on trying to pretend it's one or the other. Actually I think you misunderstood my intention. I am constantly calling for a balanced team that can all styles of baseball, depending on what game situation merits it. I didn't intend to infer that the Cubs are a small ball team (if that's what you got out of it). I was strictly referring to Pierre's game. Often I find the proponents of OBP ball shun all forms of small ball, at all times, and I was making the point that with Pierre on the team, you simply can't take that stance.

Actually 3 out of 4 (or even 4 out of 4 depending on whether you penalize Damon for his power or not, and what SB threshold you count). Nobody in this thread is going to sway the opinions of others in the baseball philosophical difference between "small ball" and "sitting ducks" styles baseball. If you are more a fan of Oakland/Toronto style baseball, but are a true blue Cubs fans, you're going to have to suck it up and root for small ball this year, because that is what Pierre brings to the table. You don't have to like it, but you should root for Pierre to do what he does best. And with a constant diet of Walker or Murton in the 2-hole behind Pierre, the Cubs front 4 might score 350+ runs.

It's curious to you that people seek to make money :?: In context, yes. When said people are journalists and choose not to publish their findings in the general news media, rather they choose to reveal their findings in a private publication. So I question their motives, which then leads to questioning the validity of the research. The repurcussions for inaccurate statements in a private publication are not nearly the same as if published in a reputable news publication.

Not interested. It's curious to me that the writers wouldn't publish the material in conjunction with the news agency that employs them, rather they seek profit from the research.

Nice. I hadn't even considered the possibility.

Ortiz hit a 400+ foot HR to dead center of Santana. For a left-handed hitter to inside-out a left-handed pitcher's ball that far is simply incredible. Pure power.

It's not fluff. Most guys try to learn new pitches and it doesn't work out. That doesn't mean they aren't working on it - and ST is the one place to do just that.

No you're not. But it's very popular to bash BBT personalities and assume all ex-player analysts/color commentators know less about the game then they do. Kruk is a neanderthal. Most ex-players know what they are talking about. Kruk was signed for that "average joe" appeal, not for baseball knowledge. I agree with you that his value on BBT is as an entertainer more than an expert. They have other guys to satisfy that role. But it doesn't mean Kruk is a complete baseball idiot.

He knows that. I read a quote from him a few weeks back where he talked about how changing from a starter to a reliever changed his outlook on pitching. As a starter he always felt he could recover from a wild start and took more chances on the edge of the strike zone. As a reliever, he commented the games over if he gives up runs, so he started pounding the strike zone more. If you examine his 2005 splits, his K/BB ratio, BB/Inn, and BAA were all far better as a reliever. He was better, but he still walked 4.16 guys per 9 innings as a reliever. True. But I'd anticipate more improvement from him before a regression. And he finds a third pitch he has confidence in, he could really become nasty.

I'm impressed with the fact that lead-off doubles aren't getting stranded. Guys on 3rd base with less than 2 outs are scoring. That is how you win games and thus far, the guys are making it happen. I'm also impressed with Sing. I had not seen him in play before, and I had no idea how big that kid is...looking at him in the batter's box was a little like looking at the Olympic Big Mac.

He knows that. I read a quote from him a few weeks back where he talked about how changing from a starter to a reliever changed his outlook on pitching. As a starter he always felt he could recover from a wild start and took more chances on the edge of the strike zone. As a reliever, he commented the games over if he gives up runs, so he started pounding the strike zone more. If you examine his 2005 splits, his K/BB ratio, BB/Inn, and BAA were all far better as a reliever.

No you're not. But it's very popular to bash BBT personalities and assume all ex-player analysts/color commentators know less about the game then they do.

Nice. That seems to be the thing for this Spring. All Rich Hill is missing is a solid change and he might be big league ready. I think he's working on it also.

So here you are saying that Dusty's words do not mean much, only past action. Which means those who are looking at his quote and working from there, aren't on the same assumption-base you're on. Can you explain this? How do you look like you can play, and at the same time not play well? It seems to me that if you're not playing well, you won't look like anything but a ballplayer not playing well.

An unsupported Chicken-litle argument isn't going to get far on these boards. Personally, I think San Antonio is a fine location, and the more spots that step up create buzz and competition for the other prime locations, the greater likelyhood a team gets into a better situation long-term.

I don't understand how the defense of Dusty's quote degenerated into Grissom has to do nothing and automatically makes the team. The entire counter-argument is a flawed strawman because it assumes all or nothing, when in fact nobody (from Dusty who made the quote to those defending it) has stated that to be the position in the first place.

The BBT crew is just fine. I just enoy having a show dedicated to baseball, regardless of who hosts it. Web Gems is my favorite minute of the day.

The only player that the development question pertains to is Pie. There are plenty of other younger candidates who deserve at least as much of a chance as Grissom, who is not a known quantity. A known quantity is a player whom you have a pretty good idea what he will do with the job. Grissom could be worse than Macias next year, or he could be an acceptable bench player, we don't know. His age and career path makes him an unknown. You'd be foolish to just hand him a job. If anybody should get the benefit of the doubt it's Restovich, who at least stands a chance to be good for a few years and contribute to the team. First of all, I'm not handing him the job. I don't even want him to make the team, because I honestly don't like him that much. But I am defending Dusty's quote that Grissom doesn't need the ST evaluation as much as any of the kids who might fight for the same role. I am still holding out hope for a late ST trade that nets a better bench option than Grissom without stunting the growth of young guy.

No he isn't. He was absolutely terrible last season. Completely worthless. He had three marginally successful seasons before last year, but those were after 2 absolutely terrible seasons. I hate the stupid idea that "proven veterans", once they make the big leagues, are just assumed to be big league material. Grissom could be absolutely terrible again this year. In fact, he probably will be, given his age and mediocre career. But it doesn't matter to Dusty (and apparantly many fans) because he was once decent, so we can just always assume he'll be decent, no matter what he does in the spring. So you would rather have a young kid sit on the bench and get 150 ABs for the entire season? Man, that's great for that guy's development. Whether Grissom or good or not, he is a known quantity. None of the points you made alter that fact. Dusty isn't the only manager that wants an older veteran bench presence. They all do.