UK1679666180

Having a power hitter like Soriano changes the game a little bit for the Cubs, the OBP for the #8 matters more for the Cubs than any other NL team. With that said, if you have two hitters with similiar bat control and can spray the ball equally to all fields regardless of which hands they hit with. I think it would not be worth removing the better overall hitter with the better approach ahead of the heart of the order to help the btm of the order.

Yeah what was up with that. Well at least it appeared he started to catchup to Galloway. It shows how fast he is. Galloway is freakin fast. It was doomed from the start, the Bears were crossed up on who had who in coverage before the snap, by the time the ball was snapped Manning could not jam Galloway at the line and was in a bad position b/c got at the line late. Galloway isn't the WR to get on the line with and not bump him without safties b/c of the blitz. On the slant to Hilliard, he just got burned and the safety made a mistake.

The goal should be to win long-term, saving for next year and spending it then does nothing as far as increasing the chances to win, I doubt any FA class is that much better year to year or that the same team even w/a better class could improve it much from what the Cubs have done. With Wilken and a commit. towards building the farm system thru stronger drafts and international FAs they should be able to win long-term regardless of whom they signed this year good or bad.

Bush was hired to work under Hendry when Hendry was firmly established as GM. I've only seen him when he was scouting the Chiefs.

I'd rather see the Cubs do something to honor Buck O'Neill rather than block Sosa's # to Marquis, beyond the fact he should've been in MLB HoF already.

I'd rather spend the money on Briggs. Briggs is going to get franchised. If they dont the Bears are waaay to nice. Bryan Robinson? He sucks but thats all i can think of right now. He might be playin i dunno. I hope the Bears franchise Briggs. Not sure about the FA market, but I believe Ian Scott is a RFA or a regular FA this offseason. Frankly, I like what Angelo has done in the draft at DT, if the Bears feel they need another DT, I'd rather they go that route. Even though it goes against everything Lovie believes in as far as DTs, I'd rather see a run stopping big DT like Wilfork over a quicker DT like Johnson.

I doubt that Tank is the factor that will separate the Bears from winning or not winning the Super Bowl. I don't think there's much difference between him and Ian Scott as far as production, Scott is better at thge run and Tank is better at getting pressure. The DEs will now be doubled more and the Bears will have to get pressure from blitzing, something they haven't done well all year. I think they need to suspend him for the remainder of the year and decide what to do after that as far as his behavior going into the playoffs. I would have no problem if they cut him at the end of the year. How stupid can you be, though?

Btw, what is a "baseball guy"?

If there was some way the Cubs could invest the 4.5 saved of Jones' salary, it could add an additional bat to the bench. If you gave the choice of having Jones or Taveras + 4.5 and whatever is needed to get him, I'd keep Jones and settle for the lesser defense in CF. Of course, not many know the extent of whether or not Jones wants to be traded.

What's this defense concept? Is that accounted for in EqA, BABIP, VORP and OPS+? I know, it's impossible for someone to mention both in back to back sentences. How could they account for both?

His increased BBs, drop in LD% are good indicators that he'll bounce back. I expect him to be around .340 OBP next year and see what happens as far as Pie. It's not like there won't be any demand for Taveras. If the Cubs had some more pop in the order, I'd be for it, but they can't right now.

While there's no true predictive stat, I look for the best overall stat (I prefer XR, but for ease, I'll end up with EqA). Taveras could potentially fill the OBP need at the top as well as a great defensive player in a diff. position to fill, I already mentioned either way he's going to have to improve, which is exactly the same way Pie will have to improve. If he could improve his approach & learn to get out in front and turn on the inside FB, he could become a quality starting CF'er. But Willy's EqA has been .258 .268 .243 Well below .260 (league average) for his career. That's not good. It's not good now, but I would be content w/a an improvement in OBP for the early stages of his career with room to improve on his approach and his other assets (defense and speed) right before he gets in his arby stages. He'll never be a high EqA hitter b/c of his lack of slugging. Any OBP around .350 and he'll be an asset at the top.

While there's no true predictive stat, I look for the best overall stat (I prefer XR, but for ease, I'll end up with EqA). Taveras could potentially fill the OBP need at the top as well as a great defensive player in a diff. position to fill, I already mentioned either way he's going to have to improve, which is exactly the same way Pie will have to improve. If he could improve his approach & learn to get out in front and turn on the inside FB, he could become a quality starting CF'er.

Please :roll: So, I've looked at this a few hundred times and I still cant figure out what was so disagreeable with the above statement. Wanna help me? Start at the btm and work your way to the top.

The Peoria Chiefs had the 5th oldest team in the MWL at 22.0 at the start of the '06 season.

I agree with all of this. Basically everything I was saying above is that the guy has some solid points to his game...it could be interesting...but I'm not out there advocating for it to happen. He has 3 plus tools (speed, arm, fielding), there's no question about that. It's just hitting and his approach that'll decide whether or not he can become a player that can start on a team looking to score runs from that position.

Him and Pie would be fun to watch defensively in the future. Taveras is the best defensive CF'er in the game from what I've seen and Pie has the potential to be even better. Offensively, he's at a crossroads as far as getting on base. Does he work the count more to draw more BBs and jeopardize striking out more (which already is too high) or does he make contact more taking advantage of his ability to get on base at a high clip when putting the ball into play risking lowering his already low BB totals? Having Pie almost ready puts into question, why they would long-term into Taveras and could they survive w/Pie as a RF'er and Tavares in CF? I don't think it is practical especially with a lesser bat w/Izturis and Blanco getting 20-33% of the game behind the plate.

Z isn't that type of pitcher though to stay around 13 pitcher per inning, even when he's doing well. I think 90 pitches would be too excessive for a 4 man rotation in today's game. Most starting pitchers today avg 95 pitches. Obviously Z avg'd more under Baker and has shown to be able to handle a greater workload than 95. But if go with a 4 man rotation, you have to look to start pulling a pitcher at the first sign of fatigue usually from body language (most times around 75 pitches) compared to a 4 day rest which you can use that extra day to keep him out there till about say 110. That all depends on how economical he has been as well, a pitcher that labored thru 3 of his 6 innings will be fatigued going into the 7th than someone who has cruised.

Ah, finally some sanity. Everyone has the right to be critical as well as praising. As far as being critical as far as a GM not getting it done, is that for the overall picture or a getting a specific player via trade? I think a person can be fairly critical towards a GM if the team isn't progressing like it should or a trade or FA signing that has already happened.

Have you ever seen thermographic imaging of a pitcher's shoulder during his 5 day cycle? The soft tissue around the shoulder is less damaged going into day 5 than day 4. Hoping a pitcher doesn't get abused in a 5 man rotation is a stretch, a 4 man rotation is even more unlikely, look at the '95 Royals and what happens when a manager doesn't adjust pitch totals for short rest. Where is there any proof from either side? What did Rany provide? I didn't see anything from Jazayerli's article that stated why a 4 man rotation would be better in today's environment. Statistically, pitching was better back then because of factors that go beyond the 5th starter taking up 32 starts. Smaller parks, bigger hitters, tighter baseball, etc. Relievers had better numbers in the 70s than today as well, that doesn't equate to them being used better today. If you want an article from the same site as to why pitching is diff. today than 30 years ago... http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2008 If you can show me where Rany adjusted for the differences in pitching between now and then, I'd love to see it. If not, I don't think it can be applied in today's game.

He used data from the 70s as his primary research focal point, when pitching stats in general favored the pitcher much more than today. It's a different ballgame than it was in the 60s and 70s, hitters have more patient approaches and 1-8(9) is much stronger than it was back then. Most hitters are unafraid to get two strikes, unlike 30 years ago. I know pitches per start is more important as I mentioned the 75 and 95 as well as the 120. PIP favored pitchers back then more than today and so did the amount of hitters a pitcher can ease his arm.

Him and Zito were probably facing off.

They'll probably wait until we play in the Superbowl to hand down the suspension. :roll: This will carry over into next year past the Super Bowl. The litigation process will delay this until probably April.

With that scenario, you're expecting your 4 main starters to get about 200IP and 4 relievers to get between anywhere between 100-200IP. Using the Cubs current expected rotation (Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, Prior), there's really one unproven starter (durability not production) and one that is coming off injury plagued seasons. That's a much separate and lesser risk from expecting Rusch, Marshall, and Miller to provide 100-200IP as well as the rotation staying injury free. As far as less pitches per start, it's always better to lean on the side of caution. I'd rather see a pitcher get pulled 10 pitches too early rather see him laboring for an additional 10 pitches while fatigued. The less you pitched while fatigued, the less likely you'll throw with altered mechanics, and the less likely you add more stress than usual per pitch. It's up to the PC to be able to use his expertise and know when the pitcher is putting himself at risk by throwing while he's drained. A pitcher can become fatigued after only 75 pitches or 95, it all depends on his body for that start and how well he prepared himself between starts, which is why I have a hard time just pointing to pitch counts and using it as a reason why he got hurt. You can't underestimate the importance of recovery time between starts. You're never going to be able to eliminate injuries, whether they're blunt traums or accumulative, but being extra cautious is better than being careless.

Question me all you want, I'm not better than anyone else here or knowing more about the game than anyone else. I'll address it in two points. A)Health B)Practical usage. I'll use Z as the primary example... If Z throws 120 pitches... His between schedule routing will likely consist of... Day 1-Game Day 2-Weight lifting and little throwing Day 3-Heavy throwing (mechanical adjustments) Day 4-Weight lifting and medium throwing Day 5-Not much throwing and no weight lifting Day 6-Game To me, with the amount of stress given in a 120 pitch outing or a 75 pitch outing, they can't sacrifice one of those days. The 4 man rotation could work when they can take something off their FBs for half of the line-up and still win games, the stress is greater than it once was. You take away one of those days and the increase of injuries goes up much higher even under a controlled environment more than typical usage of a 5 man rotation. As far as being practical, I'll use this previous example.... Just in that group, you have 4 pitchers that missed sign. amounts of time due to injuries. It is too dependent on the health of pitchers always being injury free. That'll leave 3 relievers for spare parts. That'll give you approx. only 4-5IP of Z, Lilly, Hill, and Prior. If Z is doing well and get thru 5, you're leaving 4IP at the hands of likely of a lesser pitcher with the game still in doubt most of the time. It's one thing to take the ball out of his hands in the 8th b/c of health concerns, it's another to do so after 5. It doesn't allow the team the luxury of being able to fully capitalize from the occasions of a starter having a real good outing.