jkrapfl

Hopefully it's a blowout and we see lots of Christensen in the 2nd half. Man, I hate Iowa State. Hopefully its a blowout just like last year. :P Go ISU!!!

How can a baseball stadium favor a hitter over a pitcher as far as walks go? That's all on the ump, the building the game is played in has nothing to do with it. I don't think that is completely accurate. Park factors such as the hitters backdrop are going to affect how the hitter picks up the ball out of the pitcher's hand, and will therefore positively or negatively impact the number of walks given up in that park. The umpire is not the only factor.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on here in a while (and that says a lot). Are you really going to judge a draft based on 200 ABs at the low-A level? I think it is silly to believe that people know more than the Cubs scouts who watch these players play, because they read something online. But is it silly to believe that publications and other teams who rated Snider higher than Colvin know more than the Cubs scouts? Because I think it was clear that most teams and most scouting publications, and therefore more scouts, etc viewed Snider as the better player. So many of those publications were written months before the draft, ignoring the fact that Colvin came on strong towards the end. I guess the point of my post is that give Wilken time. I wouldn't call it a failure after 200 AB's. So, you're saying its silly for IMB to judge a player based on 200 ABs, but its perfectly fine for Cub scouts to judge a player based on the fact that he came on strong at the end of the season?

But you can't quantify "productive" at-bats by comparing the number of strikeouts for two random hitters. Using your scenario, how does the number of strikeouts a person has correlate with the number of times they advanced a runner from second to third? Since we are talking about Theriot and Fontenot, my point is this: both have good OB% over the course of their minor league careers. Fontenot has more power, but strikes out more. Theriot has less power, but makes more contact (strikes out less). It is pretty easy to see who puts the ball in play more. That is all I am saying. Not that one is better than the other, but that I will take a contact hitter that gets on base a lot over a guy who gets on base a lot despite the propensity to strike out a lot. Unless his name is Jim Thome. And my point is that just because a guy makes contact doesn't mean it is a quality at-bat. Do you want somebody that is going to go up and swing at the first pitch every time or do you want somebody that is willing to work the count? Chances are, a guy that is willing to be patient and work the count is going to strikeout a fair amount of times, but he is also giving himself a much better opportunity to get a pitch that he can do something with.

But you can't quantify "productive" at-bats by comparing the number of strikeouts for two random hitters. Using your scenario, how does the number of strikeouts a person has correlate with the number of times they advanced a runner from second to third?

Fontenot, in my opinion, is not a leadoff type. He has a lot more pop than Theriot, and tends to get a little "homer happy." Theriot and Fontenot are both pretty good prospects, which means we will never know their potential with Dusty Baker running the team. I was disgusted to once again see Neifi Perez in the 2-hole tonight, despite his success against the Astros. Would have been nice to see Theriot get a little consistant action. Fontenot also gets on base at a better clip, which is why he's better for any role in the lineup. That said, neither are great prospects considering their age and other shortcomings(Theriot's complete lack of power, Fontenot's defensive shortfalls/inflexibility), ideally they should be bench players on a good team. Fontenot probably is a better overall prospect, and he does get on base at a better clip, but he strikes out a lot for a would-be leadoff man. He has good power for a guy his size - but I just don't think he is the leadoff type. The Cubs need a leadoff hitter in 2007 (assuming they do not sign Pierre - who will cost them $5-10 million a year), and could stand to give Theriot a consistant shot at 2nd Base the rest of the way in 06. I just think that Theriot is a better fit than Fontenot for what the Cubs need. He can play SS and 2B, and most likely would be an average or better leadoff man. Why does it really matter how many times a leadoff man strikes out as long as he's getting on base consistently? Really? Contact is always a better option. Well, nearly always. It allows the defense to make errors, and it can sometimes result in moving a runner over into scoring postion. It can also mean a double-play, but a strikeout is an out 97% of the time. Contact makes things happen. Besides, if you look at Theriot's statistics, it is hard not to see how much he has improved offensively as he was bumped up to higher levels. More often than not, the leadoff hitter will come up with nobody on base because they are either hitting behind the lowest OBP guys on the team or they are leading off the game. So, making contact in order to advance a runner is not as big of a deal as you make it seem in that case. As for your argument about contact allowing the defense to make errors, I know this has been discussed many times on this board in the past, and it has been shown that errors just aren't a big enough part of the game where it even makes a difference. I don't have the stats to back that up, but I'm sure somebody on here can provide a source to corroborate this argument.

Fontenot, in my opinion, is not a leadoff type. He has a lot more pop than Theriot, and tends to get a little "homer happy." Theriot and Fontenot are both pretty good prospects, which means we will never know their potential with Dusty Baker running the team. I was disgusted to once again see Neifi Perez in the 2-hole tonight, despite his success against the Astros. Would have been nice to see Theriot get a little consistant action. Fontenot also gets on base at a better clip, which is why he's better for any role in the lineup. That said, neither are great prospects considering their age and other shortcomings(Theriot's complete lack of power, Fontenot's defensive shortfalls/inflexibility), ideally they should be bench players on a good team. Fontenot probably is a better overall prospect, and he does get on base at a better clip, but he strikes out a lot for a would-be leadoff man. He has good power for a guy his size - but I just don't think he is the leadoff type. The Cubs need a leadoff hitter in 2007 (assuming they do not sign Pierre - who will cost them $5-10 million a year), and could stand to give Theriot a consistant shot at 2nd Base the rest of the way in 06. I just think that Theriot is a better fit than Fontenot for what the Cubs need. He can play SS and 2B, and most likely would be an average or better leadoff man. Why does it really matter how many times a leadoff man strikes out as long as he's getting on base consistently?

But if anybody gets on, Neifi is there to save the day.

Is that the same Cesar Izturis who has a career OBP of .296 (.635 OPS) or do they have another one tucked away somewhere? I say no thanks.

Besides getting someone to play CF in a trade, what internal option is there? Pie is far from ready. He certainly isn't a good lead-off option. I would love for Hendry to improve upon Pierre in CF, but he may have to do so via the trade. Is there someone I'm not thinking of? Adam Greenberg? Wasn't Greenberg released a few weeks ago?

Cabrera is not a free agent, so the Cubs can't sign him.

This is an awful big generalization. I'm sure there are just as many "knowledgeable" fans of the Yankees as there are of the Cubs. Big deal! The Cubs are one of the worst teams in baseball, but if I want to wear my Cubs hat, jersey, etc. when I go out in public, I have that right.

1. What's a reasonable price? 2. What are the chances he'd sign for that? Given the very slight difference in OBP and huge difference in pay-Cedeno is a better fit for the team. We could use the money not spent for Furcal to fill the holes in the team. SS isn't anywhere near our biggest problem. You're creating a false choice here. Cedeno was already expected to be a part of the team, even if Furcal had been signed. And would you seriously argue that the money not spent on Furcal has been spent "to fill the holes in the team?" I'm sick of this talk of overpaying. Wouldn't you rather see the Cubs spending $110 million this year instead of $96 million and have a leadoff hitter with an OBP some 40 points higher than Pierre's (at one point it was close to 80 points higher this season), and still have Derrek Lee in the lineup? The Tribune could easily spend as much money as the Yankees; they just choose not to. The better investment would have been to go hard after an even better leadoff hitter like Johnny Damon, whose OBP is in the .350 range. But since this is the Trib, who tries to get their free agents on blue light special, that's a pipe dream. The decision on which free agents to sign is not the Tribune's. That decision falls solely on Jim Hendry. The Trib gave Hendry more than enough money to sign the free agents that would have made this team competitive, but he chose to waste the money on guys like Neifi, Rusch, Mabry, etc.

First of all, the only people who have any loyalty to a brand (or, in this case, team) are their customers (or, in this case, fans). Kerry is like any other worker - he'll be there for the company when and if it's in his best interests, and vice versa. I predict that Wood gets a two-year deal from a team with a healthy payroll next year - provided the option doesn't get exercised. He can spend year one rehabbing to his arm's content (provided he's not physically done), and build up for a hunky three-year-contract in year number two. i have a feeling you'll be right. if he goes to an NL team, I hope Cubs fans litter him w/ boos when he return to wrigley and shuts the cubs out. What has Wood done that he deserves to be booed?

Don't forget that LaRussa can also be linked to Canseco and Giambi, two admitted steroid users. At some point, he had to know something was going on.

I say it right now. Hill will never be a effective starter. There I said it and I will stand by it. I hope that I'm wrong....I really do. But he's already an effective starter at AAA, so what are you basing this on?

Struggling with control is part of the struggles of a young pitcher. It's not worth the argument because you haven't made a lick of sense if you insistence that Rusch is the only option. Again, if we had a pitcher in the Minors that is clearly ready for the show then by all means bring him up! But we don't and here we are... How do you determine if a pitcher is ready for the show? Hill has dominated in AAA. Wouldn't that indicate he's ready for the show or at least ready to get a chance to show what he can do?

Go to the Smoking Gun site (link above) and you can see the whole report. There are a lot of names blacked out, but it looks like the same names could be repeated quite a bit, so who knows how many unique names there are.

A little league offense is a threat when Rusch is pitching.

2002

What's Fred McGriff doing these days?

I would guess that we root for the Cubs in the playoffs.

Tim, do you know if the mail server you are trying to connect to uses Transport Layer Security? If so, you may need to use this workaround: I'm sure you've probably already looked at this, but here is a link to more info.

So, you consider Pagan to be the best hitter in this lineup? Typically, that's who goes in the 3 spot.

In all fairness, Z and Rusch were pitching in GABP, while Maddux is pitching at Wrigley with the wind blowing in at 25 MPH. I think Maddux has it a little bit easier, but he's still pitching a great game.