Magnetic Curses

i think prior is pitching well when he's at 89-93. that's what i remember from 03. To me, Z was the guy who did better when his velocity was in the low 90's. He'd keep the ball down and barely gave up HRs back then. I always picture Mark to be at his best in the 93-95 range... i think that's an incorrect perception. i remember prior throwing his 2-seamer very effectively at 89-90 mph in 03.

not really. when he throws harder, his fastball straightens out and he gets hit. in 03, he threw his 2-seamer more often than not, which is an 89-93 type-pitch that sinks. when his 2-seamer is working, he can throw his 4-seamer at 95 occasionally so as to keep hitters on notice. when he's not throwing his 2-seamer effectively for strikes, it makes the 4-seamer pointless and hittable.

i think prior is pitching well when he's at 89-93. that's what i remember from 03.

i think that's the perception more than reality. how many runs did cedeno cost us over a league average replacement? how many games did that cost us? i'd think that it didn't cost us many. furthermore, i doubt that izturis's glove will win us a significant amount of games next year. the best effect it may have on the team is the perception among our pitchers. if they're more apt to throw strikes because they're more confident in his defense, then it can benefit the team.

I share that optimism, even if cautiously so. Lou seems genuinely to believe this is as much talent as he's had as a manager. I'm confident he'll put productive lineups together. The health of the pitching staff will determine much as will Ted Lilly being able to throw innings and keep the ball down and Jason Marquis to bounce back. I'm not among those counting Marquis out. I gues spring training really is a time of optimism. Bruce, heard you on the radio this morning raving about Izturis's defense. How valuable do you think that will be for this staff? since neifi is rated similar defensively, i doubt that it will be a big enough improvement to really be noticed. that goes for cedeno as well. just my 2 cents. Are you implying that Cedeno played well defensively last year? I would definitely disagree with that if you were. I think he has more defensive potential then he showed last year, but he struggled there for long stretches of time. Ronny made some brilliant plays last season, but the routine stuff gave him problems. He has the potential to be very much above average defensively at SS. The skills are there. The consistency is not. I would definitely agree that Ronny has the talent to be excellent defensively if he could just improve his consistency. i'm saying that defense is not going to be a problem, nor was it last year, so it's not worth discussing, imo.

I share that optimism, even if cautiously so. Lou seems genuinely to believe this is as much talent as he's had as a manager. I'm confident he'll put productive lineups together. The health of the pitching staff will determine much as will Ted Lilly being able to throw innings and keep the ball down and Jason Marquis to bounce back. I'm not among those counting Marquis out. I gues spring training really is a time of optimism. Bruce, heard you on the radio this morning raving about Izturis's defense. How valuable do you think that will be for this staff? since neifi is rated similar defensively, i doubt that it will be a big enough improvement to really be noticed. that goes for cedeno as well. just my 2 cents.

Prior's gonna havta beat DLee for CPOY. Can you think of a race you'd enjoy more? Prior and Zambrano for Cy Young. Lee, Ramirez and Soriano for MVP. Cubs for 1st seed in the NL. Soriano Stolen Base title Barrett highest average with RISP Eckstein vs Podsednik vs Erstad for Champion of the Universe. most attempted hit and runs vs. most throwings of first base most yelling at aram vs. most showings up at the field early

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v519/suleyman21/borat-02.jpg

good news for the cubs. keep it up mark. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v519/suleyman21/borat-28-1.jpg we're all eagerly awaiting your triumphant return.

The problem is that Ramirez doesn't know when his home runs are going to go out or not-I have no problem if somebody stands there for an obvious home run, but if it's questionable, the player has to run in order to avoid what happened to Ramirez multiple times last year. Again though, if Ramirez is the worst hustler on the team, then the Cubs have a good hustling team, because his possible hustle issues are much smaller than several around the league. Please, "multiple times"? You think Aramis has the speed to turn an obvious double into a triple? Please, let us find some other nits to pick. Aramis is fine. He didn't get a double on those plays. and lost 4 total bases this year because of it. yes, let's move on.

Hey, I want to see Lou's "FIRE". But for reasons of him yelling at the UMPS when a bad call is made. IE: Him defending his players. So please understand there is not just one side of this. Remember when Mabry was called out at first and he was CLEARLY safe? He threw his helmet down and looked in disbeleive. It's moments like that a manager NEEDS to go out there. i just don't see the need to make a complete ass of yourself in a public venue in front of mthousands and millions. i understand your point, but i also think a lot of people are expecting piniella to be the anti-dusty and see tantrums as a welcome change. Any time a coach gets fired, fans (and the organization doing the hiring) look for the new coach to be able to do what the old coach couldn't or wouldn't. That's why you see Charlie Manuels after Larry Bowas, Ozzie Guillens after Jerry Manuels, and Lou after Dusty. I don't really care if Lou ever throws a base, but I do expect him to do what Dusty couldn't: handle the clubhouse and hold players accountable for their mistakes. I'm sick of seeing major league players make little league mistakes. If Lou has to throw a base or kick dirt to get his point across, so be it. this is only necessary if he sees the right mistake. missing a cutoff man = minor mistake forgetting to ever be selective at the plate = major, recurring and thematic mistake dusty's problem wasn't that the players had no respect for him, his problem was that he told them to swing at everything for the sake of "just putting the ball in play". fans of every unsuccessful team almost uniformly bemoan the team's inability to execute the "fundamentals" of the game. fans of successful teams still hate that sometimes the baserunners overrun the bag or miss a cutoff man, but their teams are successful so the "fundamental" miscues get forgotten quickly. fans of unsuccessful teams sit and stew after a loss. "why couldn't he hit the cutoff man on that one play?" instead of "why did that guy come to bat 4 times and see only 5 pitches?" the idea of a guy missing a cutoff man once becomes a shining symbol, a scapegoat for the whole season. you can see why ramirez's lack of hustle was blamed for the downfall of 2006 cubs when nothing could be farther from the truth. if anything, ramirez's play was one of the few bright spots during an otherwise dreary season full of 1-pitch plate appearances, cowardly slap-hitting, sub-par pitching, and under 400 walks. an easily identifiable, though inherently meaningless, problem is a "lack of fundamentals". it sounds good to say, makes a fan feel like a ballplayer when all it is is a small pimple on the side of the face of a season; a season raging with several STDs, emphysema, ulcerative colitis, hysterical pregnancy, AND juvenile diabetes.

Hey, I want to see Lou's "FIRE". But for reasons of him yelling at the UMPS when a bad call is made. IE: Him defending his players. So please understand there is not just one side of this. Remember when Mabry was called out at first and he was CLEARLY safe? He threw his helmet down and looked in disbeleive. It's moments like that a manager NEEDS to go out there. i just don't see the need to make a complete ass of yourself in a public venue in front of mthousands and millions. i understand your point, but i also think a lot of people are expecting piniella to be the anti-dusty and see tantrums as a welcome change.

if you're swinging at a pitch where you can hit a ground ball, you're swinging at a pitcher's pitch, and should just probably take a walk if the pitcher won't throw you a strike. A pitcher's pitch can be a strike as well-not all strikes can be driven well-if it's a ball, I want my hitter taking it yes and waiting for a strike that they can either drive or if it's a strike that's a pitcher's pitch hitting the ground ball to score the run. if a pitcher is good enough to throw you bad picthes for consistent strikes, then he's very good and trying to hit the ball weakly wouldn't be any more productive. The only thing I think is that this will decrease the strikeout rate for that hitter. In most situations, decreasing the strikeout rate is not necessarily a good thing (I do agree with you that in most situations putting the ball in play only to put the ball in play is a bad strategy)-in this scenario though where most of the balls that the hitter puts into play will likely result in a run (I'm talking mostly early in the game where the infield is conceding the run) then anything that decreases the stikeout percentage against such a good pitcher is a good thing. there's no way that you can say that. i could say that putting the ball in play just to put the ball in play would increase the likelihood that the hitter would get out in an unproductive fashion and be just as correct. if you try to go back up the middle, bam, the pitcher grabs it easily and starts an instant run-down. There aren't many scenarios that could cause an unprodctive out in this scenario. A pop-up to the infield or short outfield and a grounder to the pitcher are the only two likely ways-it's much, much more likely that a person is going to make an out in another way than that if the ball is put into play. or a direct groundball to a corner position, or a strikeout (swinging at bad pitches can cause that). there are plenty of ways to unsuccessful at chasing the run home, it happens all the time, a sure run is just not a common thing. as i've said, you're more likely to score the run by trying to put the ball in play effectively, even guys who strike out a ton amke contact a good majority of the time.

if you're swinging at a pitch where you can hit a ground ball, you're swinging at a pitcher's pitch, and should just probably take a walk if the pitcher won't throw you a strike. A pitcher's pitch can be a strike as well-not all strikes can be driven well-if it's a ball, I want my hitter taking it yes and waiting for a strike that they can either drive or if it's a strike that's a pitcher's pitch hitting the ground ball to score the run. if a pitcher is good enough to throw you bad picthes for consistent strikes, then he's very good and trying to hit the ball weakly wouldn't be any more productive. The only thing I think is that this will decrease the strikeout rate for that hitter. In most situations, decreasing the strikeout rate is not necessarily a good thing (I do agree with you that in most situations putting the ball in play only to put the ball in play is a bad strategy)-in this scenario though where most of the balls that the hitter puts into play will likely result in a run (I'm talking mostly early in the game where the infield is conceding the run) then anything that decreases the stikeout percentage against such a good pitcher is a good thing. there's no way that you can say that. i could say that putting the ball in play just to put the ball in play would increase the likelihood that the hitter would get out in an unproductive fashion and be just as correct. if you try to go back up the middle, bam, the pitcher grabs it easily and starts an instant run-down.

Or that it doesn't matter how you carry yourself as long as you are good at what you do? i don't know aramis ramirez, why should i care how he carries himself? it has no effect on his performance on the baseball field. i like the way he hits and i want him to keep on hitting. if that means taking it easy on the basepaths, i understand. aram does the majority of his damage with the bat in his hand.

Aren't the Brewers planning on doing just that? Word around this area is that he will platoon. He was benched last year for a couple horrible streaks yet finished the year strong. The Crew's outfield is crowded especially now that Hall is in CF. Like I said, it will be interesting to see this play out. Mench, Hall, Clark, Jenkins, Hart all up for three spots. i'd take brady clark off their hands if they'd take a player like cedeno for him.

if you're swinging at a pitch where you can hit a ground ball, you're swinging at a pitcher's pitch, and should just probably take a walk if the pitcher won't throw you a strike. A pitcher's pitch can be a strike as well-not all strikes can be driven well-if it's a ball, I want my hitter taking it yes and waiting for a strike that they can either drive or if it's a strike that's a pitcher's pitch hitting the ground ball to score the run. if a pitcher is good enough to throw you bad picthes for consistent strikes, then he's very good and trying to hit the ball weakly wouldn't be any more productive.

if you're swinging at a pitch where you can hit a ground ball, you're swinging at a pitcher's pitch, and should just probably take a walk if the pitcher won't throw you a strike.

it would be a crime to make a hitter of that caliber do anything but try to get a hit. if a such a hitter existed, you wouldn't be using him right. by the way, do you get what i mean now when i said that sometimes people get so wrapped up in the conventional logic of baseball that if conventional wisdom told them that down was up, they'd argue that it was until blue in the face?

check the bolded, you're not understanding me. a player has a better chance to score the run if he's trying to strike the ball sharply. if he tries to ball sharply, there's a much greater chance that he: 1. gets a hit, scoring the run. or 2. drives the ball deep enough to score the run in addition, when trying to hit a weak ground ball or a lazy pop fly, the hitter will have a less a chance of scoring the run while making an out....but i agree with you here, a hitter trying to hit the ball weakly DEFINITELY has a better chance at making an out. you might as well try hitting the ball hard. and you never addressed the issue: you seem to think trying to hit the ball hard will increase the chances that the player will hit a harmless pop fly, yet you champion the idea of a player trying to hit a pop-fly. which is it? I don't want the hitter to pop-up to the infield-I never champion that I want the hitter to hit a pop fly, but a fly ball-which assumes a fly ball deep enough to score any decent speed runner. chances are, if you aren't trying to hit the ball with authority with the intention of getting a hit, you aren't going to hit the ball deep enough to score the runner anyways. it would be a crime to make a hitter of that caliber do anything but try to get a hit. if a such a hitter existed, you wouldn't be using him right.

check the bolded, you're not understanding me. a player has a better chance to score the run if he's trying to strike the ball sharply. if he tries to ball sharply, there's a much greater chance that he: 1. gets a hit, scoring the run. or 2. drives the ball deep enough to score the run in addition, when trying to hit a weak ground ball or a lazy pop fly, the hitter will have a less a chance of scoring the run while making an out....but i agree with you here, a hitter trying to hit the ball weakly DEFINITELY has a better chance at making an out. you might as well try hitting the ball hard. and you never addressed the issue: you seem to think trying to hit the ball hard will increase the chances that the player will hit a harmless pop fly, yet you champion the idea of a player trying to hit a pop-fly. which is it?

I sure as heck am not convinced that the shotgun is the answer. it's called the "magic shotgun" and it would apparently alleviate all of our offensive woes. actually, it wouldn't, and it works better for guys like kyle orton who like to fall down for no reason.

then we're talking about different things. besides, basketball is a game where hustle can actually have a major effect on the game. baseball is more complicated and hard for the casual fan to get their mind around. people want to understand it like they understand any other sport, but it's not, it's completely different. players who don't "hustle" are sometimes and even most times the best players in the sport. baseball is about skill, football is about hustle, just ask rudy. people who would demand that aram be traded because he doesn't hustle, or actually root for him to do poorly, thusly hurting the team's chances of being competitive, are ignorant losers. ignorant because they fail to grasp baseball at it's most real level. this is what the converstaion is about. ramirez is a very good player who doesn't need to hustle to be good. we shouldn't even want him to hustle. i'm not going to be angry at aram not running out a meaningless ground ball with 2 outs. i'd rather have him for an entire season than watch him strain a quad or groin muscle doing something that those who don't understand the game wish he'd do.

having fun should be the main thing in kids' sports. if anything, playing a game in which everyone does not win makes people try harder, and forces parents to beat each other up at baseball games. if a kid has fun running into a catcher at home plate, so be it, if the kids like to pick their nose in the outfield while chasing butterflies, great.

Those people are liars. Well, I've seen it-people who want to trade players they fully realize are the key to winning for their team, but because of either off-court issues or because of lack of caring on the court they'd rather lose without them than win with them. When it gets to specifics like that, I'm pretty sure they are telling the truth that they would trade those players in a second. if this is true, those people are either liars or losers, complete losers that have lost touch with professional sports. they can go watch college sports and root for their teams to lose. that's pathetic. Well, my guess is that you just called 60% or more of sports fans losers (no, I don't have a study for that like the study I had yesterday that conclusively said that certain productive outs increase run production :D) that study isn't really what we were talking about. a player trying to hit the ball sharply is probably more likely to make a "productive" out or get a "productive" hit or get a "productive" walk than a player who's not focused on what he does best. that study does not take into account that a player hitting with an even keel can score a run in a multitude of ways, not limited to making a "productive out". but anyway, you can take that over to the other thread if you want, i hadn't read your last post until just now. people who root for their teams to lose because they aren't winning the "right way" are losers, and i'm not afraid to say that here. i don't think there are many people who want to see their favorite team lose because they dislike the personnel. it's stupid. i'd root for the bears if TO played for them. but if they started to lose when the team lost focus because of him, i'd be one of the first railing for his release. teams that generally have to rely on blood-and-guts and all that whatever-it-is usually are losers themselves, but they can still feel like winners when they get the good sportsmanship award, if they gave one, which they don't.