Magnetic Curses

That's why everyone was saying you have to look at the situation. Obviously if the player that's in is a much better hitter and is due up in the bottom half(if necessary), it's a much different decision. But if he's due up 7th and is pretty bad defensively, then it makes sense to replace him. And you know that those error odds are a bit deceiving. Being a better defensive player(better range, arm) is more than just duffing fewer routine plays. there's a fine line between looking closely at a situation and micromanaging your way out of a few victories every year. and any reserve you're going to bring in isn't going to have much better range than the starter.

and i reaslly don't see what makes manning better than rex. they look like the same type of QB only manning has a gigantic preying mantis to throw the ball to.

I think the problem is mostly Turner relying too heavily on Grossman throwing deep whenever possible, and abandoning the run. Grossman's mechanical flaws only seem to be exposed once the offense abandons the run and starts taking heat. the real problem is that the bears ran around a lot and left the ball on the ground. if you take away the big drop by gage, the gage fumble, and the hester fumble, i think the bears win the game. those are a lot of plays to be making "but if" statements about, but if the bears hold onto the ball or make a key catch, they control the tempo of the game. i don't think rex played badly, he's just not good enough yet to be able to make up for the fact that the hester fumble changed the entire complexion of the game.

if we place the winning bid for DM, the worst case scenario is that he doesn't want to play for us and we're forced to trade him for hughes, right?

The best defender does not make the best team. You defended a move by saying you have to trust the players. Making a change already indicates you don't trust your players, and simply trusting them is not justification enough for making the move. You have to make the best move for the team, and often times in baseball, that is no move at all. A defensive upgrade is not necessarily the best move just becasue it's a defensive upgrade. There are other factors to consider, and you can't dismiss them simply by saying you trust your players to make those other factors moot. For most of the game I agree with you. But if I have a lead in the ninth, I'd certainly be more inclined to put the better defender to help keep that lead. i think that the benefits of doing that are negligible at best. the chances that the player at said position will make an error to cost the team the game are far less than the chances that the opposing team will tie the score through hitting a home run or driving the ball into a gap, thus making it likely that the player in question will have to come to bat. OK, but why take the risk? did you read what i wrote? i don't have any numbers in front of me, but it's my opinion that it's probably an even bigger risk to take a good hitter out of a one-run game than to put a slightly better defensive player in the game. the odds that an average major league ballplayer will make an error is about 50-1. i like those odds.

The best defender does not make the best team. You defended a move by saying you have to trust the players. Making a change already indicates you don't trust your players, and simply trusting them is not justification enough for making the move. You have to make the best move for the team, and often times in baseball, that is no move at all. A defensive upgrade is not necessarily the best move just becasue it's a defensive upgrade. There are other factors to consider, and you can't dismiss them simply by saying you trust your players to make those other factors moot. For most of the game I agree with you. But if I have a lead in the ninth, I'd certainly be more inclined to put the better defender to help keep that lead. i think that the benefits of doing that are negligible at best. the chances that the player at said position will make an error to cost the team the game are far less than the chances that the opposing team will tie the score through hitting a home run or driving the ball into a gap, thus making it likely that the player in question will have to come to bat.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game. Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi. yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them. Sulley, let me make sure I've got your position right first. Are you saying that a defensive replacement should not be used late because defense in the first is worth the same as defense in the 9th, and that a team shouldn't start their defensive replacment, so why should they put him in late? Or are you saying something else? have you been follwoing the conversation? i'm saying that players shouldn't be acquired for the sole purpose of using them as late inning replacements, it's worthless.

It doesn't get much more ignorant than this. that was a laugh out louder, goony. but i'm still firmly in the "requiring a starter" camp, though. make no mistake, retart.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game. Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi. yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them.

Had me until that part. it gives millions of minorities and women chances that they would not have had otherwise. it won't be necessary forever, but it's still necessary. we're less than a generation removed from the civil rights amendment, remember. racism exists in the workplace, it must be forced out by any and all means.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game.

i love how teams, week after week, make disparaging remarks about the bears. i would be very uneasy if people weren't underrating them. whenever i think of jason taylor i think of him standing at the altar with a woman who looks disturbingly similar to zach thomas in a wig.

Figgins is also Pierre with about twice as many walks, and a few more runs scored. And a bit more power. I'd take Figgins over Pierre any day. He's a better player, with more versatility. Only problem is we need more run production from our outfield. pierre actually had a better SLG and OPS than figgins last season, though. i'm not saying figgins won't bounce back, but as far as true power last season, pierre was superior. not really. Pierre's SLG was higher because he had a higher BA. Figgins had an IsoP of .109, Pierre's was .096. my bad.

Not needed in baseball. I'm not sure about that. I thought the Cubs interviewed Listach solely to comply with that standard. What a stupid rule, if true. Why should you be forced to interview someone you have absolutely no intention of hiring just because they are a minority? It's a waste of time and sort of demeaning to the person being interviewed I think. "Thanks for coming in Pat, but you are really only being interviewed because you're black and we have to do it." it's a way of getting minority candidates' foot in the door. maybe you have no intention of hiring a candidate until you hear what they have to say, then you're blown away. you just hired a guy you had no interest in until you actually heard what he's all about. something that wouldn't have happened before. the good ol' boy network won't change unless it's forced to. affirmative action works.

Figgins is also Pierre with about twice as many walks, and a few more runs scored. And a bit more power. I'd take Figgins over Pierre any day. He's a better player, with more versatility. Only problem is we need more run production from our outfield. pierre actually had a better SLG and OPS than figgins last season, though. i'm not saying figgins won't bounce back, but as far as true power last season, pierre was superior.

But he's not bad. Well, he was pretty bad this year, but at worst, you get a cheaper, younger Pierre with better defense and more versatility. I wouldn't mind this deal assuming several other things fall into place and that the cost was low. He's essentially Black Ryan Freel with a shade less discipline and a shade more average usually. He had a sudden 30 point BABIP drop last season, so he would be poised for a bounceback. his discipline is more than a shade under freel's, though. freel's career isod is like .093, which is very rare among any kind of player, let alone a versatile player like him. figgins is around .060, which is still decent. i say if we're thinking about figgins, just go after freel, who's a better option at leadoff. those .033 points of isod probably aren't valued as high as the perceived value of figgins's speed, so he'd probably come at or below the same price in players, and freel is cheaper in dollars.

jones is a tradeable commodity, as his numbers for the season were pretty good and he's actually relatively affordable for his production level. he's just not enough of a bat that gets anything done for a struggling offense like the cubs. he's a good complementary bat for a ready-built contender, though. and a perfect fit for the sox in left. like i said, jones fills a need in left field and is significantly more productive than podsednik. dempster also fills a need for the sox in the pen, plus it gives williams 2 players for the price of one, which is important in finding a way to upgrade a team that's in a serious salary bind for next year. if i were GM and that deal was hung up, i'd throw in marmol, which would significantly upgrade the sox middle relief. as for murton, the cubs can't really afford to trade one of their best young cheap hitters, as they are offense deprived in the first place. additionally, the sox aren't going to find the next rickey henderson to put in left field. the best bet is to work hard with anderson and use him in the leadoff spot next year, while he's manning center. i really hope that kenny is deluded enough to pursue juan pierre but he's not like hendry, so you should feel secure in that.

if the bears need bulletin board material to win a home game against a 1-6 team with joey harrington as its quarterback, then they've got more to worry about that who's saying what about them oh jeez. can fans of other teams who want to rain on bears fans parade please start their own thread and refrain from posting in the threads that bears fans pay attention to? especially if their team is either rebuilding or coming off 3 consecutive losses. pot meet kettle Are you saying the Bears are a rebuilding team coming off three consecutive losses and their fans are raining on the parade of some other team that is doing well? i didn't understand it either but kept quiet because i wasn't sure if there was some obvious irony that i was missing.

the guy has been pretty useful, and would come cheaper than zito or schmidt, although not super cheap. i think he's owed like 10 mil for next year and the sox seem intent on making room for mccarthy. how about jacque jones and dempster for freddy? it gives the sox 2 things, a left fielder with a decent bat (i can't remember if he was a sox killer or not) and relief help. the salaries are a relative wash. it makes sense to me.

if the bears need bulletin board material to win a home game against a 1-6 team with joey harrington as its quarterback, then they've got more to worry about that who's saying what about them oh jeez. can fans of other teams who want to rain on bears fans parade please start their own thread and refrain from posting in the threads that bears fans pay attention to? especially if their team is either rebuilding or coming off 3 consecutive losses.

I think he brings more than enough with the bat, as a platoon partner, to offset his bad knees and baserunning gaffes. Alou/Jones would be a tremendously productive platoon. Unfortunately, they are two guys who probably would balk at sitting while a kid like Murton gets to play. i think i'd rather trade jones, bring in geoff jenkins, and semi-platoon him with a guy like restovich.

i'd like to see ryno out at 1b, it would be nostalgic. and since the 1b coach means little in the scheme of things, it's the perfect place for a figurehead like ryno.

i really don't understand what they bears have continued to do by not allowing benson to get any significant touches. he's costing them a ton of money AND he's probably better than jones. lovie should stop letting the players run the team and play the guy who may not be the most popular fellow in the locker room. trust me, after a couple of games, benson will be well liked by the defense.

The offense would have to be greatly improved. Marshall sucked this year. He won't win many games without massive improvements himself. Plus, he's as unreliable, healthwise, as any pitcher in the Cubs system. Hill should be good, but he's no lock. Then you talk of a FA as the 5th. As it is, Marshall should be no higher than 6th going into the spring. You should definitely have 5 starters you are going to rely on before him. i, too, am doubtful of marshall's ability as a starter in the major leagues. he's shown very little in terms of pitches, he's been injured, and he's sucked when he hasn't been injured. the only real aspect of his game to build on is his propensity to induce ground balls, which still isn't all that significant. i think the best way to use marshall is in a trade. maybe another GM could be tricked into thinking that marshall is a young mark mulder or something. young starting pitchers are generally overvalued in trades by both parties involved, i'd say capitalize on it now.

If this really happened Tree I'd buy you a beer, many if you wish. i would love to see this happen, if for no other reason, than to see dusty have to adhere to a different philosophy, and beane would make sure that he did.