treebird

ronny is just going to get benched whether he's playing second or short if dusty is still here, and he will be. we have to keep walker, and we have to get a new ss.

I like Neifi off the bench! i like neifi off the side of a boat (a boat floating in hot lava) Stupid joke. i thought it was the height of high comedy. thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

I like Neifi off the bench! i like neifi off the side of a boat (a boat floating in hot lava)

He is.

That's not what I read. An argument was being made that if someone from the infield should be traded it should be Lee (and not Walker) because we can get more for him. but nobody said we had to trade an infielder thats like saying that if you have to shoot either a dog or a cat, and you shoot a cat, it means you want to shoot a cat.

hey guess what guys the cubs still play baseball yeah i know i wasnt aware they still played either in conclusion, dont watch the game

i can see it hothothot

he doesnt give a vorp (remember when someone said that and everybody thought it was hilarious)

wtg la bambas

vorp podsednik=7.1 lee=33.5 doesnt account for defense.

oooooooooh i havent been to bp yet today. i'm really excited now. and if it's a joe sheehan column, well, i may do a dance or something.

wait a minute is someone suggesting that it's possible that the best team will not win the world series? oml

Interestingly, his BABIP was .299 last year as well, except with a 15.3 LD%. i was too lazy to look that up. 15.3 paired with.299 doesnt seem too far off of what you'd expect for a guy with furcal's speed.

if this guy's nickname isn't wacker there oughtta be an investigation

Not to be overly picky here.... but the CUBS (Colts, Orphans, White Stockings) are in their 130th season in the National League, but they've only had player numbers on their uniforms for 75 years now. That being said, look how many retired numbers they have compared to the Cardinals, Dodgers, etc. Granted, teams like the Yankees have had far more legendary players, but only 4 retired by the Cubs? Have they lacked superstardom that much in all their years? Honestly, I must plead ignorance when it comes to retired uniform numbers on other teams. (Cardinals, Dodgers, etc.). Whether the CUBS have lacked superstardom over the period...... well, you tell me..... 1930 thru 2004 World Series team W L pct PA W L Los Angeles Dodgers 6400 5358 0.544 21 6 10 St. Louis Cardinals 6347 5402 0.540 19 8 6 San Francisco Giants 6150 5603 0.523 13 2 6 Atlanta Braves 5967 5761 0.509 18 2 6 Cincinnati Reds 5969 5797 0.507 11 4 4 Pittsburgh Pirates 5811 5921 0.495 10 3 0 Chicago Cubs 5688 6061 0.484 8 0 4 Philadelphia Phillies 5391 6331 0.460 8 1 3 the reason the cubs never win the world series is because they're cursed, not because they've had bad teams, right?

lose wrigley. nothing good has ever happened there, except to other teams. it has all kinds of history, but very little in the way of history that i actually want to think about. and don't build a crappy retro park either.

for those who care, furcal's ld% is 20.6, but his babip is .299, below the level you'd expect to see for a guy with his speed. i dont think it'd be that unreasonable to see him be a little less unlucky next year and see his obp hit .365.

If you don't spend the money on Furcal, what free agent do you spend it on? The Cubs have a ton of money to shell out this offseason. They can afford him and still pick up a pitcher or OF bat. They can also trade for an OF or pitcher but probably not a shortstop. play cedeno and walker, and then take that money and sign giles or whatever and then trade for two more outfielders too. im not particularly enamored with any outfielders on the roster/in the system. if pie's on the team, i will cry.

i only want to sign furcal if he promises to commit more crimes, because they force him to be super clutch if he's given sentences that don't take effect until after his team is eliminated from the playoffs.

see what happens when the lounge isnt around to let you get your release?

btw i have to go to bed now so if you reply and i dont reply, thats probably the reason also i hopefully didnt come off like a jerk in any of that if i did im sorry and such night fred

The particular set of circumstances is deciding whether we should let Carlos stop at 89 or throw an indeterminant number of pitches more. There is nothing to be gained by leaving Carlos out there for more. Flippant and dismissive. We have no evidence whatsoever that suggests his average pitch count is correct or incorrect (correct meaning a proper amount for him to be throwing without risking injury). I'll ask again -- if Carlos threw 140 pitches a start, would you think that was a good number to throw every time no matter what the game situation was? You ask why 100 is a special number, I ask why anything is a special number then. We have very little in the way of absolute truths when it comes to pitcher abuse. That's why it simply doesn't make sense to mess around and find out later. A source for what? A source that says Carlos is okay now, but might get hurt if he throws 20 more pitches? Or a source that says today's game wasn't important enough to be taking stupid risks in? I said we don't know what the danger number is. The only way we will find it is if we erroneously overuse him on a regular basis. Encouraging him to pitch needlessly seems to be a good way of doing that. I wasn't saying that you wanted to find the breaking point so much as that you were working towards doing so, albeit unintentionally. Carlos is 8th in the major leagues in most pitches per start. He's second only to Livan Hernandez in pitcher abuse points (haha, prior's third despite missing several starts). This is yet another reason not to mess with him like this. He's had a tough year, and it's not over yet. The simple fact is this: Carlos Zambrano has been used a lot this year, in comparison with other major league pitchers. His average number of pitches this year has been high, in comparison with other major league pitchers. He has been used considerably more than almost all other major league pitchers. Given the opportunity to give him a bit of a rest today, why not take it?

Not at all. I'm arguing that A) when you have a pitcher who averages 106 pitches per start, the risk involved in extending him from 89 pitches to 108 is negligible. and B) that phrasing the opposing argument as an authoritative declarative statement (i.e. "No harm was going to come.....by stopping at 89 pitches") is unreasonable, given the lack of a citation of a source which can be generally accepted as a definitive authority. Can you provide such a definitive source for your implied assertion of 100 pitches being the "magic number" for pitcher abuse in the specific case of Carlos Zambrano ?? There is no magic number, but I think it's safe to say that less is better than more. The fact that Z averages 106 pitches a start is meaningless as well. What if he averaged 140? Does that mean it'd be a good idea to leave him out there that long every time? Very little can be gained by leaving Carlos Zambrano out on the mound beyond 90-100 pitches, but a whole heck of a lot can be lost. If we agree that we aren't sure what the magic danger number is, does it really make sense to decide to find out by just leaving him out there until he hits it?

That's a medical opinion that you're not competent to give. If you have a definitve authority that you can cite as a source, you should do so. Given these circumatances, offering an opinion in such authoritative terms is the height of arrogance. I'm sorry, but I don't think the claim that stopping 10-15 pitches short of his average doesn't hurt is that outrageous a claim. I wasn't concerned as to the validity or outrageousness of the claim, but rather, I was addressing the competency, or qualification, of the claimant to present such an opinion in such an authoritative manner. While I recognize that are very knowledgeable about baseball and the CUBS in particular, and I do, generally, respect your opinions, you are, in my opinion, over your head on this one. So you're arguing that it's reasonable that harm was going to come to Carlos because he didn't throw enough pitches? I don't follow. Any time we can get Carlos out of there under a hundred pitches, we'd be stupid not to. Unfortunately, we're stupid.

i think theres a chance that might have something to do with who pitches when those guys catch.