CUBZ99

From Mike Kiley's article today: http://www.suntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-cubnt29.html

A single is better than a walk in most situations. A walk has zero shot of driving in a run unless the bases are loaded. Also, a single can move a runner from 1st to third while a walk cannot. I would agree with you that for your lead off hitter OBP should be the most important stat and that a walk is just as effective as a single, but other than that to say a walk = single is misinformed , especially for a middle of the lineup player. When the Cubs played the Reds, the Reds announcers were commenting and bemoaning Dunn's inability to put the bat on the ball in crucial situations. They also stated that he is either looking for a HR or will happily accept a walk. He is considered an all or nothing player by the people who watch him day in and day out.

It is safe to say that Wilken made the call on Colvin. The past first round picks (except Prior) under Hendry have all been toolsy players that needed alot of refinement. Colvin, while not refined, does not fit into the previous category. You are probably correct to assume that Hendry made the call in regard to Samardzija, but in the 5th round he was hardly over drafted. His measly $250,000 signing bonus make the pick even more likeable. Say that Samardzija doesn't work out or chooses football over baseball, the risk by taking him in the fifth round was justified and the Cubs are not out any significant amount of money. As far as the rest of the draft, I will hold out any criticism until we get an opportunity to see what Wilken drafted. Lets face it, some of us loved previous drafts and alot of those players did not turn out so well.

The Chicago Tribune article seems to say the exact opposite. Hendry seems to take offense to Baker's excuses and implies that Baker is not doing a good enough job with the youth.

Neifi batting second = 20 runs for the Cubs offense. Thanks for the fun Dusty. :D

Seconded, listening to you and Bob is about the only positive of watching the game lately.

I took my kids to their 1st Iowa Cubs game today. We purchased the tickets on Thursday hoping that we would get lucky enough to see Derrek Lee rehabbing. Found out on our way to the game that Lee had been called up to Chicago and the kids were pretty dissappointed. Anyways, while we were watching batting practice and the players warming up, Rich Hill passed by and my son (6 years old) noticed him from TV pitching for the Cubs. He yelled out his name and Rich Hill came over to where he was standing and started talking to my son and daughter and signed a ball and a bat for them. I was extremely impressed with his demeanor and needless to say he has four new members of the Rich Hill fan club, including two kids who could not stop talking about how cool he was the whole way home. It is refreshing to see players that will actually take the time to make new fans. I am hoping that the Cubs will give him another shot and stick with him for more than one or two starts. He has some absolutely filthy stats in AAA and really has nothing left to prove at that level.

Any word on his stuff?

I would much rather see Neifi gone than get rid of Womack. Neifi adds nothing to the team and is severly overused.

Jim Hendry has been making some real strange moves since last November, I wouldn't be suprised to see him hold onto Jones simply out of stubborness. He seems to having buying low down pat, but selling high is not his strong point.

No mention of this from Len, only that Wood started to feel fatigued after 60 pitches. Just different words. Len said he didn't feel good after 60 pitches.

What is it going to hurt to let him play every game the rest of the year? Either you're right, he stinks, and he tanks the rest of the year, and we're no worse off than we would've been anyway, or he does ok, and is a good throw-in in a trade somewhere, or he figures it out and starts hitting like crazy, and we reap the benefits. There's really nothing bad that can come out of letting him, and the other young guys get out there and either prove, or disprove their value. Its not like Bynum is much older than Murton (1 year) or less likely to become a big leaguer. Maybe the Cubs want to see what they have in Bynum by playing him regularly before they DFA him. It would be a different story if they were giving the AB's to Mabry imo. But if they want to try out Bynum, why not? Murton vs. RHP has been horrible.

I'm going to try to make the Thursday game with Miller, can someone PM me directions to the ballpark. I'll be coming in from I-74. Also, any recommendations for hotels in Peoria? Thanks for any help.

One more reason to get rid of the 7th inning stretch singers. This is just like Ozzie's little act a couple years ago. It is all about self promotion. Maybe it will start an escalation of who can use the most vile language without the Cubs permission during their rendition. Bring on Andrew Dice Clay, another shining example of how swearing makes you hilarious to a certain fan base, and I am sure he will really show it to "the man". Ugh... Relax-it was one word. I'm sure kids have heard a lot worse from their friends, neighbors, and relatives. Ugh... you kind of missed the whole point. :roll:

I may be in the minority, but for it was pretty pathetic for him to say that yesterday during the seventh inning stretch. Not only was it father's day, so alot of kids were at the game, but alot of kids (like mine) were at home watching the game with their Dad. His act has its place, but it is not during a Cubs game. I remember Jeff Garlin singing the seventh inning stretch last year, and he handled himself with dignity. I suppose in Piven's mind he does his little act and gets all kinds of publicity over it and it helps boost the ratings. Unfortunately, it worked.

Because he hasn't been hitting? I've lost any faith i've ever had in Dusty.

Is there a rule against placing a player on the DL who isn't hurt? Don't know how anyone could prove they are not hurt, but just wondering.

What do you guys think about so many fans rooting for the Tigers in this series? When you think about it, if fans are truly only going to Wrigley Field for the great experience and it continues to sellout, why wouldn't they root for the team with the best chance to win the game? The team the Cubs are fielding this year is a joke.

On the radio it sounds like the crowd is cheering for the Tigers? :x

Neifi was quoted after his big game the other day as saying he hasn't been hitting well because he hasn't had regular playing time. My guess is that Baker is trying to give him regular playing time to get his swing down and see what happens. :roll:

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote: "So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter." A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote. :roll: Wow, your really going out on a limb with your argument. You will never find a person who would take a double play in that situation the over strikeout. But your comment adds nothing to the discussion. The point being made was that in that situation most people would rather take the chance that something positive would happen if he put the ball in play over the chance that there would be a double play. The strikeout last night accomplished absolutely nothing.

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well? I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all. Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out. I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement. Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time. Here are some numbers to support his statement. Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol: Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home. So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter. Actually striking out with the runner on 3rd=>0% chance, that is, if the catcher drops the third strike. You also didn't mention the number of outs, the situation, and where the ball would be put in play. Like I wrote earlier, all things being equal-sure, take the guy who puts the ball in play. But the point is that it really makes so little difference as to be almost completely insignificant. You would rather that a guy strikeout, leaving the pitcher to bat than have him put the ball in play and take your chances with less outs? Of his outs, Cedeno has GIDP 2.8% of the time this year. My guess is that most people would rather take their chances that it would have been one of the 97.2% outs or a hit rather than see him whiff and leave the pitcher to drive in the run. Ronnie needed to put the ball in play last night.

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well? I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all. Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out. I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement. Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time. Here are some numbers to support his statement. Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol: Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home.

Congrats! Look forward to seeing him on the Cubs soon.

Not a bad week. Is this the Blue Jays former 1st round draft pick that was added to the 40 man roster?