CuseCubFan69

How ironic. 7m a year for the next 3 years for a pitcher with an over 6.00 ERA is not considered too much, but 13.5/13.75m for a GOOD pitcher, a true #1 starter is too high. Good luck getting Zito money from Hendry, Carlos. He seems to think 15m is too high, so there isn't any possible way he gives out 18m for the same guy. At least Hendry pretended like he wanted to get a deal done. Now I'm pissed again. I'm not. Let them haggle for awhile longer and even if Z wins or loses this thing (if it goes that far) they still have the spring to talk.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. The poster who started this disagrees. I read it as if he gets a hit even better but scoring the run is the most important thing.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder. in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard. Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run? if you're just trying to put the ball in play you aren't putting the ball in play effectively, increasing the chances that you will ground into a double play or ground harmlessly out, not advancing the runner at all. i'd rather have a hitter try to get the most effective PA that he can, that includes working deep into the count, putting pressure on the pitcher to make a perfect pitch. when these factors are taken into account, a strikeout may be the least apparently valued outcome, but the more pitches a pitcher throws, the greater the chances are that he'll make a mistake. you can't have a hitter afraid to strike out in that kind of situation. you may have more strikeouts with runners on, but i guarantee that you will score more runs by doing this over the course of the season. What if the situation is the bottom of the 9th and you're down 1? Getting a good closer to throw an extra pitch or 2 may be a moot point. I agree that you put your best swing on at all times and you usually do what has made you successful but I'd rather see a grounder or a fly ball to the OF than a K anytime in those instances. I don't like giving up outs either. i'm going to trust my team's talent and go for the win. i'd refuse to get in the team's way. and making a closer throw an extra pitch or two can make all of the difference. as i said, the more pitches, the greater the chances are that one will be a mistake. put some pressure on the guy, make him throw you your pitch, rather than simply trying to put his pitch in play. this method will be much more effective in the long run. if it's my pitcher up, i'd probably try to sacrifice. But a good closer is throwing strikes and taking pitches puts you behind in the count. I agree if this is the beginning to 7th or so inning against a starter but if you have closer in there that's throwing fastballs and sliders or strikes taking pitches is going to put you in a hole quick. Plus, it depends on the talent of the batter.

It's going to be interesting watching this OF and how the Cubs figure out what to do with them. IMO if Soriano doesn't ever want to switch postions again he should go to right if the Cubs truely believe that Pie is the CF of the future.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run? if you're just trying to put the ball in play you aren't putting the ball in play effectively, increasing the chances that you will ground into a double play or ground harmlessly out, not advancing the runner at all. i'd rather have a hitter try to get the most effective PA that he can, that includes working deep into the count, putting pressure on the pitcher to make a perfect pitch. when these factors are taken into account, a strikeout may be the least apparently valued outcome, but the more pitches a pitcher throws, the greater the chances are that he'll make a mistake. you can't have a hitter afraid to strike out in that kind of situation. you may have more strikeouts with runners on, but i guarantee that you will score more runs by doing this over the course of the season. What if the situation is the bottom of the 9th and you're down 1? Getting a good closer to throw an extra pitch or 2 may be a moot point. I agree that you put your best swing on at all times and you usually do what has made you successful but I'd rather see a grounder or a fly ball to the OF than a K anytime in those instances. I don't like giving up outs either.

That's not what he's saying at all. What do you think "Putting a ball in play just to put it in play is worse than striking out" means then?

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run?

They should have had a most fun guys to watch on defense instead. I remember watching Clemente throw a Cub runner out at third in Chicago and Clemente was still in Pittsburg.

I hope he hustled to the dugout to get his stuff. He'd better start checking into ST the right way from here on out. That's not how Santo playe...er, checked in. And he clicked his heels on the way!

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized. The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous. The reason why it's "romanticized" is because it was first time the Cubs were in the hunt for first place in many many years. And yet there is one collapse and 2 playoff chokes that should be much more memorable that a team that faded with 2 months to go in the season. I know the others were closer but this was the first for many many Cub fans and you never forget your first.

I hope he hustled to the dugout to get his stuff.

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized. The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous. The reason why it's "romanticized" is because it was first time the Cubs were in the hunt for first place in many many years.

They said 90% at least once on the updates during Mike & Mike! I would say 99% of the time that means nothing. Ha...I just thought it was funny that they said 85 then 90.

I agree unless they move Dempster and or Eyre.

They said 90% at least once on the updates during Mike & Mike! They'll get something done. I think so too.

They said 90% at least once on the updates during Mike & Mike!

Why do you equate not trying to steal third with having a manager who sits around and does nothing? You coach, you know that there is more to game decisions than just "should I steal or not". I want a coach to worry about lefty/right match ups, defensive positioning, pinch hitting, etc...not to attempt a steal when it's likely harmful. But when you throw away a possible option you are limiting yourself and I just don't understand why you would make the opposing managers/teams job a lot easier. Again for the extremists....I'm not advocating to steal the whole time but to use it wisely and especially when you see a good matchup for success. I also don't understand the extremes of one way or another. You mix it up....maybe a slant one way or another but to say to steal all the time or to never steal is foolish to me. I have admitted, in this thread even, that there are times when I'm not against an attempted steal of third. However, the times when it's a good idea is greatly outnumbered by the times people actually do it. I agree.

Why do you equate not trying to steal third with having a manager who sits around and does nothing? You coach, you know that there is more to game decisions than just "should I steal or not". I want a coach to worry about lefty/right match ups, defensive positioning, pinch hitting, etc...not to attempt a steal when it's likely harmful. But when you throw away a possible option you are limiting yourself and I just don't understand why you would make the opposing managers/teams job a lot easier. Again for the extremists....I'm not advocating to steal the whole time but to use it wisely and especially when you see a good matchup for success. I also don't understand the extremes of one way or another. You mix it up....maybe a slant one way or another but to say to steal all the time or to never steal is foolish to me.

Yeah this is a big one for you guys and they're all huge from here.

Again though those are flat line stats...DeRosa at 35%. What if it's a pitcher he is 22% successful against along with the next hitter? I think if I can get Soriano over to third on a steal and DeRosa can battle and get a ground ball or flyball I get a run instead of 2 ground outs in a row and nothing. I understand that you're playing the percentages but sometimes as a coach or manager you see something and you take advantage of that...IMO the good ones do. I'm not talking a gut feeling but to notice a pattern or weakness and take advantage of it. I don't care if DeRosa is 22% successful against the pitcher or 12% successful or 7% successful because for one thing, that number is likey based on a handful of at-bats where the 35% number (which is likely best case, mind you) is based on a far larger sample. Let's say that he is 22% rather than 35% for the sake of argument. You're willing to risk a losing a runner in scoring position based on a few at-bats that show the hitter at the plate is 13% worse than normal against the present pitcher? What I'm willing to gamble is getting the runner to third when I see an opportunity to do so. I understand that percentages say this and they say that but I think knowing your team and certain aspects of what the competition is capable of increases the chances. Do I know the numbers no, so I can't prove it the way you want me to. Also, if a pitcher and catcher never have to worry about a threat to steal it changes the dynamic of what can happen and what does happen. If I have a pitcher that is so worried about the hitter and I notice that, I take off. A good baserunner can notice these things. I'm still talking about stealing third. From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

Why? Is he planning to make a "park ranger" look foolish? Or planning to steal those picanic baskets? He looks like he's taken a few already.

not to be nitpicky, but this is one of my pet peeves. technically, we could still hire girardi as a coach, but the MANAGER's job belongs to piniella. It's tough because all through baseball it's the (head)coach but once you get to pro baseball it turns into a manager.

Again though those are flat line stats...DeRosa at 35%. What if it's a pitcher he is 22% successful against along with the next hitter? I think if I can get Soriano over to third on a steal and DeRosa can battle and get a ground ball or flyball I get a run instead of 2 ground outs in a row and nothing. I understand that you're playing the percentages but sometimes as a coach or manager you see something and you take advantage of that...IMO the good ones do. I'm not talking a gut feeling but to notice a pattern or weakness and take advantage of it.