Warren Brusstar

I'll try. Rich has been viewed by the organization as a mentally fragile for quite some time. Their solution to dealing with a mentally fragile pitcher is to mess with his mechanics at the first sign of wildness in spring training. Thus getting a guy who's already thinking too much to think even more every time he takes the mound. After their tinkering didn't work, Lou decided to berate him and embarrass him by pulling him at the first sign of trouble, and never let him work out of any trouble he got into. If he is so mentally weak that the slighest pushback from Lou/Larry caused this, isn't it likely that any adversity would eventually have ruined him?

*waits for the inevitable post that this is ALL Lou Piniella's/Larry Rothschild's fault*

It's the equivalent of Cubs fans that preferred Mark Grace over Frank Thomas in the 90s.

Not if repeats his last performance on Sunday.

I also think Murton just missed hitting a home run by a a fraction of a few inches of bat meeting ball. This can be said about hundreds of at bats over the course of a season and is an utterly meaningless statement.

I'm not sure what that really means. They look like baseball players to me, at least when they wear baseball uniforms. Murton is slugging under .400 against AAA pitching. He can't play defense. He runs the bases like he's drunk. I understand that he can get on base at a decent clip, but he's nothing more than 4th OF material at this point in his career. I don't know why people are so upset he didn't get called up. Because we already had Eric Patterson on the roster, his name is Mike Fontenot. Someone who can hit LHP with power off the bench is something we don't have, and Murton could have provided it. Again, I'm trying to figure out how a guy that can't slug over 400 in the PCL can provide consistent power at the MLB level. TT said "someone who can hit LHP with power." It should be no secret to anyone who has followed the Cubs the past few years that Murton hits lefties well. It's also no secret that he doesn't hit well off the bench. So, he can't RHP and he can't hit off the bench. And we're all supposed to get the pitchforks out because the Cubs don't seem to have a roster spot for a guy that is useful only 30% of the time?

I'm not sure what that really means. They look like baseball players to me, at least when they wear baseball uniforms. Murton is slugging under .400 against AAA pitching. He can't play defense. He runs the bases like he's drunk. I understand that he can get on base at a decent clip, but he's nothing more than 4th OF material at this point in his career. I don't know why people are so upset he didn't get called up. Because we already had Eric Patterson on the roster, his name is Mike Fontenot. Someone who can hit LHP with power off the bench is something we don't have, and Murton could have provided it. Again, I'm trying to figure out how a guy that can't slug over 400 in the PCL can provide consistent power at the MLB level. He had a .985 OPS against LHP in Iowa this year, and he has a career OPS over .880 against them at the MLB level. Why is it that the very same posters (and I'm not including this particular poster, FWIW) are so quick to latch on to Murton's OPS v. LHP but absolutely refused to consider or acknowledge Jacque Jones' OPS v. RHP over the course of hsi career?

Why are you worried about trade value? Why don't you hope he's a good replacement for the fading Ward? Because hopefully, D-Lee wont be going anywhere soon, and if Hoff really is capable of what hes done in AAA the past few years as well as ST, he could land somewhere as a starter, an opportunity he'll never get with the Cubs. Some with Matt Murton. Hoff is 28. This is as good as it gets. Why can't he be our John Mabry type for a few years? Ward isn't going to last much longer. Murton is different. He is a couple years younger and owns a .295 MLB average. If we didn't talk him down he might have some trade value since, we agree, there is no use for him here. Is it possible if Edmonds continues his decline that we'd get a Soriano-Fukudome-Murton outfield? No. But I can see a Soriano/Fukudome/Hoff outfield. The Matt-Murton-as-a-starting-OF-for-the-Cubs ship has sailed. He just simply will not be given the chance.

At the very least, he's more patient than Soriano. I'm not sure how you're defining "patient" but if it's pitches seen per plate appearance, you're wrong. Last year: Soriano 3.67 Pitches/PA Theriot 3.53 Pitches/PA

I wonder why this same principle doesn't seem to extend to journalists' use of "anonymous sources." Why is it not okay for a blogger to write anonymously (i.e, "hide behind a screen name") but it's okay for a newspaper columnist/reporter to print comments from "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources? If it's cowardly to criticize someone while using an screen name, isn't it just as cowardly for a journalist/reporter to criticize a public figure through the use of unnamed or anonymous sources? Yet, I don't see the same collective outrage from journalists regarding unnamed or anonymous sources (who generally make a journalist's life easier) as I do regarding anonymous bloggers (who generally make a journalist's life more difficult). because the journalist wouldn't get the quotes in the first place if they didn't promise anonymity to the source I know that, silly. If the basis for calling anonymous bloggers "cowardly" is that it's unfair to criticize a public figure without at least allowing the public figure to know the identity of the person who is criticizing him, why isn't it equally cowardly for a journalist to print a column that includes critical comments about that same public figure made an "anonymous" or "unnamed" source?

I wonder why this same principle doesn't seem to extend to journalists' use of "anonymous sources." Why is it not okay for a blogger to write anonymously (i.e, "hide behind a screen name") but it's okay for a newspaper columnist/reporter to print comments from "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources? If it's cowardly to criticize someone while using an screen name, isn't it just as cowardly for a journalist/reporter to criticize a public figure through the use of unnamed or anonymous sources? Yet, I don't see the same collective outrage from journalists regarding unnamed or anonymous sources (who generally make a journalist's life easier) as I do regarding anonymous bloggers (who generally make a journalist's life more difficult).

Because clearly the Cubs have Grady Sizemore as an option. Soriano is an eminently reasonable choice to lead off given the resources at hand.

No. Murton. Equivalent production at a fraction of the cost.

I never said Theriot was better than DeRosa, what I did say was a interrogative statement asking why one automatically assumes DeRosa instantly gets the job at 2b over Theriot-if Theriot is forced from short that is-without competiton during spring training. Your little world is going to be rocked if they acquire ARod or Renteria. DeRosa is starting somewhere. That might be at 2B (where he should start). But if management irrationally decided that Theriot should play 2B every day, guess where Derosa is going to play? Poor Murton fan. Ultimately, this is going to be a choice between Theriot and Murton. Who will you root for? Man Crush #1 or Man Crush #2?

Murton "came through"? LOL

Well... he did have a key walk that moved a runner over to third for Theriot's IF RBI single. He was 0-1 in SB attempts, but who knows how many times the DBacks would have went for a SB with Kendall behind the plate. I'm pretty sure that Kendall would have been just as patient in that situation. Also, the D-Backs rarely had the opportunity to run last night. The reason they weren't running wasn't because Soto was behind the plate instead of Kendall. I don't think Kendall is a great catcher, but I'm not going to complain if he plays instead of Soto tonight. I think you're mistaken if you think that the D'Backs won't try to run a lot more with Kendall behind the plate than with Soto. With Kendall back there, you're pretty much giving any runner with remotely good speed second base. With Z on the mound, they're not going to run much on either of them. Teams *attempted* only 7 stolen bases the entire season with Z on the mound. He takes away the running game entirely on his own.

Zambrano was on auto-pilot, there was no reason to pull him. You don't pull a starter that YOU KNOW is dominant AT THAT TIME, even if it's for your best reliever. You don't know whether Marmol has his stuff or not that night, but you KNOW Zambrano does. Ok, I understand what you're saying and we can debate that. But to say that Lou was trying to lose or concede the game, that's just plain assinine. Lou was absolutely playing for Game 4 by taking him out at 85 pitches. How about we try to win one first? Those aren't mutually exclusive. Marmol was less likely to give up runs in the 7th than Z.

If you're British? Yes.

1. Do you consider the 90% of pitchers that routinely say they didn't have their best stuff to be "rubbing it in"? Of course not. 2. Good pitchers can succeed with good or bad stuff. So what? Last night, Webb had good stuff.

1. Pitchers say they "didn't have their best stuff" all the freaking time. Of course he's not going to say "I was surprised when they showed no strike zone judgment." 2. It's spelled "judgment" not "judgement" 3. No one said we're "helpless" against good pitching. I thought we looked significantly better as the game went on and had some good swings the last 4-5 innings. I think we're going to shell Doug Davis tonight.

Nonsense. He was filthy. I'm reasonably optimistic about doing better against him in Game 5 because the Cubs looked much better as the game went on. But he was really good. Filthy? Give me a break. I can't wait until that one gets rolled out again for Livan Hernandez. "Big L was flat out NASTY." I don't believe you actually watched the game. I think you must have seen the 9 strikeouts and said "Wow, I guess he was good." He wasn't. I can't believe you actually watched the game. He made some of our best hitters -- Ramirez, Lee, and Soriano -- look downright silly. How often do Ramirez and Lee strike out on pitches in the dirt? Just about never. They did last night. To be sure, he struggled with command at various points last night, particularly in the 6th inning. But that's hardly unusual for pitchers with so much movement on their hard stuff or for Webb generally. There's a reason Aramis doesn't walk much, and Soriano has always had pitch selection problems. Derrek Lee's strike zone judgement has not been great since the ASB. He's taking too many good pitches and swinging at too many bad ones. Webb's stuff was not "falling off the table." He wasn't even pitching down in the zone as much as he usually does. His sinker wasn't sinking as well as it usually does. It's comments like this that have me thinking people are out to make excuses for our hitters at any cost. I can't wait to hear about "Electric" Doug Davis and "Nasty" Livan Hernandez. I've seen Webb when he's been good, he wasn't that good. LOL. It's pretty hard for me to respond to such utterly ludicrous strawmen. When people characterize Davis or Hernandez as nasty, you can trot out that rubbish. Even making the comparison demonstrates how substantively bankrupt your argument is. The NL's reigning Cy Young award winner, who is plainly a top 5 pitcher in baseball, thinks he had "good stuff, great off-speed stuff." Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

"I was able to keep them off-balance. I had pretty good stuff tonight, great off-speed," Webb said. "Had some great strikeouts, key situations." Pitchers almost always say they *didn't* have their best stuff but struggled through it anyways. When the reigning Cy Young award winner (who had a 40+ inning scoreless streak this year) says he had pretty good stuff, you look pretty ridiculous saying that Webb's stuff was "not good." Did you actually watch the game?

Nonsense. He was filthy. I'm reasonably optimistic about doing better against him in Game 5 because the Cubs looked much better as the game went on. But he was really good. Filthy? Give me a break. I can't wait until that one gets rolled out again for Livan Hernandez. "Big L was flat out NASTY." I don't believe you actually watched the game. I think you must have seen the 9 strikeouts and said "Wow, I guess he was good." He wasn't. I can't believe you actually watched the game. He made some of our best hitters -- Ramirez, Lee, and Soriano -- look downright silly. How often do Ramirez and Lee strike out on pitches in the dirt? Just about never. They did last night. To be sure, he struggled with command at various points last night, particularly in the 6th inning. But that's hardly unusual for pitchers with so much movement on their hard stuff or for Webb generally.

Nonsense. He was filthy. I'm reasonably optimistic about doing better against him in Game 5 because the Cubs looked much better as the game went on. But he was really good.

Way to slay the strawman. Care to link me to a single post in the history of this board where someone opined that experience is irrelevant? All other things being equal, I'll take the more experienced guy. But major league baseball teams generally overemphasize "experience." So when there's actually a decision between an experienced guy and an inexpercinced guy, rarely are "all other things equal." (If they were, the inexperienced guy wouldn't even be considered) And I'll take the more talented, inexperienced guy every.single.time. Uh, people say that on this board all the time. Link? People say inexperience is vastly overvalued. And it is. I've yet to see anyone make a serious case for experience being irrelevant.