A Productive Day
Today, I accomplished a few things, most notably getting a new battery for my watch, which died yesterday. I was told by the watch repair person that my watch, a Casio DW-6100 (I have the black version) was, as that link indicates, originally issued in 1992. I'd never replaced the battery before. Pretty good for fifteen years, although I don't think I've had it quite that long.
That's pretty irrelevant, and a real stretch to say that's the sort of day the Cubs had too, winning two games in the stretch of a little over four hours of baseball time this afternoon -- first, finishing yesterday's suspended game, an 8-6 win over the Pirates (and the headline on that "recap" doesn't reflect the additional runs that were scored, but it says "8 innings", when the game was suspended in the 7th. So go figure.), and then dispatching the Pirates 7-1 in the regular afternoon game.
So the Cubs, once 7-13, have now won five of their last six and at last appear to be playing the way some of us, me in particular, thought they could:
- Jason Marquis had yet another solid outing, and today, walked no one and struck out five, for those of you who were complaining about his BB/K ratio; he also allowed only four hits in eight innings, improving his WHIP to a ridiculous 1.034 and his ERA to 2.09. Is this likely to continue? No, but it's a damn good start. Incidentally, he's now won four games, leading the staff, and has sixty career wins, now in seventh place all-time among Jewish pitchers (ahead of him: Kenny Holtzman, Sandy Koufax, Steve Stone, Dave Roberts, Barney Pelty and Erskine Mayer, next on the list with 91, although that number can't be reached for probably at least two more years).
- Derrek Lee reached base in his 26th consecutive game and doubled again; that's 8 straight games with doubles. He's hitting .410 and has 17 doubles already.
- Ryan Theriot continued his hot hitting, going 3-for-4 with three runs scored and 2 RBI.
- Alfonso Soriano, homerless in April, has now homered in each of the first two May games.
All of that said, I wanted to call your attention to this Jeff Passan column at Yahoo today. Passan, like me (and most of you), thinks MLB's arcane blackout rules are, rather than "protecting" territories, simply pissing fans off, and we all discussed this last All-Star break.
Today's Passan column says that the blackouts are going to be a main topic of discussion at the owners' executive council meeting in New York two weeks from today:
Sound familiar? Throughout spring training, when it seemed as though the Extra Innings package would be offered only on DirecTV, commissioner Bud Selig showed a haughty disregard for the fans, mocking the thousands of cable customers orphaned by the league's proposed money-grabbing exclusive deal. In the end, MLB got its promise from cable companies that they would launch the Baseball Channel in 2009, and the majority of fans now have access to every game, every night.
Well, in theory at least. The reality is much different. Some areas are blacked out from 40 percent of the games on a full schedule. No one in Iowa can watch the Brewers, Cardinals, Cubs, Royals, Twins and White Sox. Las Vegas has its own hexagon of darkness with the A's, Angels, Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Giants and Padres.
(I particularly like that phrase: "hexagon of darkness". Sounds like something you'll see in the new Spider-Man movie.)
Living in the town where my team is located, I don't have this problem, as all the Cubs' televised games are available to me. But I know many of you are scattered all over the country and, in fact, in other countries than the USA, and you are affected by the very blackouts noted in Passan's quote above.
It's time for MLB to get its head out of the 1950's and realize that its fans are everywhere, and in order for it to market itself as effectively as, for example, the NFL does, the answer is very simple:
If you want to watch a baseball game -- ANY game -- and are willing to pay the asking price, you should be able to do so. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts, no matter what your zip code or IP address is.
That's not too hard to understand; I trust everyone here does.
Now let's see if the MLB suits in New York can be made to see the light.
90 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let me just say...
The Cubs...
More consistency along the lines of the last few days would help.
And I turned my head to take a conference call...
by Damen Jackson on May 2, 2007 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions
yes...
When you get 2 runs on 0 hits
I know the Cubs won both games
The Cubs actually
<smacking forehead>
Although it's great news...
Back to the Cubs though, I'm going to hold off on getting excited until I see some consistent hitting with RISP (and RISP with 2 outs). The starting pitching has been absolutely unreal so far, which clearly means it's due to average out and come back to earth. But it really is interesting looking at the runs scored/allowed in the national league. This team should be better. But unfortunately, "should be better" doesn't win you close ballgames. Here's to hoping the bats stay hot and the pitching doesn't let up!
Okay...
- Cubs are hitting .282 with RISP, which is second place in the NL (just .002 behind league leader Florida).
- Cubs have an OPS of .784 with RISP, which is 3rd in the NL (behind Atlanta at .873 and Florida at .825)
- With RISP and 2 outs, the Cubs are batting .264, which is 3rd in the NL.
- With RISP and 2 outs, the Cubs have an OPS of .754, which is 6th in the NL.
The Cubs are also 4th in the NL in team BA (.271), and sixth in the NL in team OPS (.755).
Thus, I don't think the problem with the Cubs is their situational hitting, at least yet. In fact, I'd argue that aside from a statistically improbable stretch of going 0-6 in 1 run games, this Cubs team hasn't had MANY problems.
where are the stats....
with that stuff, this team is terrible, as it was under dusty.
Wow...
Look, if you want to find me statistics that say we're terrible at scoring a runner on third with less than two outs, I'll be happy to listen and admit that the Cubs have a problem. Show me that we lag behind the league in "productive" outs (i.e. sacrifices, moving runners along, etc.), and I'd be very interested.
But my point was (and is) that it's slightly disingenuous to say the Cubs are failing in "clutch" or "situational" hitting scenarios when they're amongst the top of the National League with runners in scoring position (RISP) or RISP with two outs.
But to say, without any evidence whatsoever, that "this team is terrible" at "bunting, moving a runner over, hitting behind the runner, getting sac flys, grounding the ball to the right side with the man on third and less than two outs" is, to me at least, unsupported without a little more proof or statistical evidence (particularly given that the Cubs seem to be excelling in RISP situations compared to the rest of the NL this season)
hey, i've been absolutely giddy today...
we waste a lot of runs, and it drives me mad. with all the doubles the cubs get (often to lead off an inning), we shouldn't always have to rely on a clutch hit in order to score. a simple sac bunt or grounder to the right side, moving the runner to third, then a sac fly or little grounder to right side brings that run in--fundamental.
i really like what i am seeing from this club right now. i'm excited as hell. but, i still think this offense is inefficient. i also think a major reason why they are 6-0 in 1 run ballgames has to do with a failure in the area of situational hitting.
then again, i really focus on it, so i probably forget their successes.
yeah, 6-0 would be nice...
I dunno...
Interestingly though....
So while the Cubs overall are hitting with RISP and RISP with 2 out, where they are NOT producing is just in innings 7+ generally. So maybe a better way to make your argument is that you'd like to see the Cubs perform better in the late innings.....
Makes sense-
That's why it was nice to see them keep going late into games the last couple of days.
by tommy veryzer on May 2, 2007 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions
You made fair points.
I agree...
But if you look at the history of baseball, baseball statistics, etc., over a large and significant sample size, 1-run games are almost entirely the product of luck. The best teams and the worst teams all tend towards being .500 in 1-run games.
Now, is that to say that the Cubs will go 6-0 for their next run of 1-run games? No. But, by the end of the season, the odds are that the Cubs SHOULD approach .500 in these games (since they're based historically almost entirely on luck), meaning that for the 26 games we've played so far, our record is statistically speaking "unrepresentative" since it is highly unlikely that we will continue to be 0-6 (or winless) in 1-run games.
The idea, thus, is that this 26 game sample so far this season is not representative of what the Cubs are likely to achieve over the course of the whole season going forward. So to say that we're "doomed" or in "trouble" because we're 12-14 on May 2nd after going 0-6 in 1-run games during that stretch is slightly hyperbolic, particularly when our "Pythagorean" record (which historically has proven more accurate, being a record based on runs scored squared divided by runs scored squared plus runs against squared) after 26 games is 16-10, not the 12-14 we actually are....in other words, within a game of what we would have been (15-11) if we had been .500 (as luck would predict) over those 1-run games.
but, executing the sac bunts and sac flies
and it is an area where they can get better, and it shouldn't take a lot of work. no trades or anything. just focus, have a good approach, execute, get an rbi.
Yes
I'm just not sure that the Cubs are "lagging" behind other teams in this respect. I think that perhaps the steroids/power era that we're in (or coming out of, depending on who you ask) didn't ask players to execute these fundamentals, preferring power hitting to sacrifices/hitting behind the runner/bunting etc.
Perhaps the problem isn't that the Cubs are much worse at this than other teams, but that the whole LEAGUE is worse at this than they used to be (i.e. prior to 1998), and we're just noticing it in the Cubs because they're the team we watch.
i also happen to watch all the cardinals games...
i was hoping it was a dusty baker problem and that lou would fix it. actually, i am still hoping and think it will get better.
Agreed about the 2 Outs stuff
by utcubby on May 3, 2007 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
yep, best half inning all year i think...
Big Z has a big start
I'd like to get excited, and it was a good day, but these games coming up against the Nats at home are the ones the Cubs tend to flat line in. A 5-1 or 4-2 homestand would help wash that taste out of the mouth...........
Excellent column on EI/MLBTV..
You would just have to think that all of the exclusive broadcasters like WGN/YES/TBS, etc.. would be presumably loosing advertising dollars with fewer eyes watching.
The team's
The Cubs have the best team in the division, and despite the Brewers feasting on the grief-stricken Cardinals this week, by June 1st, I predict the Cubs and Brewcrew will be in a neck and neck battle for first.
I hope your're right
Clearly, if the Cubs are to be "neck and neck" in a battle for first they have to win at least 5 more games from the very same teams.
I think it's possible!
Gotta give Hendry some props...
The Cubs have outscored their opponents 122 to 97 now.
Even better actually...
Starting off so poorly in close games has dug us a hole, but we're certainly not dead in the water. We just need to build on the offensive outburst and continue this streak of better performances of late.
floyd as well.
Me too actually....
BUT the
by TheEman on May 2, 2007 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm going to take
errrrrr......
I'm in Tulsa
by wrigley on May 2, 2007 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Fox will always pick...
And, I left my laptop at work (I have MLB TV + MLB Extra Innings), so no game on the computer. For some reason, I cannot get MLB TV to work on my wife's IMac (but the commercials do).
by utcubby on May 3, 2007 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
You didn't get to see
Monday game
Kansasian
Lets hope for above 500 by Sunday. Get to writing that AJ essay.
Lol...
(funny that I am one of the most optimistic on this site yet bet against the Cubs)
by thekansasian on May 3, 2007 1:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Jeff Passan
Yup!
yeah, too bad, really close. could have 3.
not to mention, he just missed one....
What I want to know
Show yourselves and publicly repent.
I think...
There's no need to call them "idiots", or any other name. That has no place here.
Thanks.
Maybe the luck is changing.
Maybe our luck is changing.
by kerrysotherwife on May 2, 2007 11:04 PM CDT reply actions
For the first time all year
I was not a believer in Theriot in the spring--and I'm still not sure he can play SS regularly--but he's making a big difference. He and Marquis are the biggest surprises for me so far; Howry and Eyre the biggest disappointments. I liked the fact that Lou gave Eyre an out today. Need to get him turned around.
Best situation
- Play Ryan Theriot a couple days at shortstop and a couple days at 2nd.
- Play Mark DeRosa a couple days at 2nd and make him the right handed hitting platoon mate in right field.
- Play Cesar Izturis a couple days at shortstop.
by BlueMike on May 3, 2007 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions
We need
I'd keep Izturis because I think he despite his errors is the stronger defender and I think he has more bat potential.
by kerrysotherwife on May 3, 2007 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Izturis and his .203 BA
by Faith plus 1 on May 3, 2007 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Izturis
On May 20, 1980, George Brett's average was .247. He finished the year at .390.
Of course, if Izturis hits .390, the earth will probably stop rotating.
re: Izturis
This could actually be a good thing as it would enable the Cubs to go back in time and not trade Maddux for Izturis in the first place.
oh that's not good enough?
Waste of roster space, it's a joke how he's been given THIS much time.
Even in his career year, his best year, whatever the hell you want to call it his OBP was .330, which to be frank, would be league average at best.
Defensive Wizard or whatever the hell he is.
by Faith plus 1 on May 3, 2007 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
re: Best situation
The third point I'm not so sure about. On the one hand, it would make sense to take Izzy out of the offensive equation and rely on him only as a defensive replacement. But his incessant errors have conveniently scuttled this strategy. (Coincidence?)
4 E-6s by my count
If we could only trade J Jones, we would be set, but no one is interested. Otherwise, I like Murton/Floyd in RF with D Ward on the bench for pinch hitting.
by utcubby on May 3, 2007 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Am I the only one...
Milwaukee is for real
by BlueMike on May 3, 2007 9:09 AM CDT reply actions
The Brewers are good, I grant you that.
But in the NL Central, it's (almost) anyone's division to take.
Milwaukee does look tough...
Somewhere
by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on May 3, 2007 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions
And, naturally...
The Cubs and Brewers have only nine head-to-head matchups left, and don't play each other at all after August 30.
scheduling
by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on May 3, 2007 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree
by utcubby on May 3, 2007 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe San Diego would take some
The one advantage
by kerrysotherwife on May 3, 2007 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Well
The thing that makes Milwaukee tough is their starting rotation. Ben Sheets looks to be healthy, Chris Capuano is solid, Jeff Suppan is remarkably solid and David Bush has a high ceiling.
by BlueMike on May 3, 2007 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Capuano
Good news for me, because he's on my fantasy team.
Agree with you Al regarding MLB TV...
So far, I'm impressed ...
Granted, several posters have noted that the Cubs' aren't so good at scoring with less than two out ...
Like almost everybody else, I tend to think Milwaukee may be for real. But only time will tell.
by Littlerock Rynofan on May 3, 2007 9:59 AM CDT reply actions
Brewers
I predict we win and the Brewers finish 2nd in the end but may get the wild card.
by kerrysotherwife on May 3, 2007 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
I wouldn't ...
But they have to start getting regular victories at home before I'll consider them playoff-worthy. To paraphrase BB, a team has to win a majority of home games and go quite close to .500 on the road to succeed.
And they've got to take advantage of the breaks they receive. Of late, they haven't gotten a lot of them--those peculiar calls--but when they don't, they can't collapse in frustration.
As for a wild card coming from the Central, who the heck knows.
by Littlerock Rynofan on May 3, 2007 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Oakland As
by BlueMike on May 3, 2007 10:52 AM CDT reply actions
I'd bet you...
Mark Kotsay
Again, I don't want the Matt Murton Society to jump down my throat. But why do some of you attach so high of value on him?!? He is a non-run producing left fielder who bats from the right side. He doesn't play great defense, has a below average arm and isn't a base stealing threat.
by BlueMike on May 3, 2007 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Kotsay...
Not to speak for others
- He's young, and likely to continue to improve - this is his age 25 year; power numbers, especially for a player of Murton's size, generally go up as they get older. In addition, his power seems to come later in the season as the weather warms up.
- He's cheap. We've spent tons of money, and to be competitive in the future, require at least a couple of inexpensive everyday players now that will develop to offset declining, aging expensive players.
- He gets on base (given regular opportunities) and OBP is something the Cubs have traditionally lacked. His speed really isn't that bad, but all told speed is irrelevant if you can't get on base.
I agree that there appears to be no room for him this year on the team - Floyd, Jones, Soriano, Pie - too many outfielders. His numbers suggest that he's not good off the bench but there's too much of a logjam to get him any regular PT. That's pretty much Hendry's fault - he wanted to try to buy a World Series win this year, but at what cost to the Cubs future? The truth of a seven-game series is that any team can win (see 2006 Cardinals). The only way to really, truly increase your chances of winning a World Series are to get to the show every year. We have many players who have backloaded contracts and can be expected to decline in production beginning 2-3 years from now - Murton would be a good, inexpensive piece to pick up the slack.
by false cognate on May 3, 2007 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions
320/400/500 ?!?
I don't care if he flashed some home run power last year. This is a ballplayer that is right-handed version of Todd Hollandsworth, only a Holly that isn't a good outfielder and can only play one position. In other words, he is a fungible commodity that, most likely, is destined for a nomadic playing career playing for small market and/or lousy ballclubs trying to round out a roster on the cheap.
by BlueMike on May 3, 2007 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions
last year
by false cognate on May 3, 2007 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Projection
BA: .280
OBP: .340
SP%: .380
HR: 15
RBI: 60
Runs: 70
These aren't good numbers for an everyday left fielder. Especially one who plays at Wrigley. But it's a moot point. Because it's clear Lou Piniella doesn't view Murton has an "everyday" option. Nor should he.
by BlueMike on May 3, 2007 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Seriously...
i'd say your analysis is asinine
by Faith plus 1 on May 3, 2007 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Opinion
by MHef08 @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on May 4, 2007 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Floyd
I supported his signing from day 1. With the payroll we have and the potential he could bring I thought it was a good idea.
Now we just have to jettison Jones although I wouldn't mind having 2 of 3 Jones Murton and Floyd on the bench with the 3rd starting because a strong bench is important.
by kerrysotherwife on May 3, 2007 11:09 AM CDT reply actions
Record so far
I just did a bit of Retrosheet research, and found to my surprise that the 1989 Cubs, which ended up winning the division, went through a tough April - at one point losing eight of nine games and going under .500 with a 9-10 record. From there, the team went 84-59 the rest of the way.
I'm not saying this team has the talent to win 93 games, as that team did. But if they go 73-63 the rest of the way (not out of the question), they'll win 85 games and have a chance at this division. (My prediction before the season was that they'd go 85-77).
Of course, if Milwaukee keeps on winning twice as many as they lose, 85 wins won't come close to being enough. And the Brewers do look quite good. But I don't think they're going to win 95 or 100 games. They'll come back to earth a bit.

by 



















