Starlin Castro's Afternoon Delight: Four Hits, But Cubs Lose Another One By One
SAN FRANCISCO -- Existential questions cross the mind after the Cubs' 8-7 loss to the Giants on Thursday afternoon.
- Is it better to get blown out 17-2, 11-4 or 18-1, as the Cubs have been on three occasions in the last two weeks?
- Or is it better to lose three out of four to a contending team, play hard and play them well, but lose all three games by one run?
- What about losing six games by one run since the first of August?
- Do you think Lou Piniella is considering staying in Florida instead of rejoining the team in St. Louis?
Enough of that. The Cubs did play hard and did play better baseball, but once again, it wasn't good enough. Let's start with some of the good, and since many of you have mentioned that I don't say enough good things about Starlin Castro, I'll begin with Castro's four-hit day. Starlin is hitting .422 in his last ten games and .320 for the season. If he had enough PA to qualify, he'd be second in the NL, two points behind the Rockies' Carlos Gonzalez. The Cubs have played 115 games, which means 357 PA are needed to qualify. Castro now has 339 -- he should catch up in about two more weeks.
The other nice thing today was a Cubs comeback after Pat Burrell's grand slam clanked off the left field foul pole in the fifth inning. You could see that one coming after Randy Wells walked the bases loaded. Burrell had also homered in the previous inning; that one flew down a stairwell right next to where I was sitting in the first row of the left-field bleachers. (More on the bleacher experience after the jump.) The Cubs forced Bruce Bochy to use three relievers in the eighth inning and the big blows were an RBI double (!) by Koyie Hill, his second hit of the game, and Castro's fourth hit of the game, which tied it at seven.
And then Alan Trammell did something that drives me nuts, nuts, nuts. If the next manager of the Cubs does nothing else, he has to get away from the 12-man-pitching-staff-used-one-reliever-at-a-time theory that has ruined many Cubs games this year. (Please, Ryne, or whoever you're going to be. Eleven pitchers. Longer relief stints, and an extra bench player for flexibility. Thank you.)
Sean Marshall threw 13 pitches in the eighth inning and was cruising. His batting order spot had not come up in the ninth inning. Why on Earth couldn't you let him stay in there and face the Giants in the ninth? Yes, I am aware that three of the first four hitters due up were righthanded. To which the answer is, so freaking what??? Major league pitchers need to be able to retire major league hitters. Marshall has been one of the Cubs' best relievers this year and can easily go two innings.
Yes, I am also aware that Andrew Cashner is getting somewhat of a trial by fire, to see if he can handle situations like this. I really want to see Cashner succeed, but once he stopped throwing strikes after the intentional walk to Aubrey Huff, you knew the game was over, and indeed, it was; Marlon Byrd made an effort to catch Andres Torres' game-winning single that wound up on the warning track, but why bother? Caught or not, the game is over.
It was the Cubs' 29th one-run loss of the season. As I have mentioned, the record for such things is 44, by the 1968 White Sox. That's a lot more of these, but at this rate, the Cubs might get there by Labor Day. They have not won a one-run game since July 24 at Wrigley Field against the Cardinals, and are 3-13 since then (and 0-8 in one-run games since then).
A couple of final notes on my visit to AT&T Park, before I head home tomorrow afternoon: I found a first-row bleacher ticket outside the park at a below-market price. Odd seating chart: the first row isn't row 1. It's row "00", or "zero-zero"; behind that is row "0", or "zero", then row 1. So my ticket in row "00" is a really nice seat, except for one thing: vendors use the space in front of these seats as an aisle. This is patently ridiculous -- several per inning come by and block your view or step on your feet and utter a not-very-convincing "Sorry." A mention to nearby Giants security did nothing to stop this practice.
Xavier Nady's first-inning two-RBI double bounced right in front of me at the wall -- if you saw someone in a blue BCB shirt there, that was me. Aaron Rowand, chasing down the ball, had his sunglasses fly off his cap. You can see them in this TwitPic I took; they're the dark brown splotch right next to one of the footprints. After Blake DeWitt struck out to end the inning, Rowand ran off the field without them, despite shouts from the bleachers of "Sunglasses!" A Giants employee raced out on the field between innings to retrieve them.
The Cubs are playing better; as opposed to the sweep over the weekend by the Reds, at least all four of these games were competitive. That's about all you can hope for, and that some of the rookies (15 this year now, with Darwin Barney's MLB debut as a defensive replacement in the ninth inning) play well enough to establish themselves for next year. On to St. Louis, where I hear it's even hotter than it is in Chicago.
300 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cubs are now 13-29 in one run games.
Just think, if they won HALF of those games……
by braziliancubsfan on Aug 12, 2010 7:38 PM CDT reply actions
Man, IF ONLY
Too many one-run losses. Too many games where we score less than 3 runs, if any. Ahh. It’s been a long season. All I have to look forward to now is the young guys coming up.
Anyway, how were tryouts? And which school are you trying out at?
A LO PROFUNDOOO...NOO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NOO...DIGALE QUE NO A ESA PELOTA!!!
GANAN LOS CACHORROS DE CHICAGO!!
by Azul Cachorro on Aug 13, 2010 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions
LOL
Christmas always takes a toll on my waistline. That’s why I’m glad every day isn’t Christmas.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Bring me back some See's Peanut Brittle
I will pay you back. Something good should come from this trip.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
at this point losing by
1 run is a good thing if we have to lose. It means baseball karma will even out next year and we will be winning those games.
by cozmotaylor123 on Aug 12, 2010 7:41 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Baseball karma is evil
If real, we’d better be winning championships left and right if the drought ever ends.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
This off season
the Cubs better get there rotation squared away. Wells, Silva, Gorzo, Shark, are all 5th starters if that. They have Demp which he is a 3. And God knows what is to become of “Z”. We can all shout about getting Dunn, but this team needs starting pitching first and foremost.
by Grockcubs on Aug 12, 2010 7:43 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
No Basis In Fact
There are 104 qualified pitchers in 2010, 69 of those pitchers have been at least “league average” with an ERA+ of 101 or higher.
Dempster (37th/121), Lilly (38th/121) and Wells (69th/101 before today) are among the 104 qualified starters.
Silva (113) and Gorzelanny (121) fall short of qualified status. Carlos Zambrano has started 10 games with an ERA+ of 81 overall, Thomas Diamond has made two starts. Samardzija has made two career major league starts so it’s way too early to say what he is.
The Cubs lack a clear #1 starter but they have put together a rotation of five guys that have performed at the level of a #2/3 starter all year. The rotation has been the least of their problems this year.
by circuitclout on Aug 12, 2010 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sure
go ahead and go into next season of a rotation of Demp, Silva, Gorzo, Wells, and lets go with Diamond/Shark or Cashner as the 5. How confident are you that this rotation would win the division in 2011?
The Phils, Cards, Reds, Padres, Giants, Braves, and FLA. all have a better rotation than the Cubs. Pitching dictates games.
I do not consider 37 out of 121 and 69( which will be higher after todays game) out of 101 to be impressive or “playoff” caliber type starters. Lilly is gone, and questionable whether he will resign here.
How do you figure that the five starters have performed at a level of 2/3 starter all year.? So this is what gets you into the playoffs, “League average”
I will bet you my house if the Cubs go into next year with the starters as we speak, this team will not win 80 games.
i'll try explaining this better
Dempster is ranked 37th in the league among qualified starters with an ERA+ of 121.
Lilly is 38th, also at 121.
Wells is 69th, at a perfectly league average 101.
Numbering starters is a bit arbitrary but if you took the qualified guys and divided by the number of teams (30) the top 30 are your #1s, second 30 #2s, etc. I know its overly simplistic but it’s slightly better than your tactic of trying to pass off your opinions as fact.
the Cubs have (had) five starters that have been league average or better in 100+ innings…Dempster, Lilly, Silva, Gorzelanny, and Wells (not after today,granted). Of the teams you listed, the Phils have two (plus Oswalt), cards (3), reds (3), padres (3) giants (4), braves (2) and Florida (2). so the cubs have excellent depth in their rotation and though they haven’t had a dominant ace #1 type starter they rank sixth in the league in quality starts. their starting rotation is pretty well in order. that’s not to say i would be opposed to adding cliff lee this offseason. it’s just not the problem. and their staff has is not a bunch of 5’s, its really a bunch of 2’s (dempster, lilly, gorz, silva) and a 3 (wells).
so where is your house?
by circuitclout on Aug 12, 2010 9:23 PM CDT up reply actions
You lose the argument with
4 pitchers as two’s on the Cubs. To say our 4 so called 2’s to be comparable to Cain, Nolasco, Oswalt, Wainwright, Hudson ( or Hanson) is laughable.
I live in Delaware. Trust me you will get my deed Oct 1. 2011, if this staff wins 80 games, even if they add Dunn.
We would be on track to win more than 80 games based on quality starts
And that with Zambrano out of the rotation for a while, Lilly out in the first month…yeah, starting pitching is the least of our worries.
And well, I think you lose the argument with bad grammar. I think you’re taking the W-L record of pitchers too seriously here.
A LO PROFUNDOOO...NOO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NOO...DIGALE QUE NO A ESA PELOTA!!!
GANAN LOS CACHORROS DE CHICAGO!!
by Azul Cachorro on Aug 13, 2010 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions
I suppose next you will say that Larry needs to be fired
I Love Larry - Brick are you looking at random things around the room and saying that you love them - I Love Larry
Currently 34,839 on the Season Ticket Wait List - Expected age of being #0: 119
what's laughable
is that you need to cherry pick individual pitchers to compare with an actual pitching staff and then pretend it’s a valid argument. cain, nolasco, oswalt, wainwright, and hudson don’t pitch for the same team, so comparing them to the cubs staff makes no sense. ricky nolasco is no ace, i’m not even sure why he’s on the list. i’ve said more than once that the cubs don’t have an “ace” but I still can’t figure how you think having five above-average starting pitchers is the problem that needs to be addressed on this team. it’s not.
by circuitclout on Aug 13, 2010 7:28 AM CDT up reply actions
My point is
according to the numbers you have posted I would take other Number two starters on these teams before our number two starters as you stated.
Cain, Nolasco, Hanson,Wainwright, Pinero, Oswalt, even Hamels are number two starters on there team. So to think that Silva, Gorz, Lilly are slotted as a number two starter compared to them I find incorrect.
I am not calling for Rothschild to be fired, he does a great job with the pitchers he has. I just think the Cubs rotation is average, not above average as you claim.
you don't have a point
other than not liking the cubs starting rotation. nolasco has statistically been worse than any pitcher the cubs have trotted out there on a regular basis. pineiro has been pretty similar to wells. hamels, similar to dempster and lilly. look it up.
you called wells, silva and gorzelanny “5th starters at best” and that isn’t true, it’s just your ill-conceived belief. most teams would kill to have a 5th starter like wells because, well, wells has performed like a #3 this year.
by circuitclout on Aug 13, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
We just disagree
Wells at: 5-10, 4.60 ERA, WHIP of 1.43, if that is what you want from a 3 starter on a playoff contending team, fine. I think an upgrade is needed on this staff, nothing personal. You see it different.
not fantasy baseball
if you look at wells’ season and numbers in context you’ll find that yes, he could be a #3 on a contending team but that ignores the fact that he is our #4 or #5. there are pitchers in the rotations of contending teams that have been somewhere between equal to to much much worse than wells. if you just want to pimp out the starting staff by paying cliff lee, fine. but that wasn’t the point you initially made. you said wells and co. were 5’s at best and that’s just not the case.
by circuitclout on Aug 13, 2010 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
What you're doing is called "Comparing Apples and Oranges".
How can you say that out rotation stacks up against the pitchers you’ve listed. If I remember correctly, at no point have those pitchers composed a starting five rotation.
Please get back to us when you compose an argument that actually makes sense.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Aug 13, 2010 7:34 AM CDT up reply actions
They won't win 80 games because the lineup and bullpen will suck
You can definitely win 80 games with this rotation if you have a strong lineup and a competent bullpen. If you go into next season with an infield of DeWitt, Castro, Barney and Nady? Not so much.
A-Ram has pretty much acknowledged
that his poor season means he’s going to exercise his player option to return next year, rather than test the FA market.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Aug 12, 2010 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions
I was actually mocking a Sullivan tweet
Put those three guys in to gel for 2011
by JSB on Aug 12, 2010 10:54 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I wonder if the seats in the stadium start at zero instead of one because
so many C++/Python/Java/etc programmers in the Bay Area are used to indexing at zero…well, I’m just trying not to say anything about this latest loss. The Cubs still stink, but at least they’re more entertaining with the youngins’
"I'm not much of a chemistry guy, you know. Chemistry to me is a pinch-hit double with the bases loaded"--Jim Frey, Chicago Tribune, 1985.
It doesn't seem like it...
… unless they had a LOT of space between row 1 and the wall originally.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Can someone explain why the final score is 8-7 and not 9-7?
Torres hit bounced into the stands, untouched by Byrd. Is that not a ground-rule double, regardless of whether it was a game-winning hit or not? Len closed the broadcast by saying it was scored a single, but didn’t explain why.
I understand game is over when winning run scores, but in this case, winning run was probably tagging up on third, right? So he wouldn’t have left for home until ball is caught or (in this case) hits ground. No way he makes it home before ball lands in seats, so again – why isn’t the hit considered a ground-rule double?
If the ball had gone 20 ft. further, i.e. over the fence, it’d be considered a HR, right? And the final would have been 11-7. So if it’s a ground-rule double, shouldn’t the same logic apply and the score would be 9-7.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
cause it's a walkoff and it hit the ground, plus the base were loaded
by braziliancubsfan on Aug 12, 2010 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions
I understand it's a walkoff
I also understand game is over when winning run scores, but the ball bounced into the stands before the winning run scored. So from a timing perspective, it seems to me that it should have been ruled a ground-rule double before the game was technically over. Which means, two runs scoring. And my reason for thinking that is because if it had been a home run, all four runs would have been counted, not just the first one.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Don't know.
I assume he would have been initially tagging up just out of baseball instinct seeing as how there were less than two outs. But I’m also assuming that as soon as he saw where the ball was heading, he probably started towards 3rd in a joyful amble ready to start the celebration because runner on 3rd was going to easily score.
IIRC, there was a big gathering at home plate where they mobbed Torres and did the whole celebrating thing, but don’t know if Torres rounded all the bases or just cut across the mound (shhh! don’t tell Braden).
I guess if the runner on second never touched home plate, he couldn’t have scored, but then I’m confused on walkoff HRs with men on base. Is game over as soon as first runner touches home? If so, does it matter whether batter rounds all the bases or not? And if he doesn’t, is it still a homer?
Zeke – you’re an official scorer. What’s the verdict?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
MLB Rule 10.06 (f) and (g) applies:
(f) Subject to the provisions of Rule 10.06(g), when a batter ends a game with a safe hit that drives in as many runs as are necessary to put his team in the lead, the official scorer shall credit such batter with only as many bases on his hit as are advanced by the runner who scores the winning run, and then only if the batter runs out his hit for as many bases as are advanced by the runner who scores the winning run.
Rule 10.06(f) Comment: The official scorer shall apply this rule even when the batter is theoretically entitled to more bases because of being awarded an "automatic" extra-base hit under various provisions of Rules 6.09 and 7.05.
The official scorer shall credit the batter with a base touched in the natural course of play, even if the winning run has scored moments before on the same play. For example, the score is tied in the bottom of the ninth inning with a runner on second base and the batter hits a ball to the outfield that falls for a base hit. The runner scores after the batter has touched first base and continued on to second base but shortly before the batter-runner reaches second base. If the batter-runner reaches second base, the official scorer shall credit the batter with a two-base hit.
(g) When the batter ends a game with a home run hit out of the playing field, the batter and any runners on base are entitled to score.
This may be apocryphal, but as I recall this rule was changed in the 70s (to allow walkoff homers to count fully) because it was found that Babe Ruth had hit at least one of these walkoff homers-that-wasn’t-a-homer. You see, Henry Aaron was getting really close to the record.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Aug 12, 2010 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I should further mention that even if the story is true, it was NOT applied retroactively.
Ruth’s career total of 714 was always the number I knew as the record.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Aug 12, 2010 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions
A L is an L is an L is an L is an L.
Does it really make any difference??????
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 12, 2010 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm with shoemile and ballhawk.
It was an interesting footnote to the game. Yes, it didn’t make a difference in the result, but it’s something some people did not know. Now they do.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Sorry for the late reply. Been in Traverse City doing family stuff.
TDMORS has it correct. I would have had to look it up too for the exact rule #, but the rule as I remembered it was the batter gets credited with only as many bases as it would have taken to score the winning run, with the exception of a walk off HR (as was noted).
So ground rule double or not, as soon as the batter safely touched first, the game was over and the batter was credited with a single.
We have met the enemy and they are us! ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971
Thank you Zeke!
I read what’s in that blue box 4x and it was like just reading words. I simply could not comprehend it. It went in one eye and out the other. I felt pretty stupid. The way you explained it is much more understandable for a dimwit like me.
"Fasten those seatbelts!"-Pat Hughes
by katie casey on Aug 13, 2010 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm used to working with television engineers.
I specialize in translating caos into english. Most of the time. Well, sometimes. Okay, once in a blue moon.
We have met the enemy and they are us! ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971
Had the winning run been only at 2nd base,
then the batter WOULD have gotten the ground rule double.
We have met the enemy and they are us! ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971
got it
now
"Fasten those seatbelts!"-Pat Hughes
by katie casey on Aug 13, 2010 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Except for me.
I still don’t get it.
"Fasten those seatbelts!"-Pat Hughes
by katie casey on Aug 13, 2010 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
It's baseball.
It always makes sense…until it doesn’t ;)
We have met the enemy and they are us! ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971
I was curious about this as well
Seeing as if you hit a HR, all the runners score, as ordered.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
Ballhawk
This specific case is covered in the scoring rules…
I’m not sure why the rule reads that way, but it’s been that way for decades. (Perhaps the rule was instituted to keep extra runners from scoring if fans ran on the field.)
See rule 10.06 (f) and (g)
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
Deputy & DeRo - thanks for the explanations
It still doesn’t make sense and certainly isn’t logical, but at least the rules do a good job of covering all the exceptions, in effect acknowledging its illogicalness. I can respect that.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
This whole discussion
brings me back to the one-run losses. Looking at one-run losses initially looks like the games are very close, but are they? How many of our one-run losses this year have been on the road and thus walk-off losses? How many of those walk-off losses would have been by more runs had the winning hit come in an earlier inning? Just wondering is all but way to lazy to try to look it up.
And so it goes.
I looked it up.
And the results are interesting.
Cubs’ one-run W-L record at home: 12-13
Cubs’ one-run W-L record on road: 1-16
Now, I don’t know how this compares to other teams and intuitively, you’d think teams do better in one-run games at home. But this is a pretty extreme split. The only one-run game the Cubs have won on the road this year was 3-2 on June 24 in Seattle, and it took 13 innings to do it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Answers
Walk-off 1-run losses: 6/8 @MIL, 6/10 @MIL, 7/31 @COL, 8/9 @SFO, 8/12 @SFO
Game-enders:
6/8 @MIL: Marmol BS, allows 2 runs on HBP, SB, IBB, FC, and a 2-out single – no real opportunity for extra runs there.
6/10 @MIL: Ended on an error, Gomez BB, and then a sac bunt went for a throwing error, scoring him. Negative.
7/31 @COL: CarGo completes cycle on first pitch he sees in the 9th. Negative.
8/9 @SFO: Bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th, Sac Fly from Burrell ends it with none retired in the bottom of the 9th. Possible, but unlikely.
8/12 @SFO: Bases loaded, Torres bounces one for what would be a Ground-Rule Double at any other time. Definitely.
I was just gonna post that stinker of a joke and run like hell, but this question intrigued me. So there ya go.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Thanks for the research.
I guess I was more or less asking if the horrible one-run game won-lost record really didn’t explain the whole story; that perhaps we think the games were close but they really weren’t. Generally, one might think we are only a bullpen arm or two or a managerial decision or two away from being a fairly good team. Just another metric to follow I suppose.
And so it goes.
sights and sounds of the game
I spent half of the game walking around the stadium, and taking up temporary positions a couple of times in right field.
There were a couple of young dudes heckling Kosuke – this I was not surprised about. What I was surprised about was one of them was sitting with what appeared to be his dad and his grandpa, who were both yelling out and heckling, too. I was very tempted to lean over and ask how many generations of idiots were represented there. I sensed that the Giants fans around them were tired enough of their act to be supportive. I just wasn’t in a talkative enough mood though, so I let it slide.
In the end, I was glad that they made a game of it, so I got to slap a few fives with the Cub fans in the vicinity. They really did a good job of running up Cain’s pitch count and running him out early. Kosuke had some nice at-bats, including his 10-pitch effort in the first inning. One near-constant in baseball is that most teams’ bullpens make their fans nervous.
I didn’t expect much from the Cubs today, so I would have to say that they exceeded my expectations.
Sorry that I could not manage to meet you, Al. I did not catch the train that I was trying for – no parking spots near the train station in San Jose – so I didn’t get there as early as I expected.
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
Nice to talk to you on the phone.
Sorry we couldn’t meet up. I’m sure I’ll be out in SF again for games… hopefully to see a better Cubs team.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
One thing I never understood from last year,
Did I tell you where I was sitting? That’s the only reason I can think of for us walking around AT&T Park.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Aug 13, 2010 6:48 AM CDT up reply actions
I walk around the park every game at AT&T park
There are a lot of great views, and I like to see different parts of the crowd.
Also, unless you are sitting in general admission, someone can’t really “drop by” your seats, you need to meet up in a SRO spot. I was hoping to meet Al before the game, and avoid the issue.
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
That's really too bad.
Many ballparks have that policy. I can understand them wanting to keep some control over who goes into various reserved-seat sections, but seriously — how many of these meetups are there per game? It can’t be that many, and this “you can’t go there” policy is very fan-unfriendly.
Next time, for sure.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
second that one
We haven’t seen a shortstop with this much potential since Ernie. I’m very glad we didn’t sell high on Castro, as many people were saying when Granderson was a potential target.
Viva la Cubs Révolution!!!
I don't know if you can compare Starlin Castro to Ernie Banks.
However, there was a 20-year-old shortstop a number of years ago who had a pretty good rookie year and finished fourth in ROY voting. He had a pretty good career, made the All-Star team several times, won a bunch of gold gloves and played on a World Series winner.
Click here to find out who I’m talking about. The name should be very familiar to you — and to Starlin Castro.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
How about the critical E??
Every time the Cubs make an error it leads to 3-4 runs. Many of the errors have come from 3B (A-Ram 12 plus Baker, Tracy and Fontenot, probably 20 total).
Think we lead league in one category, unearned runs!!
The writers covering team have under-covered this aspect of the Cubs’ poor play (including Al Yellon).
The Cubs lead the major leagues in unearned runs.
In fact, I have not under-covered this. I have mentioned it quite a number of times.
It’s not just the errors — but as you say, the pitchers don’t shut the door AFTER the errors, which is where the unearned runs come from.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I tuned in when the score was 3-3 and saw Baker's throwing error.
And the first thing I tough of was: better get used to this. When DLee is gone, we’re going to see a LOT more of them.
I believe D would have dug out the short throw and made it look like no big deal. We’re very used to seeing him do it and we’re spoiled.
Nady at first simply reminds me to appreciate more any games D does play at first from here on out.
We have met the enemy and they are us! ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971
+1
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
Cashner
Andrew Cashner is not a reliever at all. I’d rather have him down at triple a working on other pitches/getting stretched out. Can’t believe this organization is screwing up another prospect.
by LouPiniellaIsRetiring on Aug 12, 2010 8:39 PM CDT reply actions
Yep.
first a starter, then a reliever, then a starter, now back in the pen.
Put him in the rotation.
Does it seem like Andrew Cashner is the 2nd coming of Kyle Farnsworth?
“Here’s my 98 MPH fastball…right down Broadway…see how far you can hit it.”
Ron Santo - 8,143 ABs, .277 BA; 342 HR; 1331 RBI = NO Hall of Fame?
Brooks Robinson - 10,654 ABs, .267 BA; 268 HR; 1357 RBI = Hall of Fame.
Any more questions ?
I think there have been several incarnations of Farnsworth.
Howry, Wuertz, Samardzija, Ohman, etc…
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Aug 13, 2010 6:49 AM CDT up reply actions
No, there is definately only one Farnsworth
All of the above may have been frustrating & uneven, but they did not throw 100MPH and there not complete
self destructive idiots.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Why did he try to catch the ball?
Because it’s Marlon Byrd. He will always give you 100%, no matter when or where.
"Get up or GET OUT THE WAY!"
~Stacy King
by wrigleyrocker12 on Aug 12, 2010 8:45 PM CDT reply actions
In his first year, I believe so.
Many managers have been going toward larger pitching staffs. To me, it just doesn’t make any sense. Some teams even have 13 pitchers at times, which gives you NO flexibility.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I only ask because I recall in Spring Training Lou saying
That an eleven man pitching staff might be in the cards (so Colvin could make the squad), but then noting that Rothschild would be against it.
Interesting.
Now that you mention it, I do recall that statement by Lou, and blaming Larry for it.
I’m not a Rothschild basher; in general I think he does a good job. But if the 12-man staff is his idea, someone has to talk him out of it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
If a veteran manager like Lou deferred to Rothschild in this instance
then I assume a first year MLB manager like Ryno likely would as well.
Or, maybe he'd question why and they'd come to a different agreement.
Maybe Lou just didn’t want to take responsibility and accountability. Ryno or another man could work differently.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
What Lou does will not neccesarily be repeated by any competent human being
If anything, this might have been the first clue that Lou was checking out. Allowing his coaching staff to override his own decisions.
by HuskerCorner on Aug 13, 2010 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Since Lou has always had a 12 man squad with the Cubs
It seems odd Rothschild would have to talk him into it this year. Colvin was clearly making the squad. the last spot was the death match between Tracy and Millar. On a side note
Andres Blanco gets to the post season.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 12:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Sure was a nice day
Nice to see Al, too. Caltrain from Sunnyvale worked out real well.
I wondered about the “00” numbering. Must be a West Coast thang.
Nice to meet you, too.
I did watch the replay of the Nady double. You can definitely spot me in the blue T-shirt in the first row, just behind where the ball bounced — twice, once on the hit, then again when you see Rowand throw the ball in.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
just got done scanning for you on the MLB network highlights
your blue shirt sticks out like a sore thumb
The 2010 Randy Hundley Fantasy Camp ruled!!!!
by VegasCubFan on Aug 12, 2010 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, I dunno if I'd put it that way.
But yes, you can see me there.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
compared to all the non-blue in the area
you stood out pretty well
The 2010 Randy Hundley Fantasy Camp ruled!!!!
by VegasCubFan on Aug 12, 2010 11:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Not any more confusing than the
numbering of the seating at Wrigley Field. My friend will be in Chicago for a series in September — he didn’t understand the seating he purchased in the Terrace, and I had issues understanding it, too.
I had to assume it’s due to an aisle splitting a section, with some seats in the “hundreds” and seats on the other side numbered “normally”; that is — 1, 2, 3….as opposed to 101, 102, 103.
That’s a strange, confusing system. There must be a better way, but I assume the system wants a row to begin with a “1,” even if it’s a “101.”
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 12, 2010 11:47 PM CDT up reply actions
It is confusing at Wrigley.
It’s because they have “sections” instead of “aisles”. If you had “aisles”, you could just number the seats 1,2,3,etc.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
What about sections like 237-1?
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Aug 13, 2010 6:51 AM CDT up reply actions
I think that means
Section 237, bisected by an aisle, seating is 1-2-3-etc. 237-101 means…. the other side of the aisle, seating marked as 101, 102, 103…
And somebody please correct me if this is not accurate.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 13, 2010 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Nice to see the Cubs come back to tie the game in the 8th...
Even if they lost it in the 9th, I like seeing the offense not give up.
Get 'em on, Get 'em over, Get 'em in!
McCovey Cove
Anyone beside me see the Cubs sailboat? After reviewing my pictures, I just realized one of the guys on the boat had on an SIU shirt.
I saw that boat last year
but didn’t catch it today
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
Sure Did !!
My wife noticed it first . " Look a Cubs sail boat ." Looked like a perfect day to be on the water . Only wish you could have flown the W Flag after the game …..
I didn't see the sailboat last year.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Aug 13, 2010 6:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Forecast for Sunday in St. Louis...
90 degrees and partly cloudy, 10% chance of rain.
Hopefully not a 100% chance that I will be leaving Busch Stadium with a bag on my head.
"Cubs fans....the wind beneath the Hawk's wings." Andre Dawson, on his induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, 7/25/10
Just make sure it's not a plastic bag...
We have met the enemy and they are us! ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971
That's Cool
There must be a “cold” front coming through St. Louis some time on Saturday then. You’re going to need thermal wear for that “freezing” 90 degree day in St. Louis.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Didn't end up
Making the game. After getting a late start because of work I thought I would still attempt it but limited and quite expensive parking killed the idea. Would’ve been better than getting to the airport 8 hours before my flight but just wasn’t in the cards. At least they made a game of it! Castro has been fun to watch for sure. I’m kicking myself for not making it to more Smokies games before he was called up (from Knoxville).
by cubbiefanTN on Aug 12, 2010 9:27 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Funny phrase
“he has to get away from the 12-man-pitching-staff-used-one-reliever-at-a-time theory”
Maybe if we used two relievers at a time we would get better results from our bullpen. Put a lefty and a righty up there and it makes PH decisions a lot tougher. Plus you can play the hidden ball trick
"There are no curses here...Games are won and lost on the baseball field" - Lou Piniella
by El Borto on Aug 12, 2010 9:30 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I guess we know the kind of advice Trammel is giving Lou every day.
Just the best reason why Trammel was not a good manager. Why he is a bench coach is something beyond my comprehension. I’m sure Lou could try unconvincingly, though.
Just a quick question, Al.
If the next manager of the Cubs does nothing else, he has to get away from the 12-man-pitching-staff-used-one-reliever-at-a-time theory that has ruined many Cubs games this year.
You can use more than one reliever at a time? Do they alternate pitches?
;)
Hope you had fun in San Fran…beautiful city.
Scott Bora$ is satan.
by Canadian Cubs Fan on Aug 12, 2010 11:23 PM CDT reply actions
Oops!
Missed above post.
Scott Bora$ is satan.
by Canadian Cubs Fan on Aug 12, 2010 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Who knows?
Alternating pitches, maybe it’d work better than what they’re doing now.
Had a great time here. Love visiting SF. Only wish there had been more Cubs wins.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Glad you had other reasons
for being in the Bay Area rather than witnessing bad baseball.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 12, 2010 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions
I refer you to the Dallas Cowboys,
When they alternated Craig Morton and Roger Staubach for nearly every snap in a game against the Chicago Bears.
The Cowboys outgained the Bears, but lost the game.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Aug 13, 2010 6:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Ancient Joke About Morton
He won a Super Bowl for the Cowboys and lost a Super Bowl for the Cowboys. It’s just he won a Super Bowl for the Cowboys, while he was playing for the Broncos in Super Bowl XII.
That being said, Morton’s career statistics actually compare favorably with Joe Namath’s. Namath did better in his one Super Bowl than Morton did in his two.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Starlin seems to be the real deal.
Still has to learn some situational hitting (as does Colvin) but I am looking forward to the C brigade for the next few years (Castro, Colvin, Beef Castillo)
The 2010 Randy Hundley Fantasy Camp ruled!!!!
poor cashner
already kicked out of the killer c’s for a backup catcher
by jesus christos on Aug 13, 2010 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions
While the score was not what I had hoped for
it was one of the best days I have ever had at a ballpark. I took my oldest grandson (almost 8) to his first Cubs’ game (technically his first NL game), it was a beautiful day (the first time SFers have seen the sun in a while), walked around the whole stadium to see the sites (his favorite was the statue of Juan Marichal doing his trademark high leg kick), had hot dogs, showed him how to keep score and saw an entertaining game. Yeah, the Cubs lost but it was a great day.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
Wish I'd have known you were there.
Would have been nice to say hello.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I knew after Larry visited the mound something bad would happen
I wonder if Rothschild will be able to do anything with Cashner.
It’s amazing how this team can keep battling back only to lose by one run.
On the plus side, I'm encouraged by the
battling back
part.
We have met the enemy and they are us! ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971
Question for the people:
Why do certain organizations — the Cardinals, the Braves, the Phillies — seem to have a shot at the postseason every year while the Cubs seem to have terrible seasons (this one, 2006, 2002, 2000) thrown in every few years?
I’ve been thinking about this since the FanPost the other day about whether the past 10 years was a good decade for the Cubs. I’d be more in the camp of Al and NBF if 90-loss teams didn’t pop up every few seasons, though I still think this decade has been better than the 1990s.
I know that certain teams compete every year because of their financial resources (the Yankees, the Red Sox). But teams in smaller markets than the Cubs seem to be perennial contenders — even if they don’t make the playoffs every year.
So what is it? Deep farm system? Better coaching? An organizational stressing of fundamentals? Fewer big contracts to second-rung free agents?
All of the above, I'd say.
Although, I’d bet if you look at some of those teams in depth, you’d find some bad contracts handed out as well. Nearly every team that can afford them does it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm starting to think it's fundamentals.
Watching the Reds last weekend, I saw a team — led by Dusty freaking Baker — that did the little things right. Putting aside his stated aversion to walks, maybe Dusty wasn’t the reason his Cubs teams made so many little mistakes.
The little things are always important, but when your talent is aging, it’s arguably more important. I wonder if the Cubs nucleus just isn’t good enough anymore to overcome the repeated stupid errors the team makes day in and day out. That, combined with a bad bullpen, could be a reason this team is SO bad in 1-run games.
The fundamentally sound players the Cubs have had in recent years (and there aren’t many) came from other organizations. The top players from within the system are not (usually) considered that sound on baseball smarts.
Well, guess what?
You and I agree on this again. The next manager and coaching staff need to emphasize this.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I think it's an organizational issue, actually.
The Cubs don’t teach enough fundamentals lower in the system. That’s not letting Lou off the hook.
I don’t think Dusty just discovered fundamentals when he got a 513 area code. I think the Reds were probably better about fundamentals, and Jocketty (a former Cardinal GM) has acquired players like Scott Rolen who do the little things right.
Well said, EG
The obsession with managers around here is perplexing. The problem is bigger than that, and higher up.
Dusty and Lou ...
each had two years where they should have gotten their teams farther. Their bad tactical decisions were at least partly responsible for wrecking the chances of the ‘03-’04 teams and the ‘07-’08 teams to win it all, not to mention the subsequent slides of the team in the following two seasons.
But fundamental mistakes were a big reason why the Cubs failed in three postseasons and down the stretch in 2004. And bad fundamentals in the second halves of the Lou and Dusty eras contributed to underachieving teams, when the talent was no longer good enough to win despite stupid mistakes.
(FWIW, I rank Lou ahead of Dusty because Dusty’s overuse of Wood and Prior in 2003 was a prime reason the talent dried up in ‘05-’06, whereas Lou didn’t do anything to contribute to the slides of several members of the offense in the past two years.)
This is all my way of throwing the caveat that Dusty and Lou are FAR from blameless. But Hendry has been the organizational constant, and he’s the guy who still can’t seem to get Cubs minor leaguers to learn how to bunt. I’m glad Lou’s gone at the end of the year, and I was glad Dusty wasn’t re-signed.
But Hendry needs to be gone, too. The fact that the organization is still signing and bringing up “toolsy” players who can’t do the little things might be more inexcusable than brain-dead FA signings like Bradley and Fukudome.
I don't see how you can say that about 2007
The Cubs barely squeaked into the playoffs. The D-Backs had a better regular season record and had homefield advantage. Getting swept sucks, but I wouldn’t say the Cubs clearly had the better team. 2008 is a different story obviously.
Also, what “toolsy” players have the Cubs been bringing up that can’t execute the fundamentals. I would argue that the Cubs haven’t brought up enough players with legitimate major league tools, rather than players that are fundamentally flawed.
I didn't say the Cubs were a better team than the D-Backs in '07.
But now that you mention it, who had the better record in from July 1 on? I’m guessing it was the Cubs. And if you’re saying Lou shouldn’t get blamed for tactical errors in THAT series, I’d like you to explain why he pulled Zambrano in Game 1 after six innings and relatively few pitches. The Cubs never recovered in that series after the D Backs rallied once Z was out.
As for “toolsy” players who are fundamentally flawed, what about Felix Pie? What about Corey Patterson? Those two guys were the top prospects in the organization at one time, but they were fundamentally flawed in terms of plate discipline.
Interesting
I think there is a lot of revisionist history about that 2007 team. Because we were so good in 2008, I think a lot of people think we were really good in 2007. That team in a normal year doesn’t make the playoffs even.
If you want to go down that road ...
The ‘03 Cubs only won 88 games — which often isn’t enough to make the playoffs. Hell, the ’04 team won 89 games and went home after the regular season.
I don't see your point?
The 2003 team wasn’t that good of a regular season team. The significant difference between 2003 and 2007 was that the ’03 team had two horses that were shutdown pitchers in the playoffs.
Actually, that is my point.
Regular season records don’t mean THAT much. The ’03 team was better than its record (because it had Prior and Wood) and so was the ’07 team (because it had such a strong second half).
Still not as good as the DBacks
That 2007 team started Jacque Jones and Cliff Floyd in the OF. It did not have dominating starting pitching. It was a decent team. Nothing special and far from built for the playoffs the way the 2003 team was. I don’t really consider 2007 to be a playoff failure.
It also started Lee, Ramirez and Soriano ...
all of whom were in their primes. You’re probably right that they weren’t better than Arizona, but were the ’03 Marlins better than the ’03 Cubs?
Anyway, my main point on this topic is that regular-season records don’t matter THAT much.
2 guys in 10 years?
I also don’t remember Pie making a lot of fundamental errors. I think his problems were that Lou didn’t want a rookie and he never hit. His defense was excellent and I don’t recall baserunning blunders.
For that matter, Patterson’s big flaw was plate discipline. That’s not really a lack of fundamentals, but lack of a tool.
Pie and Patterson had horrific plate discipline.
I’ll grant you that Lou didn’t give Pie enough of a chance, but the guy was a hacker. And so was C-Pat. But if you don’t view plate discipline as a fundamental skill, then we’re never really going to agree on this.
Those two guys were the top prospects in the organization. Ryan Theriot, another guy from the system, wasn’t exactly known for his fundamentals. I’m not bringing up Castro, who’s defense has been hit or miss but who IS only 20.
The sad truth is that there just haven’t been that many position players from the minors (particularly who came all the way up through the system) who have made an impact in Chicago. That’s on Hendry, too, frankly. He’s been GM or head of the farm system since the late ’90s (IIRC).
I’d say the most fundamentally sound player to come up through the Cubs system has been Geovanny Soto. But that’s one guy who’s fundamentals might be considered a plus. Again, the jury is out on Castro (though the early signs are good).
That's the same Geovany Soto
Who kept corralling dropped pitches with his catcher’s mask last year?
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
We definitely have a different view of things
In my mind plate discipline is a tool. If you don’t have it in the minor leagues, you likely won’t develop it in the major leagues. The difference between Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters isn’t that Jackson is a more fundamentally sound player. The difference is that Jackson has a tool that Vitters does not possess.
Now, if you want to argue that the Cubs don’t place enough emphasis on plate discipline in their scouting and drafting, I would start to agree with you much more.
How about this ...
The Cubs don’t place enough emphasis on plate discipline in scouting and drafting, and don’t do a good enough job of teaching players to do the little things (bunting, hitting behind runners, etc.) once their in the system.
I think some plate discipline can be learned, for the record. There are examples of guys becoming more selective.
Sosa might be the best example
I agree that the Cubs fundamentals are generally awful, but I don’t think they are the biggest problem with the team.
The biggest problem?
I think that is related. The Cubs don’t develop position players well, and they have to compensate at the major-league level (at least recently) by signing expensive free agents.
But I think the position players from the system struggle, at least in large part and in recent years, because they’re fundamentally flawed.
2 position players in 10 years
And only really lacking in one thing (plate discipline) that you could call a fundamental. If you only have 2 legitimate prospects in 10 years, that is a huge problem, regardless of whether they are fundamentally flawed or not. Let’s not pretend that if you give this 2010 team good fundamentals they would make the playoffs. Fixing the fundamentals (Sandberg?) will not fix this team.
Well, add Ryan Theriot to the mix.
And for Pie and Patterson, it was more like six (‘02-’08).
I’m not arguing with your second point. I’m saying you need talented players who are fundamentally sound. The Cubs, at their best, have had talented players who play well enough to overshadow their deficiencies.
Theriot was never a top prospect
Neither was Soto for that matter. Let’s focus on talent, not a bunch of Eckstein’s.
Soto's not talent?
He was the rookie of the year and is one of the better hitting catchers in the game.
Anyway, why wouldn’t we look at guys who played for the Cubs who came up through the system if we’re trying to assess the Cubs’ ability to develop young players? Albert Pujols wasn’t a top prospect — should we not look at him when judging the Cardinals’ ability to develop players?
Plate Discipline
I don’t consider plate discipline to be a fundamental, but rather a tool. Pitch recognition is a skill, not something that can be easily corrected.
Hmmm.
That’s interesting, but I think pitch recognition is only part of plate discipline. There’s also the baseball smarts required that prevents guys from, say, trying to pull everything.
True
But, I think the heart of players that have really good plate discipline is good pitch recognition. Barry Bonds, David Ortiz and Ryan Howard pull everything, but they still have pretty good plate discipline.
On a side note, I think Theriot’s biggest problem wasn’t plate discipline, but rather that he was such a weak hitter that pitcher’s could throw him strikes without fear. He was regularly behind in the count, which led to him swinging at so many first-pitch strikes.
You're right -- Theriot wasn't that talented.
But he compounded that by getting progressively dumber as a baseball player. It was kind of amazing to watch.
That's a problem with the system
You don’t get perfect five tool prospects all the time, but it’s important to develop players and develop the major league skills internally. There also needs to be a system of accountability. You can’t exactly treat major league players like college players, but you can, for the most part, control who comes in and out of your system. The Rays are so good because they developed incredible players. It can’t be just because they had a bunch of number one picks for years, but because they drafted well and developed their players well. This is something the Cubs have been lacking and why they continue to lose.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
I completely agree.
I also think the team hasn’t done a great job considering fundamentals when signing and trading for players.
Agreed with both of you.
This is something that MUST be changed from the bottom up. Hopefully, that’s a priority beginning next year.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The lack of fundamentals ...
might be the most damning thing for Hendry. He’s been the one mainstay in this organization for the past decade-plus AND he was the minor-league director. If anyone is to blame for this …
by elgato on Aug 13, 2010 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
hey now, before you actually start holding Jim accountable for his missteps
you must suggest a replacement.
Am I doing this right?
by HuskerCorner on Aug 13, 2010 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions
As a Cardinals fan...
I can tell you the emphasis on fundamentals probably adds 5 wins a year. Of course, there’s no way to prove this, but it definitely adds up. It’s an organizational priority and has been since the 1930s at least.
The one thing about the Cubs I can never understand is how they can be so fundamentally unsound year-in, year-out. I’m certain it drives all of you nuts. As a baseball fan, it drives me nuts.
by mattisnotfrench on Aug 13, 2010 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Really?
It drives you nuts that the Cubs have bad fundamentals? If the Cards had bad fundamentals year in and year out I would throw a party.
I hate watching bad baseball.
Sure, I hate the Cubs. The errors are funny the first couple times but really, do you LIKE watching bad baseball, even if it’s the other team?
by mattisnotfrench on Aug 13, 2010 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Then that's where you and I differ.
Good baseball > bad baseball for me, even if it’s the Cubs.
I distinctly remember applauding Kerry Wood’s 20 strikeout game even though he was a Cub just because of how ridiculous and amazing it was.
by mattisnotfrench on Aug 13, 2010 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm with you.
Good baseball > bad baseball for me, even if it’s the Cards.
"Fasten those seatbelts!"-Pat Hughes
Me too. I LOVE baseball and will watch any game
kind of makes it a little more painful to see the Cubs struggle though
Question, Cardinals fan:
I’m guessing there have been quite a few instances of talented players but fundamentally unsound Cardinals who get traded, in what might look like a head-scratching move now and again.
Am I right? If so, do you have any examples?
Fernando Tatis comes to mind.
Puts up a great 1999 season but isn’t always there, gets traded, essentially is out of baseball like three years later.
Then there’s J.D. Drew, but that’s a different story altogether. I’ve never seen such a talented player be so disliked by his own fans EVERYWHERE he goes.
by mattisnotfrench on Aug 13, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Tatis came up through the Cards system, right?
That’s part of the Cubs problem. They’ve had such a lack of position-player talent over the years that the guys they have are usually in long-term contracts, often with NTCs (see Soriano, Alfonso). The Cubs sign then to these contracts and then discover that they can’t hit behind runners, or bunt, or have OBPs over .320.
Soriano's problem
Soriano’s problem is not that he can’t bunt or hit behind runners. The problem is that he isn’t that good of a hitter anymore. Fundamentals are nice to talk about and this year’s Cubs team doesn’t have good fundamentals. BUT, my team of bad fundamental players that are good players will beat your team of good fundamental players that aren’t good. David Eckstein vs. Hanley Ramirez. Let’s focus on getting talent, not fundamental ballplayers.
You JUST proved my point, JSB.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that (I’d bet) Jim engages in. Talent is more important than fundamentals — so let’s sign Soriano to an 8-year deal!
Soriano’s problem is that he can’t hit as well anymore and it’s MAGNIFIED by the fact that he’s not fundamentally sound. He’s no longer talented enough to overcome his shortcomings, which are now glaring.
Just like the 2010 Chicago Cubs.
And when you have to sign FAs because ...
your position player core in the minors is historically terrible, you can end up overpaying for an aging player whose talent is about to dwindle to the point where it can no longer overshadow his fundamental weaknesses.
Here we agree
I think this is the fundamental problem with the Cubs organization. They have failed to draft and develop talented position players. Nothing to do with fundamentals.
Pie and Patterson weren't talented?
True, the Cubs have drafted a bunch of position players who haven’t had the talent to amount to amount to much. And for a while, the organization focused on developing pitching.
But the highly touted guys like Patterson and Pie weren’t fundamentally sound (because they lacked plate discipline) and couldn’t hack it with the Cubs.
2 players in 10 years
You need more than 2 great prospects in 10 years. No team has a 100% hit rate on top prospects turning into all-stars.
Plus, Pie never really got a chance and Patterson was a 2.2 WAR player in 2003 and a 4.9 WAR player in 2004. Hardly a complete failure. He didn’t develop as we liked, but he was a key piece on two good teams.
It was less than 10 years.
As I mentioned above. And I agree that you need more than two good prospects in the span of several years.
And compared with his projected upside, Patterson was a big failure.
Between 2000 and 2009
Who were the big Cubs prospects (top 25 in all of baseball)? The only two that I can come up with are Pie and Patterson. Correct me if I am wrong. That to me is the biggest problem, not that the organization as a whole doesn’t bunt etc.
I assume you're talking position players ...
because the Cubs did have several highly touted pitchers come out of the minors (Prior, Hill, Guzman).
Let’s agree to disagree. We both think the team needs to do a better job developing position players. I think they need to do a better of that AND making sure they know how to do the little things.
Sure
I am not opposed to having a good fundamental baseball team. I just care more about talent than fundamentals if we are going to prioritize.
I wasn't advocating for a team of Craig Counsells.
Talent’s hugely important. But I don’t think the Cubs do a good job of developing the talent, including teaching fundamentals.
Um, that doesn't prove your point
Signing Soriano was a bad move because you signed a declining player that relied on his legs to an 8-year deal, not because he had bad fundamentals. Bad fundamentals are a very small piece of that puzzle.
hendry
needs to pay attention to all these one run losses. which means you need to look at players that can drive in runs this winter.ahem ,adam dunn. obviously this million dollar hitting coach we hired made no difference. sad to say im not even affected by the losses anymore because i expect them every day. i may have given up on the cubs but as always i shall return and look forward to the 2011 season.
The one-run losses....
… can also be chalked up to an inexperienced bullpen, and errors leading to far too many unearned runs.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
an inexperienced /uneven bullpen and a poor bench.
The 20-25th players on the bench DO matter. I noticed are old friend Andy White is not hitting much at all in Texas but seems to be very useful as a defensive replacement. Cubs bench was a mish mosh with little, speed, defense or bunting ability. Too little planning put into both bench players and middle relievers.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions
You know what!?
Someone should have suggested that Sam Fuld make the team! He’s a valuable bench player with speed, defense and bunting ability!
Boy, DS! If only you had suggested this earlier! The entire SEASON might have been different.
9th Inning Defenisve Replacements, Bunting and Pinch-Running
Yep, one of the biggest problems with this 48-67 team is that we don’t have a good pinch-runner or bunter. Please.
Not about Fuld
You guys were happy with a bench of Hill, Nady, Baker etc.? It is a bench that can not make up for what the regular lineup already lacks, speed, defense and overall small ball. A bullpen that has no effective middle relief? It is like both the bench and bullpen were put together by throwing darts.
The fact that is likely that not a single one of the Cubs "bench" players will be back next season should be a strong indication that something was very, very wrong with its’ construction.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions
The bullpen is a different issue.
Signing Nady was a big mistake. But Sam Fuld’s presence on this team would have changed almost nothing.
Instead of "almost nothing", I am going to go with "nothing"
The bench hasn’t been good this year. The starting position players and the front half of the bullpen have been a far bigger problem.
The whole bench sucked
You people need to stop obsessing over Fuld. When not a single bench player is likely to come back, you obviously had a big problem.
The FRONT half the bullpen was a problem? Really Marmol & Marshall were
a problem or are you starting the bullpen from the bottom up?
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Back end = 8th and 9th inning
I am pretty sure that is the standard way of phrasing it.
There is always a lot of turnover on the bench. But, then again you were pining for Chad Tracy for half the season, so I am sure if we had had Fuld and Tracy like you wanted our bench would have preformed so much better.
Nobody is obsessing over Fuld
If you didn’t post here, his name would probably have come up 5 times all season and only in minor league recaps.
The whole season was a big problem!
Almost NOTHING worked. Byrd, Castro, Marmol, Marshall and Colvin have been good and Soriano, Dempster, Gorzo and Lilly have been decent.
Obsessing about the bench is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
This started with a discussion of one run losses
The bench becomes key in one run losses and the inability of the Cubs bench to do anything this year was a HUGE problem. A significantly better bench would have made a major difference, not like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Obviously A-Ram & Lee hitting would have made a huge difference too but the idea that the bench is largely meaningless is simply not true. This is not about the “25th” player, it is about how the entire bench was constructed.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Rating things that went wrong this season.
1. Our Nos. 3 and 4 hitters forgetting how to hit a baseball.
2. Our $18 million ace acting like a child for the 27th time.
3. Our $18 million left fielder “recovering” to the point where he might be worth half of his contract.
4. Our $14 million right fielder continuing to suck for the third straight year.
5. Our bullpen front end pitching like the AA fodder they really are.
6. Our bench.
You’re complaining about the bathroom rug when the house is on fire.
Bingo
A player like Fuld isn’t going to turn around half those one-run losses. But, DS enjoys focusing on the manager and the bench when there are much larger fundamental problems.
FWIW ...
In hindsight, the Cubs shouldn’t have signed Nady, and Fuld would have been a decent fifth outfielder. But only because of the savings involved. The team would still be awful.
True
In hindsight the Cubs shouldn’t have signed Nady because Colvin was going to play everday, making a platoon partner for Dome superflous. Fuld is a better 5th OF than Nady. Is Fuld almost out of options? Maybe Tony Campana will get a cup of coffee this year to give DS a new favorite.
Stop doing the Fuld thing
It was the WHOLE damn bench. It could have been Adducci over Nady and it would probably have been similar to Fuld. When you write off the bench as some insignificant afterthought , you are not building a team that can win and hell yes a better bench might actually have been able to turn around half those losses. A lot of things might have , but a good bench is key. If you don’t have players on the bench who can do the things needed to win one run ball games, then that is as much to blame as the relief guy who gave up the go ahead run.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
So, hypothetically speaking ...
had the Cubs constructed a better bench, you think they would have “turned around half of those losses”? I assume you mean the 1-run losses …
So a better bench would have meant the Cubs would have won 14-15 more games? Are you serious?
That idea is totally unsupported by any statistical analysis
How probably a total of 200 PA is going to make a 14-15 game difference is incomprehensible. This is the same type of thinking that pins the last two years on Lou Piniella’s in-game moves.
200 at bats?
Really you are saying on average a team uses a bench player only a little over one at bat per game?
I am hardly going to check the stats for your but I imagine it would at least triple that and it is not all about at bats. You have heard of defensive replacements and pinch runners? Not that the Cubs had anyone to do that much this year but I have heard it happens when you have the right players.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
There's a difference between at-bats by bench players ...
and at-bats by bench players in clutch situations.
Ok if you are saying bench players get
200 clutch at bats , fine with me because HELL YES a better bench wins games if they get 200 Clutch ABs (not to mention running and fielding)
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Of course a better bench would win games!
We’re saying that your assumption that it would have won another 15 games is a leap. The difference between a good bench and a bad bench just doesn’t have that much of an impact.
What team has a bench full of great players?
Bench players are bench players for a reason. They aren’t very good. Sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle with a bench player (i.e. Fontenot in 2008), but usually your bench players are going to be below league average.
A good bench is bench of role players
not starters ( which FYI is why I like Fuld as he fills a role and no one should have any expectation he would be a starter). You need guys who can play a few different positions, guys who have some speed, guys who are good at defense and guys who have pop in their bat. None is really good enough to start everyday but each fills some specific needs. Basically you are looking for 2 to 3 tool players. I am not sure the Cubs bench had more than 1 tool players if that.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Fontenot is a decent bench player.
Baker and Hill, based on last season, looked like decent bench players. And Colvin, who started the year on the bench, has been so good he’s become a starter.
That leaves Nady. I agree that this was a bad signing, and that Hendry shouldn’t have made it from Jump Street. But not signing Nady wouldn’t have made the Cubs bench better.
And even if the Cubs bench HAD been better, it wouldn’t have mattered. Your assertion that they could have provided another 14-15 wins is just ridiculous.
Colvin has pop
And was said to be the best baserunner on the team. Anyone remember what people were saying about his defense?
Yes I am serious
You are talking about one run games, many if not most of which involved the Cubs inability to hit in the clutch when they could have scored. I would probably put
the failure of middle relief higher on my list but I would actually have to go over the game one by one and my stomach could not handle that.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Ugh
Seriously, you think that 100% of the time that Fuld was up instead of Nady he would have gotten a hit? No. Maybe that happens two times all season. You are talking about an insanely small sample size of times that the game has depended on Nady and the difference between Nady and Fuld is maybe .230 v. .280. I am no math whiz, but you are talking maybe 1 time all season it makes a difference.
Beyond that ...
clutch hitting by starters is FAR more important than clutch hitting by bench players. There might be one or two times a game when a pinch-hitter comes up in a key moment — because they don’t usually come into play until late in the game.
Exactly
But DS deals in small sample sizes and hindsight thinking. Hence the focus on the bench and the manager.
You can accuse me of a lot of things but
not hindsight. I have been saying this since the start of the season.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions
OK I give up
The bench was great. It was all about Sam Fuld and has nothing to do with Nady taking ABs away from Colvin or throwing away games or the rest of the bench being unable to hit in clutch situations. I actually believe if the Cubs had Fuld they would have won the World Series or so that is what you seem to think
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions
How did Nady take bats away from Colvin?
Beyond maybe a game or two?
How bout most of April & May?
Without Nady, Lou basically does not have a right handed “option” (not that Nady was much of an option. Colvin basically forced Lou to play him when he hit so well when he did get ABs, with more ABs earlier he likely gets in the line up earlier.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions
What?
Are you contending that Lou Piniella would have played a rookie who hits left-handed more against lefties had Nady not been on the team?
Odds are, Lou would have used another righty in that spot instead of Colvin. Nady didn’t block Colvin.
Not if he did not have another righty
Look if the Cubs had signed a decent righty OF fine, but they didn’t. We are not talking about pinch hitting here, we are talking about the OF, without a right handed OF to go to , Lou does not have a lot of choices. Colvin or Dome and in that case Colvin gets some more starts.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Please
Not having a right-handed OF going into this year would have been the height of stupidity. I know you hate platoon splits, but the ENTIRE history of baseball tells you that they aren’t irrelevant, especially when you are relying on a player (Dome) who has demonstrated he sucks against lefties.
Wait a second
So you are saying if the Cubs had had James Adducci rather than Xavier Nady on the bench they would have a much better record. Good lord.
Yes but only because of Colvin
but since everyone thinks I only think the bench is a problem because Fuld is not on it, I am willing to throw in the next Cub player on the food chain. Again the biggest asset of not having Nady from the start would be more time for Colvin earlier.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Um, Nady didn't have much bearing on Colvin's time in the early going.
Lou was reluctant to play Colvin against lefties, and that’s when Nady got the majority of his playing time.
Fukudome (and the decent starts by Byrd and Soriano) blocked Colvin.
Relying on Colvin in the off-season would have been stupid
Hell, at least Caridad and Berg had some success last year, and we all thought relying on them was a bad idea. Signing a player like Nady was a good idea, unfortunately Nady didn’t pan out. Let’s not pretend like the Cubs would have been better off with a system scrub than a veteran outside the organization when they had huge question marks in left field and right field.
Relying on a guy coming off major
arm surgery who you admit from the start is not fully recovered is horrible. The Cubs would clearly have been better off with Fuld and possibly Adduci, they would have been better off with a lot of players. I did not hate the signing of Nady, I hated the idea of letting him start the season when he was not healthy. It turns out he was never good anyway but the mistake was ever letting a guy on a roster when he is not fully recovered.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Did you not notice I said a player *like Nady*
In retrospect Nady was a bad signing. You admitted you supported it at the time it was made. Playing Adduci or Fuld in April in May instead of Nady would not have made a damn bit of difference with this sorry baseball team.
I did not support it
but I was OK with it, what I was not OK with was letting him play when he was not healthy. I think I only posted that 800 times. It would have made a difference, maybe one or two games but it would have made the Cubs better and you just never know how things change from little things. The reason it was so frustrating is that it was freaking obvious that Nady should not be playing.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions
The Cubs bench is bad
And I think we all wish it was better. Those guys, however, are not in the system.
It's interesting that Doggie puts so much emphasis on the bench
When she’s constantly harping on Lou for using it, regardless if the bench is good or not.
You still have to use what you have
the best way you can, Lou did not do that.
However it it makes you feel any better the failure to construct a good bench is clearly Hendry’s
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not disagreeing that the bench is bad
But I think that the biggest problem is Nady and Hill. Fukudome may be absurdly overpaid, but he’s not a bad player.
Dome is not a bad player
but is not well suited to being a bench player. Baker has been pretty bad as well. Fonty was probably the best of the lot but he did not get used as much as he should have.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Fukudome ...
has stats that are inflated by a good April, and he’s still only hitting .250. His good defense is not that much of a plus considering he can’t hit lefties (limiting his playing time).
Fukudome is a bad player.
And a slugging percentage of .437.
And he CAN’T HIT LEFTIES. And the fact that he never does anymore forced the Cubs to SIGN Nady all the while making Kosuke’s stats look halfway decent.
If he played every day ...
which a guy making $14 million should be doing, his OPS would be a lot lower.
You're bringing the money into this discussion
Which is irrelevant. And you’re probably right, his OPS would be lower if he played everyday. He doesn’t though, which is why I said he’s decent for a bench player.
Decent for a bench player ...
is not the same thing as ‘good.’
Fine.
Kosuke Fukudome is a decent baseball player who is ridiculously overpaid (which is relevant), severely miscast on the Cubs and totally frustrating.
It's not relevant when assessing skill
Which is my point. You wanna talk about bang for your buck, then yeah.
I know you've made it your mission
To get everyone to see that Jim blew it with Fukudome (we all have our causes), but I’m not sure who you’re arguing with.
Lou overused Theriot and didn't start Colvin enough early in the year.
But other than that, Lou’s biggest failing this year was in lineup arrangement, not who actually played. And having Adduci or Fuld wouldn’t have really changed that, DS.
Would not have changed Theriot's use
would have changed Colvin’s use.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions
You're serious?
After Castro came up, there was no reason anyone with a brain would have played Theriot almost exclusively over Fontenot. I would have advocated a straight platoon at second, but I would have been happy with an occasional start from LBR.
Ok I am getting confused
I was only saying having Fuld or Adduci had not relationship to if Theriot played. I was not suggesting
Lou should have kept Theriot in everyday. That was his most insane move of all.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions
The bench didn't fail?
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Aug 13, 2010 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Not really
I mean, it wasn’t great. But, it was also overexposed because the starters have sucked or been hurt. Dome is a good bench player, Baker is a decent utility player and Fontenot is fine for a backup 2B. It’s far down the list of things that have failed the Cubs this season.
or...
Are one-run losses due to poor defense, and errors? In that case, Adam Dunn may not be the best medicine.
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
Considering that he'd be playing first base
And his bat more than makes up for things, I don’t see the problem. Lee has had a down year defensively and at the plate. Dunn would be an upgrade.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
see Zeke's note above
about us getting used to DLee digging throws to first out of the dirt.
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
good point
in a perfect world sandberg will have them working on that in spring training
I hope he has, and had, the young guys working on it in Iowa.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Aug 13, 2010 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
BWAH!
I think of that suck-assed song and band whenever his name is mentioned. “Starland Vocal Band.”
Another annoying song from the `70’s (redundant?): “Magic,” being used on a commercial, the likes of which I can’t recall. Because I cover my ears when it comes on.
Do you mean "Do You Believe in Magic" or another song?
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Aug 13, 2010 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions
No, I think it's a different song.
And thanks, thermal54. Now I have an earworm for that dumb ’70s song.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Can't bring that song into my memory ... luckily. Please don't help.
“Do You Believe in Magic” by the Lovin’ Spoonful, from the 1960’s, is being used by that Chase commercial featuring the newlyweds that have more fun in bed on their wedding night scanning wedding-gift checks than …
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Aug 13, 2010 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Pillsbury used this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iiryJwvDtc
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
OH NO! I ASKED YOU NOT TO HELP ME REMEMBER!
Now I have that song on the brain, too. Let me go spin “Under My Thumb” to cure the problem.
Here’s the Spoonful song used in the Chase commercial.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Aug 13, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
But I'm helpful by nature
That, and earworms were meant to be shared.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Yeah, that's it!!
Gotta love that searing guitar bridge. Man, it’s even worse in hifi!
Weird fact: song was produced by Alan Parsons. Definitely in the WTF? category.
Okay, here's one for you
Sam the Clam and Larry the Lobster were best of pals, playing together in a hot band and carousing together after all the shows. One night so late it was morning again, they were finally heading home after last call. As they crossed the street, a double-decker bus comes out of nowhere and kills them dead. Sam the Clam, being a ruffian of the worst sort, finds his soul claimed by the devil, while Larry the Lobster, who had once smiled at a down-and-out little match girl, wound up outside of the pearly gates.
Now Larry the Lobster, feeling loyalty to his buddy, hits up St. Peter for a favor one day. ‘My good pal Sam the Clam must surely be sore that we never jam together anymore, and I hear he’s opened his own club down there in hell… do you think there’s a chance I can get a pass to visit him and play a gig for old times’ sake?’ St. Peter feels for Larry the Lobster, and manages to sneak him a one-night-only pass to take the invisible escalator all the way down to hell and pay his visit. Larry the Lobster is thrilled, but realizes he lost his horn in the accident. He asks the heavenly choir for a loan, but all they have are harps. So, he takes a harp and jumps on the escalator.
He gets to hell and has a fantastic time, jamming and playing all the old tunes all night with Sam the Clam in a packed-out club. When his time is up, he rides the escalator back up to heaven. He runs into St. Peter at the top and thanks him for a grand old time. St. Peter looks Larry the Lobster up and down and asks, ’Aren’t you forgetting something?’ Larry the Lobster thinks for a second, slaps his forehead and says, ‘I left my harp in Sam Clam’s Disco!’
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
::groan::
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
I'm having one of those days.
I don’t get this either. Is it too early for a beer?
"Fasten those seatbelts!"-Pat Hughes
by katie casey on Aug 13, 2010 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Say the last line out loud
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
You know why it's always cool at san francisco baseball games?
All those giant fans.
"Fasten those seatbelts!"-Pat Hughes
Lol. Reminded me of THIS joke:
Mel Famey of the Milwaukee Braves was a natural — a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon whose fast ball blew away the best hitters. His 90 MPH curve ball would start out like it was going to hit the batter’s ear, only to break at the last instant and hit the outside corner of the plate for a strike.
His change up made the best hitters in the league cry — they would swing, drop the bat, and stare incredulously as the ball hit the catcher’s mitt.
He was indeed awesome!
Why then, you might ask, is he not in the Hall of Fame? Why haven’t you ever heard of him?
Alas, like many others before him, Mel’s downfall was demon alcohol.
Ol’ Mel really liked to tilt the glass. His drinking became almost legendary around the country, but he never let it affect his pitching until The Braves and the Yankees were in the World Series!
Excitement reigned!
The series was tied at three games apiece, and the Braves were in New York for the seventh and deciding game.
The night before the big event, Mel’s thirst got the better of him. He sneaked out of the hotel after curfew, and bought himself two cases of beer.
As you might imagine, the next morning Mel didn’t feel too good.
But being the pro that he was, Mel managed to do just fine — until the bottom of the ninth inning. With the Braves ahead by one run, two out, and the bases loaded, Mel’s revelry the night before finally caught up to him.
Eight straight pitches — eight straight balls. He walked in the tying run and the winning run, thereby, losing the game and the series.
After the game, a reporter went to the jubilant Yankee’s clubhouse and spoke to the last two players that faced Mel. “Tell me,” he asked, “to what do you attribute this victory over the best pitcher in the major leagues”?
In unison they replied, … “It was the beer that made Mel Famey walk us”!
We have met the enemy and they are us! ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971
HA! I get that one.
Can’t wait to show my daughter. She goes to school in Milwaukee. My husband being a home brewer is forever teasing her to use her biochemistry major to become a brewmaster. She gets mad and scoffs at him which makes the Milwaukee and beer jokes even funnier.
"Fasten those seatbelts!"-Pat Hughes
Which reminds me of this seasonal joke.
Guy walks into the lobby of a hotel, passing a group of people arguing over who’s better at some game. They stand pointing and yelling and bragging and making a lot of noise.
The guy proceeds to registration and asks the clerk what’s going on. The clerk points to the hotel’s daily events schedule announcing a chess tournament.
“Chess nuts boasting in an open foyer,” he says.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
I don't think that word means what you think it means
As a service to the community, I have decided to replace your “Existential” questions with questions that are actually existential.
Existential questions cross the mind after the Cubs’ 8-7 loss to the Giants on Thursday afternoon.
* Is it better to get blown out 17-2, 11-4 or 18-1,as the Cubs have been on three occasions in the last two weeks?or to cease to exist at a moment of great joy?
* Is it better to lose three out of four to a contending teamplay hard and play them well, but lose all three games by one run?without understanding the nature of that contending team? After all, we can only seek to understand their form by first understanding their meaning.
* What about losingsix games by one runall sense of awareness of ones’ self since the first of August? Would the Cubs cease to exist, as this awareness is what drives their actions, their essence?
* Do you think Lou Piniella is consideringstaying in Florida instead of rejoining the team in St. Louis?the notion that freedom of choice is punishment, not a benefit? That life is nothing more than a series of poor alternatives, each choice wrought with negative implications?
For what it’s worth, this place is usually successful at reinforcing the existential idea that hell is other people, so we’re not operating at a total loss here.
by Wreckard on Aug 13, 2010 3:44 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Great Post
But, for people that believe the worst moment of their life was when the Cubs lost in 1984, those might be existential questions.
A little late to the joke party... but here's one baseball related
The Boston Symphony was performing Beethoven’s Ninth. In the piece, there’s a long passage about 20 minutes during which the bass violinists have nothing to do. Rather than sit around the whole time looking stupid, some bassists decided to sneak offstage and go to the tavern next door for a quick one.
After slamming several beers in quick succession (as bass violinists are prone to do), one of them looked at his watch. “Hey! We need to get back!”
“No need to panic,” said a fellow bassist.
“I thought we might need some extra time, so I tied the last few pages of the conductor’s score together with string. It’ll take him a few minutes to get it untangled.”
A few moments later they staggered back to the concert hall and took their places in the orchestra. About this time, a member of the audience noticed the conductor seemed a bit edgy and said as much to her companion.
“Well, of course,” said her companion. "Don’t you see?
It’s the bottom of the Ninth, the score is tied, and the bassists are loaded."
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by 



















