Astros' Brett Myers Dominates; Cubs Shut Out For 10th Time In 2010
Sometimes, you just give credit to the other guy.
Brett Myers has been dominant over the Cubs all season long -- and in fact, for his entire career; he's now 10-3, 2.21 against them in 17 appearances (13 starts).
Last night was no exception, as Myers didn't allow a hit until Alfonso Soriano singled with two out in the fifth. The rest of the Cubs also went down meekly against Myers and two Houston relievers and the Cubs ended their homestand with a 4-0 loss to the Astros in front of a crowd announced as 33,623.
There were probably fewer than half that number in Wrigley Field last night on an evening with definite fall-like chill in the air. The wind was blowing off the lake, which didn't stop Hunter Pence's drive deep into the left field bleachers in the third inning. That gave the Astros one more run than they needed; they had scored in the second inning off Randy Wells.
Once again, Wells managed to finish six innings. That's the 18th time in 29 starts that he's been able to do that, but once again, he just kept getting hit; two of the four runs were scored after two were out. Wells is going to have to step up his game next year to be anything more than a fifth starter.
There isn't a whole lot more to say about this game, which finished up a homestand for the Cubs at 5-4. That doesn't sound great, and it isn't, but it is the first time the Cubs had a winning homestand since they went 6-4 against the Phillies, Astros and Cardinals right after the All-Star break.
On second thought, there are a few more things to say about last night's game. After they finally broke through with Soriano's hit, the Cubs did have some chances to score, particularly in the seventh inning when Tyler Colvin doubled with one out. Geovany Soto lined a single to left -- and Colvin stopped at third. I didn't see whether 3B coach Ivan DeJesus held him up, but Carlos Lee in left field was conceding the run with Houston up 4-0; Lee nonchalantly fielded the ball and seemed surprised that Colvin stopped at third. The Cubs have had terrible trouble getting runners home from third with less than two out, and that inning was no exception. Soriano popped up and Micah Hoffpauir, batting for Darwin Barney, struck out.
There's a bone to pick with new manager Mike Quade. Hoffpauir isn't going to be on next year's team. Barney is. Why not give the kid a chance to hit in that situation and drive in a run against a tough starting pitcher who was just about at his pitch limit? That PH appearance made no sense. Neither did the three mid-inning pitching changes that Houston manager Brad Mills made, and the change that Quade made to bring in Sean Marshall to face Anderson Hernandez after Marcos Mateo had retired the first two hitters in the eighth inning.
Sometimes the parade of relievers for platoon advantage is silly. Last night was one of those times.
Enough. My night was capped off on returning to my car and finding a flat tire. Enjoy the off day.
182 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Caption: Just follow the bouncing ball.
If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.
Jeff Keppinger
I think the Cubs should go out and pick up Jeff Keppinger and I say this just so he never would have to bat against the Cubs. I am not sure how to get his stats against the Cubs but I would be willing to bet it is a lot better than his career 281/337/390.
Keppinger lifetime vs. Cubs
.320/.390/.400 in 228 plate appearances
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Thanks
Seems like it is about 400/500/600 what website do you use again for that Al?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/
Click on “splits” and work down to versus different teams. Some people are able to find amazing information on that site.
He's a modern-day Jeff Blauser.
Which means signing him would blow up in our faces.
FWIW ...
I think Keppinger is a different kind of player — steadier and smarter, mostly — than Blauser. And if the Cubs didn’t have a lot of good infield options in the organization, I think your idea would have some merit at the right price.
That said, our GM is Jim Hendry, so he’d probably get too much money and a partial no-trade.
I'm beginning to think that Randy Wells just isn't anything more than a fifth starter.
I’d love for someone more stat-oriented than myself to take a look to see if Wells just had better luck last season. My impression is that he has had bad luck on ball put in play this year — and that the reverse was true last year.
I’ve arrived at this conclusion, in part, because the other usual culprits aren’t there — bad control, mechanical issues, injuries. If anybody else has a better theory, I’d love to hear (read) it.
I agree
With his stuff he has to be borderline perfect. He is not Maddux or no one is, the point being when you do not have 93-95 heat, you constantly have to hit your spots with constant movement. Wells just doesn’t have that type of stuff. He is a 5th starter with a team that already has Silva, and Gorzo as a 5th starter.
Now I am waiting to be crucified by the Stats people that Wells has thrown more like a 3 starter this year. Well, sorry he is not, he is nothing but a 5th starter.
I think you're right -- about Wells and Silva.
But Gorzo is better than a No. 5. He suffered from bad run support. I’d say Gorzo is at least a No. 4, and maybe he has the upside to be a No. 3 (though that is his ceiling).
And Silva is starting to look like a #6
i.e. long relief, mop-up guy. When you have been up, reversion to the mean hurts…..
The stats people would have always agreed with you
even last year, Wells was basically a 5th starter. His BABIP last season was .329 and this year it has been .326. He doesn’t have that type of dominating stuff you need to be a #1-3 starter.
I actually think Wells should be in the bullpen next year. I think he could thrive in that type of role and we definitely need the help. It would also reduce the logjam of #3-5 starters that we currently have.
That's interesting that his BABIP is actually slightly better this year.
So what the hell has happened to Randy Wells?
I’m not sold on him in the bullpen. He might be most valuable as an innings eater, and he doesn’t really have a dominant pitch.
His numbers this year...
… aren’t going to be markedly worse than Jason Marquis put up the two years he was a Cub. He could very well be a good fifth starter/inning eater on a good staff.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
And he's cheap.
But I don’t see the Cubs getting much for him in a trade. I mean, look what they got for Marquis.
Well, remember there was a big contract involved with moving Marquis.
Not so with Wells. Maybe he could be part of a larger deal. I think I’d still keep him. I keep going back to the Kevin Tapani comparison.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But the Cubs ate a bunch of Marquis salary AND took on Luis Vizcaino.
Unless my memory is faulty …
Correct...
… that’s kind of my point. The salary made him undealable for anything better than that. That’s not the case with Wells.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But isn't trading Marquis, sending money and taking on another big contract ...
the net equivalent to trading someone who doesn’t cost much? Wells as a third-year player costs about the same as Marquis did for the Rockies, right? I apologize if I’m missing a key point here …
Depends on what else was involved in the deal and what you get in return.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
With the position of the team as it stands,
I think for next year at least you have to go with Wells and Gorzy, relatively cheap pitchers that can perform. Wells has not been consistent this year, and you can hope that he will improve the next. I would have said not to keep him at the beginning of the season , but our position is different now.
I’d like to wait until we shed a little more payroll such as Kosuke before we commit to long term deals. I’d always look at trades and players available, but really until we have a new manager and more salary to work with tying ourselves down again right away seems a bad idea to me.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 9, 2010 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions
From fangraphs and b-ref
His BABIP in 2009 was .294, in 2010 it’s .329. BABIP= batting avg on balls in play. League average is .303.
His FIP was .388, in 2010 it’s .412. FIP = fielding independent pitching
So there’s a little bit of luck against him. From the scouting side, Quade has reported that they are working on him pitching out of the stretch. However, there doesn’t seem to be much difference in his stats with men on base. His first-inning problems in the middle of the year were a concern.
His fastball and changeup have been much less effective in 2010 than they were in 2009. This could be location or that hitters are aware of how he pitches.
Overall, he’s a slightly below-average starting pitcher who is very durable but has struggled with confidence. He is a reasonable 4th starter going forward, especially for a team that has other young pitchers coming up to challenge him. But I believe his best value is in a trade. He gives a team 180-200 innings of cheap, moderately effective starting.
Somebody take Aramis' bat off the restricted list, please.
So, bad luck + the league getting to know him.
That’s interesting. Thanks, zambranofan. Do you really think they’d get much for him in a trade? I don’t.
As part of a package, yes
He gives a team stability so they can spend money elsewhere. For example, if the Cubs were to offer Byrd for a good starter, they could add Wells to the deal. Or, they could sweeten the pot for a Fukudome deal without having to send along much money.
Straight up, you couldn’t get a position player for him that would be more valuable, unless the Cubs just think some guy is better than the team that currently controls him. For example, I’m sure they could have gotten DeWitt for him straight up.
I certainly think he is more valuable in a trade than Silva, and yet Silva might be as good as Wells in 2011, so with other prospects on the way, it doesn’t hurt us to keep Silva and trade Wells.
Somebody take Aramis' bat off the restricted list, please.
I'm less optimistic about Silva than you are
I am concerned that his physical problems after the break make it likely he won’t repeat his early 2010 performance. Unless he gets in better pitching shape, Silva could be in the bullpen in 2011.
Silva
might pitch better (personally, I don’t think so), but he is very unlikely to pitch a full season. That means you have to take into account the starts the “6th starter” will make when making that comparison.
I think the Cubs absolutely should “sell high” (still a pretty low high) on Silva, if they can. He is “only” owed $6M next year (Seattle on the hook for the rest), so the Cubs might be able to send him and say $2M for something of value.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
I think you're right.
That would be useful cost savings, if the Cubs can move him. I can see a team like the Padres, Giants or Mets being interested.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Agreed.
Good assessment of Randy, whom I’m still a fan of. I’ve never really expected him to be more than a No. 4 or 5 level starter, and he still has value in that regard. (He’s been a 2.5 WAR pitcher this season, which is just a bit down from the 3.0 WAR dude he was last year.) This is his sophomore season, so his struggles aren’t particularly surprising. And his strikeouts have gone up, so that’s another point in his favor. I’d be a little sad to see him traded, but he probably does have some value and the Cubs do have a number of bottom-of-the-rotation options right now.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Also one other thing
What are your thoughts on the Cubs 1B/RF situation for next year. Do we test the free agent/minors for a 1B and give up on Fukudome and let Colvin be a full time RF. Do we keep Kosuke and let him be the every day right fielder and move Colvin to 1B, or do we move Colvin to 1B and test free agency/minors to play RF. I am not ready to give up on Kosuke just yet as he is the only guy on the team outside of Soto who is a semblance of patience at the plate.
Outside of free agency, which is a relative unknown, the Cubs' options at 1B for next year seem to be Hoffpauir or Colvin.
For Colvin to work at 1B, then Fukudome would also have to be a productive starter in RF, something he has failed to accomplish in his first 2 years here. For some reason the Cubs won’t try this arrangement for the remainder of this lost season, which leads me to believe it will definitely be a free agent, which would one of a small group including our own Nady, or else Hoffpauir. That means Fukudome must not be in the plans or else we will be treated to the same 4-man outfield logjam we got to enjoy this year.
by Jerry Mumphrey on Sep 9, 2010 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Fukudome has been a Cub for three seasons.
Also, the Hoff is not an option, unless the Cubs go all Florida Marlins on us. I could envision a situation where Nady gets a 1-year deal, but only if the Cubs do something really amazing and sign Cliff Lee or pull off a mega trade, making signing Dunn impossible for budget reasons.
Well the jury is still out on season three. He could actually heat up and finish at .290 with 15 hr.
I’m not holding my breath though, especially since he still doesn’t play every day.
Also, what has Nady shown that Hoffpauir hasn’t? Just play the “kid”. Actually the worst thing I could totally see them doing is a misguided Nady/Hoffpauir platoon arrangement.
by Jerry Mumphrey on Sep 9, 2010 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions
Ah, I see your point re: Kosuke.
Nady is a proven major-league player with several good seasons under his belt. He’s hit well and played a decent first since the Lee trade, and it’s possible that his weak first half was the result of sparing playing time and recovery from his surgery. On the other hand, maybe he’ll never fully recover from the elbow surgeries. The Cubs’ medical staff needs to look into that.
Hoffpauir is a AAAA ballplayer. He got his chances with the 2009 team, and didn’t really make the most of them. Other than cost, and the fact that he hits left-handed, Hoffpauir has no real advantages over Nady.
I think it's because
Hoff isn’t really a kid anymore.
um... no, i will not take a convoy to basrah
by ASpecialGuestAppearance on Sep 9, 2010 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Comparison
Nady will be 32 in November.
Hoffpauir will be 31 in March.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Nady's is Nov 14th
So we should be safe. At least until that 1 year deal to play 1B gets signed.
um... no, i will not take a convoy to basrah
by ASpecialGuestAppearance on Sep 9, 2010 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions
This has been discussed to death around here.
But I’m waiting for a phone call, so I’ll help you out.
Colvin does not seem destined to move to first. The Cubs have not played him there at all, even though he was given some work there before several games in the last days of the Lou era. Either the Cubs want to wait until after the season to get Colvin some work at first (which makes little sense) or they don’t see him as a first baseman.
There’s also the issue of changing the math on a team that will almost certainly lose 90 or more games. Putting Colvin at first and putting Kosuke in right means that the group that was so disappointing in 2010 will be back in 2011. Sure, the lineups from opening day to opening day would be different, but that’s sort of like putting a Band-Aid on a head wound.
Also, the Cubs seem like they’re going to be players for Adam Dunn, who made comments recently about liking Hendry. Dunn’s extension talks with the Nats have stalled, he could be a marketable, fan-favorite commodity (at a time when the Cubs need people in the seats) and he instantly changes the lineup. His defense isn’t great, but he plays probably the only position the Cubs can fill from outside the organization. They’re locked in everywhere else except maybe second base.
Kosuke might have plate discipline, but he’s an incredibly expensive platoon player. Some around here debate whether he could hit lefties if the Cubs gave him the chance to do so, but whatever. Kosuke’s strong August MIGHT prompt another team to take him off the Cubs’ hands and pay enough of his salary so the Cubs can sign Dunn AND shore up the bullpen or add another starter. Besides, keeping Kosuke would require that the Cubs sign a right-handed hitting platoon partner, because there’s no one within the organization that I know of who makes sense to fill the role. Meanwhile, Colvin hits lefties, so can be penciled in to play right next season without an Xavier Nady-like insurance policy.
It’s also almost impossible to envision an outfield where Kosuke and Colvin play every day. Colvin won’t play left (because Soriano is untradable) and we know that Colvin won’t be playing center (he’s not good enough defensively to justify trading Byrd). The Cubs gave up on Kosuke in center after 2009, so Colvin and Kosuke only really have right field.
Last point: The Cubs have $20-some million in payroll savings because Lee, Theriot, Lilly, Nady and Fontenot will not be back. If the Cubs don’t sign someone to play first, where would you suggest they spend their money? This point is controversial — some regulars around here don’t see any point in a Dunn signing because they think the team should build for 2012 and beyond, or they think Dunn is old and bad defensively — but other than making a play for Cliff Lee (unlikely) the Cubs don’t have many good options for a face-saving, PR-ish signing that also makes the team better. Adam Dunn — at the right price — is that option.
I am not really in the Dunn camp.
However your points are excellent. If the Cubs plan on Micah as an option for next year at first, then they do not have any plans on being a serious contender for the playoffs. The idea of Hoff at first makes me ill.
As I said I am not big on Dunn as others. He will produce offensively no question, however his glove and lack of range is glaring. Watching the game yesterday with the Mets, his mobility at first remind me of John Kruk in his last year at first.
I've always liked Adam Dunn.
But I totally get why people have reservations about him. He’s not good defensively.
However, if the Cubs get him at the right price — no more than three years — I think the deal just makes sense. He would be a big hit at Wrigley, and he’s the lefty power bat the Cubs have wanted for years.
Look at some Dunn stats
Lifetime .231 with RISP. In his 9 years he’s hit over .241 w RISP only once. His walks are down 40 this year from 2008 and he’s making $12M. We need Dunn like we need another Soriano or Bradley. Next year should be a rebuiding one and to suggest limiting our options in the future by committing $50M to a one dimensional player who is more sizzle than steak seems a terrible decision.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Well, I never said $50 million.
And I wouldn’t want him at that price. Three years and $12 million per is another story. And I know you’re not explicitly comparing the two — but to say that we need Dunn like we need another Bradley is ridiculous. And comparing even a $50 million contract for Dunn (which no one suggested) with Soriano’s $138 million contract is an odd statement, oo.
Next year won’t be a rebuilding year. It can’t be because of all the big contracts still on the books and the Cubs wouldn’t want it to be because of what it would mean for ticket sales. You can argue that Dunn isn’t worth the money — that’s fair — and you can even say that giving him a multiyear deal is throwing good money after bad.
I happen to think Dunn (at the right price) is a good way to use our somewhat limited resources. He’s a steady lefty power bat who can play the only position that we really have available. He’ll also be far less expensive than Cliff Lee, and signing a No. 3 starter for $10 million is not what this team needs. And Dunn happens to be the type of player who will be fun to watch AND who can contribute when things get brighter in 2012.
I happen to think Dunn (at the right price) is a good way to use our somewhat limited resources. He’s a steady lefty power bat who can play the only position that we really have available. He’ll also be far less expensive than Cliff Lee, and signing a No. 3 starter for $10 million is not what this team needs. And Dunn happens to be the type of player who will be fun to watch AND who can contribute when things get brighter in 2012.
At the right price, I agree with you completely.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Two years, maybe with a third option year ...
… at no more than $12m per year, less if possible.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Dunn wants at least a 4 year deal
and that would get us to about $50M. My comparisons of both Bradley and Soriano were only to suggest that we had seen 2 large contracts severely limit the team’s options, and thus their competitiveness.
We’re a slow team and Dunn is even slower. We’re a bad defensive team and Dunn is even worse. We don’t hit with RISP and Dunn doesn’t hit with RISP.
I just can’t see 40 HR being worth $12M/ yr.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Link on Dunn wanting a four-year deal?
Also, just because he wants one doesn’t mean he’ll get one. Look at what happened with Bobby Abreu two years ago.
Ask and you shall receive
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Nationals-Dunn-looking-for-four-year-deal?urn=mlb-268118
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
That's interesting.
It’s also a little squishy to me. I wouldn’t be shocked if he takes three years and a team option. And, if he won’t, good luck to him, as far as I’m concerned.
I agree with you
about Dunn’s comments. Too often players and agents say one thing but are willing to compromise. This may be one of those cases. I guess when you get to my position, it’s that the Cubs ought to be reworking their roster and it ought to begin next year as best we can. And bringing in Dunn at $12M isn’t in the best interests of the club. I want to see a long term vision for the Cubs rather than looking at short term fixes. Soriano didn’t work out that way. Neither did Bradley or Fukudome nor Jones, etc. etc.
I want to see fast athletic players on the field rather than hoping for our power hitters to win for us.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Platoon partner
Brandon Guyer might be ready for that role, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Somebody take Aramis' bat off the restricted list, please.
But here's the thing:
Scenario 1: Kosuke ($14 million), Guyer (league minimum) and no spot for Colvin
Scenario 2: Colvin (close to league minimum), free roster spot (at no price) and (in this scenario) $5 million or so in savings relief for other needs.
This all presumes that Kosuke can be traded for some salary relief. But if he can be, I’m willing to accept a season where Colvin isn’t quite as good as Kosuke might be, because of the other benefits.
And I’d bet Colvin has a better season than Kosuke in 2011.
Starting pitching, veteran relief, power bat.
That’s my order.
I believe the Cubs tried Colvin working out at first and did not like what they saw. I don’t think that’s an option any more.
The replay on TV showed Lee charged the ball then backed off and then bobbled it. In the split second to hold or send, it was probably the right move down 4. In hindsight, which is normally better than split second decisions, he could have made it home easily.
This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).
I totally get that.
So instead of Dunn, the Cubs spend on a starting pitcher. But who should they get? Cliff Lee is almost certainly not an option.
Also, while I think the daycare bullpen approach of 2010 should NEVER again be repeated, I don’t like the idea of throwing lots of money at relievers. They’re too erratic.
But couldn't it be they're too erratic because you don't spend enough money on them?
Are all relievers erratic or just ones the Cubs get? Seriously, how do other teams that have dominant bullpens do it? Sure, big bucks for the closer, but seems like other teams are able to do the research and scouting to identify and obtain setup and middle relief arms via trade or free agency – why can’t the cubs?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I've made this point before:
The Cubs don’t do a good job of looking for bargains when it comes to pitching. Al and I disagree on this, but the Cubs have somewhat abandoned the strategy that works well for other teams — and worked well for the Cubs not too long ago.
Earlier Cubs teams were helped by fringe pickups of guys like Glendon Rusch, Scott Williamson and Ryan Dempster. At the time, the signings were low-risk, high-reward signings that paid huge dividends. Meanwhile, look what Scott Eyre did for the 2008 Phillies.
But aside from Bob Howry and Wade Miller, the Cubs don’t look for change-of-scenery veteran relievers anymore. They either overpay for bullpen guys like Grabow, or they throw a bunch of rookies in high-pressure roles.
Did I miss something?
Williamson pitched 42 innings over 2 years for us and had a 1.5 WHIP. Rusch appeared in relief 59 games for us and had a BA against him over .300. Dempster was 8-17 as a reliever for us and had a 1.42 WHIP in that role. Decent but not great. On top of that, Demp made at least $4.5M in his first full year.
I’m still looking for the one reliever Hendry purchased or traded for that was excellent. His record speaks for itself.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Cherrypicking stats.
Rusch was pretty good as a fill-in starter for a year or so. W-L records for relievers aren’t relevant — Dempster actually did a good job as a closer.
Williamson, I agree with you, was pretty useless.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Ah, we agree again.
I’m not sure why I thought Williamson was better for the Cubs. My memory is usually pretty solid.
OK then point out the stats that show
where my summary was incorrect. Remember that this discussion is about relievers, not starters. And yes, Rusch did have a decent yar as a part time starter in 2004, but that was his only good year in that role. But isn’t that observation an example of cherrypicking.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Dempster and Rusch were good relievers/starters ...
who Hendry picked off the scrap heap — at least, for a time. You disputed that point, and you were wrong.
Williamson was bad. But the other two guys are evidence of cheap scrap-heap pickups that helped the Cubs.
Let's be honest
Rusch was a FA with a minor league contract his first year. He was moved into a starter when Prior and Wood were injured. The next year he was given $6M for the next two year. Those years were not good. So, in summary, he didn’t justify his salary.
Dempster was signed in 2004 and was in the bullpen for 3 undistinguished years. Next year he had a good year as closer and has been a starter since. 2008 was an outstanding year and he’s been above average the last 2 years. The Cubs have paid him $42M. That’s hardly chump change for a pitcher sub .500. Listen, I like and respect Demp, but we can hardly suggest he’s been a bargain.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I think you're missing a key distinction:
I’m not saying Hendry should find scrap heap guys and lock them up to long-term deals. I’m saying that finding a guy, like Rusch, who costs the team nothing can pay off for a short period of time. Rusch paid off in 2004 and for much of 2005. Oh, and the 2-year deal (which was completely ill-advised) was signed after 2005.
How in the HELL can you say Dempster was in the bullpen for three undistinguished years? He was very good in 2005 (especially if you consider his performance as closer apart from his starts early in the year), bad in 2006 and decent in 2007.
My point wasn’t that Dempster and/or Rusch were bargains over the course of their time with the Cubs. My point was that they were signed to low-risk deals that paid immediate dividends after being signed to low-risk, short-term deals. Rusch did that in 2004 and for parts of 2005. Dempster did that in 2005.
Perhaps I missed the stats
that support your opinion.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
You did miss something.
Glendon Rusch was quite good in 2004 (the year he was picked up off the scrap heap) and he was decent (or decent enough) in 2005. He was AWFUL in 2006, and Hendry seriously messed up when he re-signed Rusch to a 2-year deal. But for a scrap heap acquisition in 2004 and for much of 2005, Rusch was a good find.
Dempster’s first full year with the Cubs was 2005, and he made $2 million, http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-cubs_112114177768677294.html. After that season, he was given a three-year extension where he made about $5.5 million a season. He was terrible in 2006. But he was good in 2005 and passable in 2007, before becoming a starter in 2008.
You’re right about Williamson. I goofed on that one. But Hendry found two good pitching discards in Rusch and Dempster. His track record isn’t perfect with these moves (Chad Fox, Howry, Miller and yes, Williamson didn’t pan out). But they’re low-risk moves that beat signing John Grabow to a 2-year deal any day of the week.
Dempster's 2007 numbers got skewed by a terrible September.
He had a 9.82 ERA in September. Before that his numbers were pretty good. He threw exactly one inning in the 2007 NLDS.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Interesting.
IIRC, Dempster’s effectiveness in 2006 suffered in part because the Cubs had a dearth of save opportunities for much of the year.
Cherrypicking not allowed
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Your words
Earlier Cubs teams were helped by fringe pickups of guys like Glendon Rusch, Scott Williamson and Ryan Dempster. At the time, the signings were low-risk, high-reward signings that paid huge dividends.
I would question the use of huge. A huge dividend is one that pays out over the term of the contract. Rusch was a huge get the first year. Rusch was a terrible contract after that.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Again, Rusch signed a 2-year deal after 2005.
Rusch paid huge dividends — especially considering that the Cubs didn’t have to give anybody up to get him and paid him little — in 2004 and 2005. Dempster, in 2005, made $2 million and was one of the league’s best closers.
I'd move a power bat up in the priority order
The offense from the present roster for 2011 really doesn’t look any better than this year. Fix the pitching issues, and the Cubs will still be losing a flock of 2-1 and 3-2 games.
And I really don’t see where the team can pick up a starter to change 2011 significantly. The guys who can change the WAR equation will be too expensive (Lee), and the mid-tier, $8M-$10M guys won’t upgrade the rotation enough to make a real difference (Lilly). The only way to fix SP would be to trade prospects for someone like Greinke, and that has its own set of issues.
I tend to agree.
Hendry might be able to get creative and find a starter who’s more valuable than most mid-tier guys, but I can’t see anyone who fits that bill.
Dunn just makes a ton of sense, think of the lineup, assuming that Dunn is the big position player acquisition.
DeWitt, Castro, Byrd, Dunn, Ramirez, Colvin, Soriano, Soto
That’s the best lefty-righty balance we’ve had an in years, and the only guy who might end up in a platoon is DeWitt. Meanwhile, the performances of Byrd, Ramirez, Soriano and Soto can determine who hits 3, 5, 7 or 8 and Colvin gets to hit in a low-pressure spot.
Just chiming in at the end of this thread.
I hope the Cubs can find a taker for at least some of Fukudome’s contract, or maybe figure out a way for him to go back to Japan. That would give payroll flexibility as well as break the OF logjam.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I know you asked Al, but I'd be on Sheffield Ave. 24/7 if we signed Dunn... ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
LOL
I’m still undecided. I like Dunn’s bat… but would it cost too much? That’s the real question. And if the Cubs DO sign him, please please PLEASE don’t bid against yourself, Jim Hendry.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I don't think the Cubs sign Dunn...
…or anyone who has a similar price tag.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Don't be so sure.
They need to make a splash somewhere. I’m not saying this is necessarily the right thing to do, but it may happen.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Maybe your right...
…but I also think Ricketts is thinking simply “making a splash” has not worked well with this brain trust.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
The splash next year will be
the new manager. Ricketts and Hendry all refer to our prospects. Does $50M for a declining 1B make sense? 2011 should be the rebuilding year. Get the top prospects one more year of experience then have them and their entry salaries allow us to buy one or two proven stars.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Why not?
They have a good bit of money coming off the books, and there’s been no indication that the Ricketts will cut payroll.
Too many holes, not enough dough
Every indication is they want to cut payroll, and adding Adam Dunn at an exorbitant fee (because they won’t be bidding against themselves on this one) hurts your chances at filling your bullpen, which is where I believe the majority of the team’s problems lie.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Sep 9, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Every indication from reading
the local and national papers and sources I can find that talk about it. Ticket sales are down, and don’t look to come up much higher in a struggling economy with a bad product on the field. The Cubs are already burdened with many bad contracts and don’t need any more at this point.
I would really hope the Cubs didn’t shed payroll this year solely to free up space for another one-dimensional player who will not provide you more than 4 WAR and patch the rest with suboptimal players.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Sep 9, 2010 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
I respect your opinion on Dunn.
I think he would be a good fit and a worthwhile contract at the right price.
But I read and listen to the same sources you mentioned, and I don’t draw the same conclusions. I think you’re taking a lack of comments about next year’s payroll to mean too much in light of a bad economy.
One thing’s fairly certain:: If the Cubs stand pat this offseason, ticket sales will NOT improve. I don’t expect 2006-07 offseason-style spending, but I also don’t expect payroll to decrease significantly. At this point, I don’t have enough reason to think Ricketts is that wrong-headed.
I don't necessarily say decrease
but I’m definitely not going to say ‘increase’ given it’s a 90-loss team with little salary flexibility and a lot of holes that need filling.
The numbers have been beaten to death on these boards. I don’t see Ricketts sinking that kind of payroll on highly improbable returns.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Sep 9, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Highly improbable?
If anything, Adam Dunn is about as much of a certainty as there is in baseball. I agree that you don’t overpay, but a 3-year, $36 million deal would be OK with me.
At that price, the Cubs could use the money coming off the books to sign Dunn and still have some money to add some pitching.
And seeing as how the Cubs don't have an obvious in-house 1B answer right now...
…getting Dunn on a reasonable (I’d say 3/36 is at the high end of reasonable) deal gives them the time to find/trade/develop an in-house 1B solution.
Speaking of which… toonster, josh, anyone – what do Cubs have at 1B with a big show ETA of 2014 (Sept 2013 callup)?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Rebel Ridling!
(I just like typing the name.)
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
When I came up with that figure ...
I was hoping the Cubs could give a little more money to avoid a fourth year.
Certainly they can speak for themselves if they find this...
But if my summary is correct, neither of them is high enough on ANY of the in-house options to think there’s a future 1B in the organization.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
The highly improbable return
is playoffs. Sorry for being unclear. Even with Dunn, this is not a playoff caliber team.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Sep 9, 2010 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions
With Dunn, improved pitching ...
a normal Ramirez season, no big injuries and no sophomore slumps from Castro and Colvin … the Cubs might be fringe contenders in 2011. The Central isn’t THAT tough and the Cardinals will be regrouping, I think.
But Dunn would also be helpful in 2012.
That would require
a significant boost in the production from the bullpen, which I don’t see without good investment there.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Sep 9, 2010 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Just to throw this in here somewhere...
….in his most recent live chat, Bruce Levine predicted that Adam Dunn would be the Cubs starting first baseman next season. Take it FWIW.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Levine is usually pretty solid in his predictions.
He was the first to report that Castro was going to get called up sooner rather than later. Of all the reporters who cover Chicago baseball, I think Levine does the best job.
I'd still give the edge to Bruce Miles...
…but I’ve come to enjoy Levine’s work. I don’t always agree with his assessments of things, but he provides good info. I’m not sure if it was the same live chat or an earlier one, he suggested the Cubs trade Marmol to the Yankees for Joba and Brett Gardner.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
They have a surplus there, but also lack speed in the lineup
Which Gardner would give them. But I’m not sure that Joba has anything left.
Yeah... no interest in Joba.
And acquiring Gardner would basically necessitate a Byrd trade, unless you move Marlon to RF… which takes away a spot for Colvin and necessitates a Dome trade.
So that trade doesn’t make much sense.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
Exactly my thoughts.
Be careful of those bad contracts you made mr. Hendry, no reason at all to create more of them with the current team. Flexibility to look at better offers with a better situation in the future to me is key.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 9, 2010 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
IF Dunn ends up on the Cubs, it may make sense to hit him 3rd
With Soto or Ramirez 4th as protection (Soto based on 2010 performance, Ramirez if he finds his pre-2010 stroke). Having a strong RH hitter behind Dunn might get him more fastball strikes and improve his BA/slugging numers (OBP would probably be the same as hits would replace some walks). This year, the Nationals are using Dunn as the “protection” guy for Zimmerman.
Works for me.
The point is that Dunn provides a lefty, middle-order bat.
Works for me, also...
Castro, Byrd, Dunn, A-Ram, Soto, Soriano, Colvin, DeWitt and Pitcher.
If Ramirez hits next year, like he has the last half this year, and Soriano puts up his usual 25-30 HRs, this line-up may surprise some. My worry is the “sophmore slump” by Castro and Colvin. I’m not sure what happens with Fukudome, tho…he’d be an awful expensive bench rider. I like Castro leading off with his speed. Dempster, a GOOD Zambrano and Gorz. Need 1 more starter NOT named Randy Wells and hopefully one of the young guns will be ready (Cashner or Samardzija).
It’s along ways away till ‘11, but, that would be my X-mas wish list. After sitting through this upcoming Bears season (5-11, I project), I’ll be ready for Ryno or Girardi or whoever to turn this around.
Joe Girardi...2011 Chicago Cubs Manager...Book it!!
Adam Dunn..2011 Chicago Cubs First Baseman - 3 yrs/$42 mill with a club option for a 4th.
I appreciate your thoughts...
Although I would add that the more interesting question is how much of that $20 million savings will the Cubs actually spend.
by Damen Jackson on Sep 9, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Why?
A couple of posters have made this point. Did I miss some statement by Ricketts or Hendry? Or are we just assuming that the Cubs will cut payroll?
There have been some implicit comments
and some behind-the-scenes chatter, but mostly as of right now it’s the noncommittal stance on his part to at least maintaining that payroll figure.
It’s simply a question right now, not an indictment.
by Damen Jackson on Sep 9, 2010 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah -- you did frame it as a question.
I would be shocked if our new owner, on the heels of a nightmare season and in his first full offseason, decides to cut payroll significantly.
Normally,
I’d agree, but not in this case.
by Damen Jackson on Sep 9, 2010 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Could you explain the logic to me?
I mean, I get simple economics, and if revenue coming in has really fallen off, I can see why an owner might not open up his wallet.
But we’re talking about the Cubs, not the Royals. A big signing in the offseason — which could require maintaining a $140-million payroll — could stoke enough interest to help with advance ticket sales, to say nothing of the effect Dunn would have on sales during the season.
Beyond that, Ricketts would risk being labeled a cheapskate right off the bat, because no one could look back on a time when he DID open his wallet.
And even if signing Dunn and/or maintaining payroll doesn’t yield much success on the field or through ticket sales next year, the Cubs know they have a lot of money coming off the books after 2011 by way of Ramirez and Fukudome.
Can I?
No, but you’d really be asking the wrong person anyway. I agree with you, but I wouldn’t assume that the Cubs do just yet. Just my two cents.
by Damen Jackson on Sep 9, 2010 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
I hope you know that I wasn’t asking to be a jerk to you. I thought you might have some insight that I was missing. I just really can’t see any logic in cutting the payroll. It seems incredibly short-sighted and wrong-headed.
Agree totally, eg
You have to spend money sometimes to make it. If you cut payroll now, that probably translates into fewer tickets sold. And less money.
So much for those who say people come out to Wrigley come Hell or high water.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Sep 9, 2010 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Actually, people will come out to Wrigley no matter what.
That’s why the Cubs will never be the Royals or the Pirates. But getting to 3 million-plus requires at least a competitive team.
Actually, people will come out to Wrigley no matter what.
No, they won’t. This homestand is proof of that. If the Cubs try to market their team based on that, they will fail.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I overheard a woman on the DeVry shuttle
say she was done being a season ticket holder after 28 years. Not sure if she will stick to her guns when the time comes to renew, but she sounded pretty serious.
There may always continue to be a few of us that continue to go no matter what, but no way that 3 million if they don’t put out a good team.
♪♫ Take me out WITH the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I NEVER get back ♪♫ Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer
She's not alone.
I’ve heard a lot of this type of talk this year, much more so than anytime in recent years.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The park was still at least half-full, wasn't it?
We’re not talking Pittsburgh-style crowds, Al.
Half, yes.
… but I think they have reached their limit of what they can charge for tickets, especially in this economy, and not be a consistent winner.
I have been working on a longer post on this issue which will be up later this afternoon.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The other issue is scale and budgeting.
The Pirates payroll is tiny. So if their park is only 1/4 to 1/3 full, it doesn’t really matter.
But the Cubs can’t maintain a $100M+ payroll if crowds dwindle.
That’s why I’ve always felt % of capacity is actually far more important to the large-market clubs (who budget assuming good crowds) than it is for the small-market clubs (who budget for terrible crowds).
Shut up Joe Morgan.
I don't disagree with you.
But SOME fans — which is what I said initially - will continue to show up even if the Cubs aren’t good. The Cubs will never face Royals or Pirates-level attendance.
Since attendance is going down,
Sounds to me as though they went past the limit of what they can charge with a losing team.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 9, 2010 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Doesn't it also largely depend
on the definition of “significantly”?
Meaning… if Ricketts came out and said the payroll next year can’t top $130M, is that a “significant” rollback?
For the record, I’m not debating whether he will or won’t… just looking for context on what people would think if Ricketts announced a number like that.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
Yes,
I believe most people would consider greater than a 10% variation as significant.
by Damen Jackson on Sep 9, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
That's fair.
I guess I’m trying to figure out where the line between “slashing payroll”, “significant reduction”, “more frugal choices”, “saving for later”, etc. would be.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
So pinch hitting
for Barney with Hoff is like Hill starting over Wellington. I am beating this to the pulp I know, but give Wellington a chance. Well see how the week pans out.
Basically, yes.
There’s absolutely no reason for Koyie Hill to play any more except in the late innings of a blowout.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
DeJesus held up Colvin...
…proving he won’t be in the 3B box next year for this team.
As someone else who sat through it, I was annoyed by the mid-inning pitching changes and the .203 hitting Hoffpauir getting the PH at bat.
Most annoying: the crowd control guy treting me like dirt, checking my ticket stub 3x, then donning 4-5 different ‘Village People’ hats during YMCA. Both the song and the usher’s antics made me feel like I was at a AAA game, and considering the rosters, I suppose I was.
LaRussa, Pujols: dupes for Glenn Beck
Colvin would have been out by 30 feet
I was mad at first, but Lee had that ball in shallow left field just as/after Colvin rounded third.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on Sep 9, 2010 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions
I was sitting right behind Lee.
He had conceded the run; he looked like he was going to throw to the cut off man or to second base.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Thanks
So I can add 3B stop/go impairment along with judging the strike zone from section 240, in the right field corner.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on Sep 9, 2010 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Well...
… not always, but you were sittlng about as far away from Lee as possible. I figured Colvin would score easily.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I was madder at Soriano that inning
You go 3-0, and then swing on 3-1?? ugh twice I guess.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on Sep 9, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Aren't you supposed to swing on 3-1?
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Maybe so
Maybe I’m just frustrated by the pop-up to 2B. I do credit Myers for dealing. He caught a lot of Cubs looking for strike 3.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on Sep 9, 2010 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, I kept thinking last night that...
…when it comes to the Cubs, Brett Myers is a poor man’s Randy Johnson.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Of course.
And I think Soriano thought he could drive that one – he just popped it up.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
We were heartwarmingly booing
up in our vantage point in 517. My husband yelled “Quade!” When I turned to him with raised eyebrows, he just said it was easier to yell than “De Jesus!”
♪♫ Take me out WITH the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I NEVER get back ♪♫ Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer
Having met both of you last night, I must say he doesn't seem like the yeller-type
I just hope I never drop one if you two are sitting in seats with a view of Waveland… ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
No, he's not.
This yelling thing of his is new this year. It’s not like him at all. It’s like he’s suddenly had enough. It’s those quiet ones….
It was an honor to meet you. :)
♪♫ Take me out WITH the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I NEVER get back ♪♫ Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer
I felt for you last night
How long was your trip in to Wrigley? THAT game was not worth a long drive in and then back home.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on Sep 9, 2010 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Aw-thanks,
but we had a good time anyway. A bad day a Wrigley beats a good day working….well maybe not always…but that was a quick game. Got home by 11:20pm.
♪♫ Take me out WITH the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I NEVER get back ♪♫ Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer
You may be right, but...
from where I was sitting on the 3rd base side, I saw Lee pick up the ball, I then looked to see where Colvin was (I didn’t see Lee actually make the throw in, I was looking at the runner) and I thought DeJesus made the right choice to hold him up. If Lee threw home, he would have been out. I don’t think DeJesus had the opportunity to see what Lee was going to do before he put up the stop sign. It was Bang Bang as to his decision to Put up the stop or let him go. I know, it was a tough night to get hists, but In my opinion, I think he made the right decision
See the Cubs 2010 schedule (now with game times & TV Schedule) at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/sched2010.html
Also see what old Cubs Scorecards looked like at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/scorecards.html
The replays seemed to confirm this.
Even if Lee had thrown home, he would have been throwing flat-footed and probably not gotten much on the throw. I think Colvin could have made it. What was in interesting to me is how annoyed Tyler looked when DeJesus held him up.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
DeJesus wasnt watching Lee's feet.
He was flat-footed. He actually was laughing to Bourn afterwards taht someone respected his arm.
BTW: I would trade Byrd for Bourn right now.
LaRussa, Pujols: dupes for Glenn Beck
by Dan Serafini on Sep 9, 2010 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Hmm...
Nope.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 9, 2010 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions
a flat tire
A flat tire, Al? I thought those “watch your car, mister” racketeers were a thing of the past.
Best part of the game for me
was my trip home. Red Line to Yellow Line (waiting at Howard). And then a bus on Dempster pulled up in less than 5 minutes. Wrigley Field to te front door in under an hour.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
I thought I saw more than 15,000+ last night.
Just and observation from several TV angles, but you know better.
The DeJesus stop was logical, considering there was one out and good ol’ Alfie Sorry was coming up. The very audible boos from the crowd were heartwarming.
Writing quality posts since 1931.
The game was awful
but the game threads were a blast.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
Credit where Credit is Due
Brett Myers is a solid pitcher and had a good day. But the Cubs seemed to write this one off after they got down 2-0.
Has anyone done a run down of which Cubs are genuinely “playing for their jobs” and which ones figure that the rest of this year doesn’t matter to them professionally?
That post would be very subjective.
But a good read and I bet it’d have fun comments. Go for it.
Writing quality posts since 1931.
We were definitely with you on the parade of relievers being silly.
Maybe we were just tired and wanted the game to be over, but we found the Houston pitching changes when they were up 4-0 to be aggravating and did not understand the need to take out Mateo either.
♪♫ Take me out WITH the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I NEVER get back ♪♫ Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer
One thing I would like to see the next manager do...
…. is acknowledge that there is such a thing as a “long reliever”. For one thing, that could cut the staff down to 11 and give more flexibility with an extra bench player.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That would be refreshing.
♪♫ Take me out WITH the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I NEVER get back ♪♫ Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer
As "long" relief
You mean pitching 1.2 and never batting, right??
(Written with head in hands, sadly nodding.)
Shut up Joe Morgan.
That's the "Lou Piniella School Of Long Relief".
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yeah and that seems to be a modern viewpoint which is kind of surprising.
You may not be able to use a guy the next day, but I can’t believe that humans have changed so much since it was common to see a relief pitcher eat multiple innings consistently, especially garbage innings. It is possible, but Lou for sure wasn’t going to ever try it. That would surely help keep the rest of the pen available for the next game. I like that idea a lot.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 9, 2010 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I think a number of our guys who were brought in to pitch one inning
proved to be “long relievers.”
A silver lining to ineptness.
Carlos Silva lemonade: made from freshly squeezed Milton Bradley lemons. -- the Jim Hendry kook book.
I'd prefer an 11 man staff
but in reality, the long reliever is there most often when the team is trailing early. How many managers are willing to let the long man hit for himself in the 5th inning when the team is down 4-6 runs?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
That's exactly when you SHOULD let that guy hit for himself.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I don't disagree
but how many managers do? The fans and critics would rip him apart for giving up.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
And bringing in Marshall wasn't even a "matchup"
because the pinch hitter that Houston had brought in before the change (Anderson Hernandez) was right-handed.
I wonder if it was just to get Marshall in the game, on the day he got the Roberto Clemente recognition?
Hernandez is a switch-hitter.
But so what? Hernandez is a .200 hitter. What difference does it make what side he hits from?
If a manager is putting a player in a game because he got an award that day, that manager shouldn’t be employed.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I was just grasping for any possible explanation why Marshall was brought in
since it wasn’t a lefty-lefty situation. Not that Marshall should be used as a LOOGY…
I was agreeing with your (and katey casey’s) point — all those late pitching changes last night were mystifying.
Caption: "Can't a guy take a nap around here?!"
Carlos Silva lemonade: made from freshly squeezed Milton Bradley lemons. -- the Jim Hendry kook book.
The best part of yesterday's game
Was Cubbie-Tim’s typo in the Game Threads. That’s going on my shortlist for a Hannie.
"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

by 



















