The Value Of Hustle
In today's game, we saw a perfect example of one of those things "that cannot be measured".
In the second inning, with two out -- one of the outs recorded on yet another baserunning blunder by Jacque Jones -- and runners on second and third, Ryan Theriot hustled down the line, legging out a little dribbler to Mets shortstop Jose Reyes, who's usually one of the slickest defensive shortstops in baseball.
That gave the Cubs a 1-0 lead and appeared to unhinge Mets starter John Maine; he walked the next two hitters, forcing in a run, hit Cliff Floyd, scoring another, and when Mark DeRosa smacked a two-run single to left and Jones redeemed his baserunning mistake with a RBI single (and when was the last time you saw a batter get two hits in an inning?), Maine was done, the Cubs had a 6-0 lead, and cruised to a 6-2 victory over the Mets, evening the series and possibly reaching another tie with the Brewers for first place in the NL Central, pending the result of their game with the Phillies, at this writing led by the Phillies 4-1 in the 4th. (See the open thread below for the MLB.com Gameday link for that game.)
Little things done right. We know, we know. Theriot's not the best player on the team, and he may not even be the regular SS past this season. Yes, I know his .715 OPS going into today's game is mediocre. But he hustles and plays the game the right way, and today, that hustle helped the Cubs win.
And isn't that what's important? Wins?
There were so many little things done right today. DeRosa made a spectacular catch, over-his-shoulder, Willie-Mays-basket-style, on a popup into short RF by David Wright in the third inning, with a runner on second and the game, at that time, scoreless. Little things. Ted Lilly threw a terrific game, and helped save the bullpen by throwing 113 pitches (76 strikes) and going until there were two out in the 8th, when there was no way Lou was going to let him face Moises Alou a third time, after Alou had homered off him twice.
Incidentally, the second Alou HR landed about six rows in front of us. Something happened to whoever was attempting to throw the ball back on the field, and it wound up in the RF corner in the lower box seats, from where it was then deposited on the field. Incidentally, when this ball was mis-thrown, Phil said he could throw a ball from our bleacher bench and hit Aramis Ramirez, standing in his position at 3B, on the fly.
This notion made us all laugh hysterically, just so you don't think we're buying what Phil tells us.
Meanwhile, Carlos Marmol got the last out of the 8th (after pitching around Alou and walking him), and we were somewhat surprised to see Bob Howry come out to throw the 9th, pitching for the second day in a row. Fortunately, his 9th inning was uneventful, and having thrown only ten pitches, he's probably available tomorrow. Lou said in his postgame news conference that Marmol (who, with Billy Petrick and Rocky Cherry and Sean Gallagher back at Iowa, is now the designated carrier of the pink backpack that is toted to the bullpen with water, sunflower seeds, etc. for the relief pitchers) won't throw at all tomorrow, and that he'd get Kerry Wood in there "soon". Again, the 9th inning today might have been a good place to get Wood in a game with minimal pressure -- a four-run lead.
This led to some speculation among us that Lou was saving Wood for the nationally-televised game tomorrow night. But managers don't do that. Do they?
Tim McClelland is one of the most respected ball-and-strike umpires in the major leagues. But doesn't it drive you nuts the way he has that delayed strike call? It must drive the players nuts, too, because more than one hitter started down to first base thinking he had walked, only to be called out on strikes. Hey, Tim: if it's a strike, call it a strike, willya?
Alfonso Soriano didn't look very good today, grounding out four times, the first two on comebackers to Maine. But it didn't matter, as other players picked up the slack. That's the way it's seemed to work for this club this year -- it's become a winner, and become likeable in so doing, by being a true team, having players pick each other up, and not relying on only one or two superstars. Jones made a horrendous baserunning blunder today -- he overslid third base, and 3B umpire Paul Schrieber made no call, which means no play has been made yet. David Wright had trouble finding the ball, and Jones could have scrambled back to third and been called safe, but delayed too long, long enough for Wright to tag him out. And yet, Jones got his redemption for the second time this week after a flub, by driving in a run later in the inning; he had a third hit to raise his average over .250. OK, so it's still not great, but if he can contribute in this way, he's still a useful player. So is Jason Kendall, who walked in the big six-run third, also singled, and is now hitting .244 with a .361 OBA. That's just fine, as long as the rest of the big hitters do their thing.
I also learned today that the primary reason the Cubs made no deadline deals, and also the reason that there were very few big-name deadline deals by any team, is that general managers who were offering big names for trade were asking for far too much in return. That doesn't mean that deals cannot be made in August, on a lower level, to fill any holes that might develop.
So tomorrow, Tom Glavine of the Mets goes for his milestone 300th win. The last pitcher to attempt such a milestone at Wrigley Field, also throwing for a New York team, was Roger Clemens, four years ago, in a game that turned out to be one of the most memorable of that magical 2003 season. Clemens failed in his quest, which was, like Glavine's, not his first try (for Clemens, it was his third such effort), and let us hope that Glavine suffers the same fate. Incidentally, the winning pitcher that day in 2003 was... Kerry Wood. Somehow, I have the feeling that Wood will play an important role tomorrow night. Just a hunch. Till then.
136 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nothing specific was mentioned...
Good game today.
The third base coach for the opposing team, the St. Joseph Blacksnakes, was Pete LaCock. Some of the oldtimers here will remember him I'm sure.
phat
by phatass on Aug 4, 2007 7:16 PM CDT reply actions
Pete LaCock?
Here are his career stats. Note that he walked more than he struck out and had a career OBA of .326. If he'd have had any power or hit for a little more average he might have become a low-rent version of Mark Grace.
And he got to play in a World Series.
Yeah, he seemed like a nice guy.
Oddly enough, he's the first Cub I've ever met.
phat
by phatass on Aug 4, 2007 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions
And, of course you know
by Not Bruce Froemming on Aug 4, 2007 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Jones
Interesting thing today. The usher up there in my dad's section stopped me today and asked if we could "Trade Dumpster." This guy knows the team, the park, the field.... I was rather surprised when he stopped me just to discuss this. He usually is not so opinoinated.
by No Southern Belle on Aug 4, 2007 7:17 PM CDT reply actions
Jones did come in hard...albeit to hard
I disagree
The real blunder was Lilly's bunt. He's gotta bunt the ball down the third baseline there.
And why he wasn't bunting again with men on first and third and no outs it beyond me.
I think you misunderstood
Agreed he was breaking up the DP
I think it was a heads up play rather than a blunder. If he goes in standing or a weak slide and they turn the DP then it would be a blunder.
Home plate ump
I think Ramirez heading down to first was more wishful thinking and trying to "sell" the ball than not knowing the call.
At least there was nothing too strange today. If memory serves McClelland was the home plate ump for the Sammy corked bat game, the Albert Belle/Jason Grimsley corked bat game and the Brett pine tar game.
by goody14 on Aug 4, 2007 7:23 PM CDT reply actions
I watch gameday
If you watched gameday yesterday, you would have been treated to a show of balls that literally crossed the plate middle thigh and dead center that weren't called strikes. And David Wright had a few ABs that would have been strikeouts if called by a competent umpire, but instead became walks. His AB in the first was a 4 pitch walk, that should have been 4 straight strikes:

And his "walk" in the ninth:

I'm going to have to rethink my position
by Fraggin Judge on Aug 4, 2007 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Looks to me like
Note that the "new strike zone" movement was some 5-6 years ago and seems to be slowly fading away, at least with some umpires who prefer to interpret the rules their own way.
by NightPutting on Aug 4, 2007 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions
hamels looks really good today.
speed and hustle can't be measured?
So I guess stats like infield hits, stolen bases, range factor on defense, and batters' box to first times (that scouts measure) can't measure things like hustle and speed? Keep trying, Al, but I think you're out of your league on this discussion.
Every player hustles on infield ground balls like Theriot's (they don't like to be the goat who ends potentially productive innings). Evidence of Theriot's speed DOES show up in statistics. If I looked a simple Theriot stat line, it's pretty obvious that he's quick, and hustles. Ergo, this play proves nothing.
Speed might show up
irrelevant
Does a good OBP tell you that a player should score more runs? No, but it's an intuitive connection. Same principle here. Statistics lead you to conclusions: they aren't necessarily the conclusions themselves (they often are, but not always). But, in the end, just about everything shows up statistically. Whether those conclusions happen to be directly, or indirectly proven from numbers is essentially irrelevant.
The point is: I could look at Theriot's numbers and understand his potential benefit to the team just as easily as you can after watching that play today.
if thats truly the case
I thought stat heads wanted Theriot to play
His minor league stats were deflated by his three year attempt to become a switch hitter.
He's doing a good job this year and certainly is a front runner to take this season's coveted "Little Loveable Hustling White Guy That White Guys Love But Isn't Quite As Good As They Think Award" away from David Eckstein.
by TR on Aug 4, 2007 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Are you seriously...
Ok, so lemme see if I understand this...
You and I both look at that conclusion and come to the same premise: that statistics can't measure that. You conclude from this that the statisics are flawed. I conclude that your reasoning is flawed. There's probably no way to reconcile these points of view, and I have no real interest in trying to do so. I'm just trying to decide if its amusing or insulting that you choose to look down on those who don't share your line of thinking here.
I'm not trying to insult anyone.
Yes, Theriot's speed does show up "in a stat line" -- he does, after all, lead the team in stolen bases.
I'm just not so sure why you and others who are more statistically oriented get so defensive whenever someone doesn't share your line of thinking.
I think the problem people have
Ryan Theriot is a perfect example of this. Rather than acknowledge his deficiencies as a player, all of which are easily demonstrated through statistics, you focus on things like "hustle" as if his scrappiness makes up for his numerous flaws as a player. It's the same kind of reasoning you use to argue that Mark DeRosa is somehow the most valuable player on this year's team or that Damian Miller was the key to the 2003 team.
Basically, you appear to pick guys you think you like as people and make up arguments that portray them as better baseball players than they actually are.
It's incredibly frustrating for some people as it makes reasonable debate impossible. What's even worse is that it gives openings to little snots like Thelonius whose only goal in posting on boards like this is to try, like Gaius Marius before him, to prove how smart he is.
by Porfi on Aug 5, 2007 7:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Well said.
Baseball isn't played on a spreadsheet with numbers. It is played on a field by human beings. There is room for both statistical analysis, and hunches. When I said DeRosa was "most valuable", does that mean he had the best statistics? Of course not. But no one can deny his value to the team -- and in many ways that is above and beyond his statistical contribution to the ledger of numbers. Same for Miller in 2003 -- go ask any of the pitchers on that staff and they'll tell you. Is that "grossly overvaluing" it? No, it's not. It's simply pointing it out.
Neither "side" should discount what the other sees. This is exactly the argument that took place in "Moneyball".
AL
by puckishcubsfan on Aug 5, 2007 7:37 AM CDT up reply actions
Re: little snots like Thelonius
lol
Also, I trust I'll be at least five times as pompous when I get out of law school. I sure hope so.
Law School!
And, someday, maybe after the thrill is gone, I hope you'll have the courage to get some help for your superiority complex. You'll feel much better, trust me.
I've been a government lawyer for years now...
5-3 phillies
Something else that can't be measured
Nice to get the break on the Theriot call. He was out. Nice hustle though. But then, Jones hustled, too. Replays show he should have been called out immediately.
Senor Peepee Hands was tough today. Nice to see no walks ahead of him.
by TR on Aug 4, 2007 7:52 PM CDT reply actions
Every Player Hustles????
by cozmotaylor on Aug 4, 2007 7:53 PM CDT reply actions
Washington up 5-1 on St Louis
Washington 10, St Louis 1
Al...
Why do you constantly say things like this? Yes, it can be measured and is measured. Just because there isn't a column for "hustle" does NOT mean that is NOT measured. Why must everything have it's own stat column for you realize that damn near every possible thing in this game is accounted for in the numerous stats we have?
I just don't get it, Al.
C'mon Maddog.
Of course you get it. He's arguing about how some things can't be measured with stats. That there is beauty and power in baseball that can't be told by some stat.
Jason Kendall today made an incredible block of a Carlos Marmol strikeout in the 8th inning. Now there are plenty of stats on fielding %, balls blocked, blah blah blah, but that it was that Play by Kendall at that moment in that game that shows how crucial a catcher like him is to a team. More measurable than any stat can prove.
You might not agree with it. In fact you probably don't. But don't say you don't understand it.
Thank you.
No, I don't get it.
Do these things have a column for themselves on most stat sheets? Probably not, though scouts record speed on a 20/80 scale, BP also records speed, there is, as TD pointed out above, stats like stolen bases, infield hits, range factor, and even beyond those are the number of times a player has advanced from 1st to 3rd on a single or scored from 1st on a double and the number of times he's gotten down the line quickly enough to break up a double play. There are numerous other stats that also quantify this exact thing Al says is not measurable.
Just because it doesn't have it's own column in a stat sheet (or it's own formula as some smart-ass inquired about), does not mean it is not quantifiable. It simply means that you are going to have to look at numerous stats to find your answer. That play yesterday was recorded in a stat sheet and it's a play that would, in fact, speak of somebody's hustle and/or speed (an infield hit).
You could have just been watching on Gameday and seen something like "Ryan Theriot singles to SS Jose Reyes" and you know damn well he was busting ass down the line. You know Reyes has a cannon. You know you don't infield hits for being lazy.
How is this something that is not measurable?
Of course there is beauty in this game. I've never said there isnt', and in fact, last evening I wrote in an email briefly about the beauty of this game. This does not mean that there are things that can't be told by some stat. About the only thing that can't be measured by stats are the things that are the result of winning...good chemistry and team psychology. Good teams are good at both (almost all of the time) and bad teams not so much. Teams do not win because they have good chemistry or the psychology of the team is fantastic. Those are the result of winning. And maybe, I would never argue against it, once a team has these things, maybe...they have an impact on how the team plays, but that impact would be measurable.
Not Everyone Who Disagrees With You Is Wrong
Well, good for you. But please, do not be so arrogant as to tell us that beauty can be measured in some stat. Wait untill I tell my wife. "Honey, your BQ is only .678. Work on it will ya, or I'm going to have to DFA you".
Perfect.
Hah!
You wanna know why I get defensive? Because so far in this thread you've validated people who say "there's a difference between fans and FANS" and this little snide comment about wives being DFA'd for not being pretty enough in a statistical sense. Instead on engaging in a conversation or appearing open to something, you crack jokes.
Meanwhile, we've got people around here who seem to think that their keen baseball eyes tell them that Alfonso Soriano is an automatic out. Yeesh.
Alrighty then...
Hustle..
There are many things in this game that CANNOT be measured by stats period. There are so many un-certainties, immeasurable quantities in any game that makes it playing it or watching it in real life more interesting than it is on XBox.
What's the equation
So how's that.....
Jones Play at 3d
i gotta admit something
Credit to Corey Hart.
What stat category does that show up in? Just wondering.
Right
There's another school of thought that believe that chemistry comes from winning, but I don't agree. I've seen good chemistry in losing ballclubs and bad blood in winning teams (the 1977 Yankees come to mind).
by Fraggin Judge on Aug 5, 2007 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions
range factor
by DartmouthCubsFan on Aug 5, 2007 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
That game, like I said, scares the crap out of me
I agree
That could very well be the difference
In fact if we win the division THAT WILL be the difference.
When you're closer is Mariano Rivera at home and ron Rivera trying to pitch on the road you're in trouble.
by puckishcubsfan on Aug 4, 2007 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Give the Brewers credit
Oh, well. Better "luck" tomorrow.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Aug 4, 2007 8:35 PM CDT reply actions
They are a good team
Thank goodness they hit the road on Monday.
I was at a Cub game in '89
If the Phil's pitcher pitches well tomorrow night, the Brewers will lose. A better barometer of how they will do are the facts that they're under .500 since May, their ace is out with an injury and they can't win on the road. One exciting win will not fix those things.
by TR on Aug 4, 2007 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Momentum ....
It's obviously and exactly right, like the old adage, "Momentum is the name of tomorrow's starting pitcher."
They're a great team
They remind me a lot of the 1987 Twins in that sense, except there is no way they're going to end up with home field advantage throughout the playoffs like that Twins team got.
by Josh Timmers on Aug 5, 2007 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Either that or...
I'm not trying to take anything away from the Brewers, I'm really not. But to suggest that this one game makes them all that more imposing is silly.
Is Fonz Tired?
Unless there's an injury the Cubs will not be serving up any Pie until September.
eventually they go on the road
We made up our deficit on the road we will regain first on the road. The Brfewers are goodbut they turn into a AAA team on the road....
Go Giants!!
Agreed,
Whether we like it or not, he's done it.
Last night
The only thing they have in common is they are both male and pro baseball players.
by puckishcubsfan on Aug 4, 2007 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Saw the weather for tommorrow
Night game
Today's weather forecast
Tonight: A 30 percent chance of showers and thunderstorms before 1am. Partly cloudy, with a low around 69. West wind around 5 mph becoming southeast.
Had to go
Al
That was one of the craziest days ever. Maddux going for 300. We had a new shortstop. ANd we're in a playoff race.
This will be the 4th time I go to a game where someone can win 300. I was at the Maddux game, the Clemens game and went to Milwaukee to see Nolan Ryan go for it. Hopefully this will be the 4th time I went and it didn't happen.
I was ironically at the Cell when Maddux won #300. Credit the Sox fans. It got a nice round of applause when the news was posted on the scoreboard.
I was watching ESPN
Come on Bears and Cubs let's spoil their New Yorgasm!
The Giants
Honesty compels me to say,
Regarding Theriot....
I look forward to watching Glavine get # 300
an adoring home crowd where I will actually root for the Mets ( not easy but as we all learned early this week it can be done).
by jessica on Aug 4, 2007 11:10 PM CDT reply actions
I highly doubt
While there has been some shift from the beginning of Maddux, Glavine, and Clemens' careers, I still consider this the same era, essentially (or at least close enough). We're seeing three 300 game winners in the 5-man rotation era. I see absolutely no reason why future pitchers can't match this.
"Never" is a long time. Even if we assume the mlb is only around for another 100 years, more 300 game winners are bound to arise (and it's much more likely that mlb baseball is around for several hundred more years if not longer. Let's just hope our robot masters like baseball 500 years from now).
I AM pretty confident that Cy Young's win record will never be eclipsed.
The problem is...
C.C. Sabathia
Those three are all possible.
Among those 13 years? ONE 20-game season (Santana). You see how difficult this is becoming.
Les Walrond
I'm tired of the way you always leave Walrond out of the conversation of top pitchers of our time.
Of course.
True.
who says you have to win 20
Remember, Z won 16 games for a horrible team last year. Are you telling me that no pitcher will ever average 15 wins a season over their career ever again? It's possible, but I doubt it.
How many pitchers...
The answer is 15. Here's the list, in no particular order:
Curt Schilling, Greg Maddux, Terry Mulholland, David Wells, Jamie Moyer, Danny Darwin, Jerry Reuss, Bert Blyleven, Dennis Martinez, Mike Morgan, Dennis Eckersley, Roger Clemens, Charlie Hough, Tom Seaver, Tom Glavine
You can see that sheer longevity doesn't necessarily mean you can accomplish this feat. (Eckersley probably doesn't even belong on this list, as he spent half his career as a closer)
Darnitall.
Nolan Ryan.
And John Smoltz gets to 20 if he pitches in 2008, but he too spent time as a closer.
Yeah, it's
And you forgot Randy Johnson, as well, who, if he pitches next year and gets 16 wins, will also hit 300.
Correction
It seems like I always have
They've sucked since 1969. I wish evil upon them.
Glavine can win #300 next year, thank you very much. Personally, I hope the Mets never win another game and I'll pay money to press the botton that implodes Shea Stadium. Oh, wait -- Ron Santo is first in line....
FYI, "Amazin Avenue" had 1 post in today's game thread, noted at 9:15pm PDT.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 4, 2007 11:19 PM CDT reply actions
I saw barry Bonds hit it tonight in San Diego
I can't wait to get back to Chicago!
by mweil on Aug 5, 2007 12:19 AM CDT reply actions
Cheering for Bonds in SD.
by Fraggin Judge on Aug 5, 2007 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Just wanted to say...
im really startin to hate the brewers with a
Hart
he's not a hack
and as for his "career year"
tkae his 2006 2nd half and extrapolate it and you get his 2007 numbers
this is the player he is, a very good RF
by DartmouthCubsFan on Aug 5, 2007 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions
i dont understand
off topic
lol
i dont exactly think of guys that have spent the majority of their youth with strippers and cocaine as "classy guys"
but maybe i have a different definition of classy
by DartmouthCubsFan on Aug 5, 2007 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions
im talking
Yeah, I don't understand this either
It really bugs me that a guy like Irvin had
Irvin was a topreceiver, but I think the guy should have been made to wait a while longer given the "standards" he and his Dallas cronies set for conducting themselves off the field. But I guess, compared to today's crop of pro football players, those guys in Dallas were angels. :-)
If character figures into the HOF,
Whatever Michael Irvin did off the field (and, yes, he was no angel by any stretch of the imagination), he deserves to be in the Hall based on his play.

by 


















