User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6710 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
so that would make sluggers "Drano"
(somehow, I don't think that nickname will catch on)
The Cubs want to score vast amounts of runs. And again, the bases are not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put baserunner on, he gets in line and he's going to be delayed by all the baserunners in front of him.
Not if they hit homers, which is kind of Dusty's point. Give him a bunch of .280/.300/.500 guys and he's happy.
I know this has been pointed out before, but what I still don't get is why he hates it so much when his pitchers give up a walk, but he also doesn't like when his hitters get walks.
Did he have Ron Cey batting ahead of him a lot in LA?
Yes, and Garvey, too. Neither known for speed, although Cey wasn't <u>that</u> slow. Really, he wasn't. But you may be on to something.
You surround yourself with people like you.
Only someone as enlightened as Dusty can tell the difference between the two.
I guess I should respect him for not doing it, but handling the media and public perception is part of a mangager's job.
I'd respect him for not doing it if he were doing his job of promoting good offensive personnel and tactics. He isn't. It's one thing to talk like a buffoon, another to act like one.
And what's particularly frustrating here is that he's the one who asked for speed, speed, speed. Guess what Dusty, the fast guys tend to be slap hitters.
I wish someone would point out to Dusty that in 2005 the Cubs were 2nd in HR but 9th in runs, and in 2004 were 1st in HR (by a lot, 20) but 7th in runs. Sure HR are great, but if no one is on base, they are no better than a productive 4-3 RBI groundout.
And when they were near the top in HR and mediocre at run scoring, his excuse was a lack of speed. Now that he has the speed, it's the lack of HR.
And people not like this group are unlikely to want anything to do with them.
Ummm...I think this is the BS.
Leo wanted to get rid of Mize & a bunch of other slow players
"back up the truck", is the way he put it to Stoneham
sammy.
No! He needs to continue getting regular playing time on the Tigers!
But you can't bunt a guy over if he hits a homer.
Main reason the Dodgers have outscored the Cubs by 89 runs? Their OBP is 29 points better, thanks mainly to 151 extra BB.
A manager complaining about baserunners clogging the bases is like Gen. Patton complaining about his tanks clogging the
roads. Yeah you might have a traffic jam but you have tons of *&^% tanks! Can you imagine Patton saying, "These
&^%$ tanks, wish they would all go away so our army convoys would flow fast and efficiently."
Dusty probably subscribes to the old-school notion that walks are entirely the mistake of the pitcher and something that the batter really has no control over. Not only that, but in the process of drawing the walk, the hitter may have let a ball go by that could have been used to hit to the opposite field or put the ball in play to move a runner over, etc.
HRs matter more to Dusty than anything else, even if they are solo shots, because they look impressive.
As far as Hendry and MacPhail are concerned, getting on base is not nearly as important as being able to knock guys in. Hitting with RISP is the most important stat and a guy who goes 0-3, but who can knock in a run in his 4th PA is far more important than a guy who is 3-3 with 3 runs score, but who fails to get a hit his last time up with a RISP.
Having a guy who is flashy with the glove, like Izturis, is the important thing to Hendry, even if the player is an injury prone OBP sinkhole whose defensive metrics show is actually only average in the field.
Having the park be used for corporate outings and day clinics is more important than allowing the team to practice. Even Dusty is overruled on this matter and can only say "I'm not in charge of that department."
It isn't necessary to spend the money to structurally maintain Wrigley Field; all the organization needs to do is put up a large net under the upper deck to collect falling concrete.
When the team is playing lousy and below expectations, it's better to get rid of the announcing team that draws attention to this and the players that criticize the announcing, than to remove the players who are actually underperforming.
It's unreal he doesn't realize that homers are so much more devestating when you have guys on base. You'd figure after a full season of watching other teams hit two and three-run homers, he'd grasp that concept.
Only one more month, only one more month...
How bad does a management team have to be to make baseball not fun?
Answer: now we know.
I'm pretty much there, Sam, as are a lot of people around here. Look at the Cubs Game Chatters.
Not that he's right in any way, but my guess is that what Dusty really means is that having men on base doesn't mean anything if they don't score, which means he'd rather have an inning go "out-out-solo HR - out" than "walk-out-walk-out-single-walk-out".
HRs matter more to Dusty than anything else, even if they are solo shots, because they look impressive.
The problem is that Dusty's notions of how to build a winning ballclub are contradictory. Replacing Corey Patterson with "great leadoff hitter" Juan Pierre cost the Cubs 20-25 home runs. Replacing Todd Walker with "flashy glove man" Cesar Izturis cost the Cubs another 15-20 home runs. Give the Cubs an extra 20 home runs this year and they're in 5th place in the National League in home runs. Make all 20 of them solo homers, and the Cubs are still in last place in the National League in runs scored.
I don't think it means this at all. Two years ago Baker complained about hitters hitting HR with no one on base. He's just making excuses.
Wouldn't he think they were equal?
bingo
by Jove, I think he's got it
bingo
by Jove, I think he's got it
Well, that's just an unkind way of saying that some managers prefer to have more than one way to score runs on hand. Three-run homers are nice, but you're not going to get one every time you need one. Sometimes you've got to try to make something happen offensively.
And that's not to mention that a lineup full of sluggers at every position gets awfully expensive awfully quick, and not every team has unlimited resources, or would prefer to spend all those resources on acquiring sluggers.
The problem, of course, is when those speedy players you have get expensive, as well. Those guys can give you value for a while, but the trick is to cut bait with them before they weigh you down. I'm hoping against hope that the White Sox do this with Scott Podsednik.
As #24 alluded this is a contradiction that a lot of "old time" baseball guys hold without realizing the inherent contradiction.
The chapter in 1988's Total baseball on the history of statistics revealed that it was actually controversial when MLB decided to make walks by batter an official statistics- baseball writers (and presumably managers & coaches) thought it was a complete waste of time- the argument was that a walk was something the pitcher did when the batter just happened to be standing there-
to be fair to writers from 100 years ago- some didn't like counting RBIs- correctly pointing out that a batter needed men on (and back then those runners probably had to be in scoring position) to get RBIs. First batter gets on, runner steals 2nd, second batter bunts him over, third guy drives him in with an out (a stereotypical deadball era scoring scenario). Why does the third guy get a Ribbie and the 2nd guy gets bubkes?
Having a lot of tanks don't do you much good if they aren't where you need them, when you need them there. Patton might not wish he had fewer tanks, but he might wish that some of them were elsewhere, where they might actually be doing some good.
As for Dusty, I've come to the conclusion that he doesn't actually have a philosophy about baseball. He just likes to complain about the press and give hugs to his players and make them feel better about themselves.
he gets a sacrifice!
Somebody else pointed this out before, but if you look at Dusty Baker's career (here), that seems to be true of him. His walk totals aren't bad, but they're a lot more random than for most players - for his full seasons they range from 43 in 638 PAs (1980) to 72 in 616 (1983) and his two biggest walk years happened at ages 34 and 25. It looks like, as a player, he did just kind of stand up there and, if a walk happened, it happened to him just because he happened to be standing there.
.300-30-100
I don't see sacrifices listed in the holy trinity...
Seriously, replace sacrifice with a ground ball to second that moves the runner to third...
When baseball stats were evolving in the 19th century, what's suprising is how CLOSE they came to getting it REALLY right (to be fair- in hindsight they did a great job- we forget they were working almost completely from scratch- some efforts had been made previously to compile stats with respect to Cricket, but in no sporting endeavor did it even occurr to people to compile statistical descriptions of specific individual events the way it was done for baseball), but for some reason the collection and analysis of stats froze early in the 20th century. The earliest "batting average" was actually runs scored per game and went through various permutations, including, at times, having outs as the denominator (yes Total Average was almost invented 100 years before Boswell unleashed it on the world), and for one year batting average included walks as both hits and at bats (basically it was OBP)
I'm pretty much there, Sam, as are a lot of people around here. Look at the Cubs Game Chatters.
I'm just about there as well and it's not through any kind of conscious protest. Watching the Cubs just kind of faded out of my consciousness this summer.
Actually, Dusty was a kid player with the Braves who idolized Hank Aaron and pretty much did everything Hank suggested. Aaron explained to Dusty the importance of being ready to play every day, that it's a long season, and a player needs to hold up to the grind. Baker has talked about Aaron's influence multiple times.
But another thing that I remember but that Baker does NOT talk about now is Henry's approach later in his career. The waiting for the pitch to drive. Patience. You can see that in Aaron's career that as his reflexes slowed a bit he became more selective at the plate and saw good results. I know he discussed that with Baker and other players on the Braves teams of the early 70's. It may seem obvious but at the time folks regarded it as some secret wisdom. And coming from a guy like Aaron it was treated as gospel. And while Baker didn't start walking 100 times a year he was showing signs of developing that skill.
Then Aaron leaves, Baker ends up as a Dodger, and after a discussion with Dodger coaches (can't remember if it was LaSorda's doing or not) Dusty came out swinging in 1980 and had a pretty good year. So he kept that up until he began to slow down himself and had to re-adjust.
I tried finding the articles that discussed these different events but didn't have any luck.
Anyway, I think that might explain Dusty's batting line a bit better.........
Give me fast players with power. And make them good defenders. Oh, yeah, make them experienced.
If you do that, I'd probably win, but we'll have to wait to know until the pitchers aren't injured.
You are quite welcome. Henry always took a special interest in the younger African-American players. He took his role as an "elder statesman" very seriously. I always wonder how Hank would have coped with a Gary Sheffield or Albert Belle. I would like to think that Aaron's stature would force even those gents to allocate some degree of respect. But since Gary called Dave Parker "a washed up has-been" to his face who knows?
possibly, but what's odd is-
1: One of his idols taught him the virtues of working the pitching
2: Late in his career he began working the count more (after having abandoned that approach in the middle of his career)
3: He managed teams in SF that had good team walk totals- not just Bonds, but players like Mueller and Snow and Javier and Hamilton and Santangelo and Kent all had years where they walked at a good clip; and
then he comes to Chicago and openly disparages batting patience, repeatedly-
and his Chicago teams (which drew 585 walks the year before he got there) have drawn 492, 489, 419 walks and are now on pace for 393 walks.
I don't think he's BS-ing at this point- I don't think he sees any value in walks, at least none that would outweigh the "loss of agressiveness" that walking more would entail in his mind, and I don't think he sees any connection between the offense sputtering the last few years, and the Cub's inability to get on base.
Yeah, but Parker was a cokehead who flushed several years of his career down the toilet and couldn't be bothered to stay in shape-
Aaron respected himself and he respected the game
I doubt very much that Gary had much idea about Parker's issues from the early 80's. Gary didn't much awareness of anything other then he knew he could hit better then Parker. And at this point of his career Parker had achieved "elder statesman" status himself. Though not to the level of Aaron.
All I know is what I heard and read at the time. Feel free to ignore it if you doubt the accuracy. But anyone who has listened to Baker talk for more then 15 minutes knows he worships Henry Aaron.
I wish a Dodger fan were here to talk about Baker's altered hitting approach. It was something of a topic of discussion in its day.
The man wants to get home at a decent hour.
Possibly, but what on earth does "clogging the bases" mean then? The only real explanation I can think of is that you have a guy like Henry Blanco in first when Juan Pierre hits a ball into a gap, forcing Pierre to stop at 2B when he would otherwise have a triple. This obviously isn't what Dusty is talking about, however.
So what does he mean? Why is "clogging the bases" bad?
It doesn't have any rational meaning -- it's nonsense. It's a front of Old Schoolness. Walks are something bad that pitchers do, not something good that hitters do. I suppose there's a grain of truth in that walks don't move runners along unless they're forced, but in Dusty's mind, hits are the only thing that matters.
Tim McCarver once explained it when talking about how Harmon Killebrew played his last season for the 1975 KC Royals, he said Killebrew *still* had the fastest bat on the team (he was 39 and hit .199/.317/.375- his OPS+ was in it's 3rd straight season under 100)
but he was slow
so he was clogging the bases
so he had to go.
This was in the 80s, back then starting out McCarver actually was (believe it or not) more astute than the average broadcaster (and back then the average announcer was more astute than the average one today...)
but every now and then he'd throw out somthing that'd make you do a spit take
and year by year the # of spit takes increased, and the number of cogent comments decreased, eventually the bad overtook the good...
... and god help us, he kept gettimg worse even after that point.
and his Chicago teams (which drew 585 walks the year before he got there) have drawn 492, 489, 419 walks and are now on pace for 393 walks.
Yes, but it's not like Jones and Pierre were known as walkmeisters before they came to the Cubs. In fact, there is evidence that players walk more with Dusty as manager than with other managers, after correcting for age and park.
Agreed, it doesn't mean anything. Just a sound bite for the old school types. Kind of like when a pitcher gives up 8 runs on 12 hits and 5 walks in 5 IP and gets the win and the MGR. in a post-game interview mentions that the pitcher "got the job done" and "came away with the win" and that's what matters.
This pales in comparisson to Dusty's press conference earlier in the year where he isolated the main problem that the Cubbies were having was they were having difficulty with "clutch hitting" and "situational hitting". Dusty noted that the coaching staff had taken notice of this and they were going to practice and work on their clutch hitting in order to try to break out of the funk. Nobody asked Dusty how he intended to "work on clutch hitting". Was the staff going to:
- simulate a high stress game-time situation during batting practice by putting Ryan Theroit and Henry Blanco on 2nd and 3rd base in street clothes during batting practice and having Dusty impersonate Mel Allen, mocking the broadcaster's hard-nosed style that we all impersonated as children while taking fungo swings: "And here comes Michael Barrett, bottom of the 9th inning 2 outs here in the World Series, Cubs facing those dastardly New York Giants for the coveted NL-pennant. 3-2 count, 2 outs bottom of the ninth Cubs trailing 5-4. A hit by Barrett will capture the pennant for the loveable north-siders, anything less will cause heart wrenching defeat...and here's the pitch....."
- Kidnap the wives and children of players and hold them at gun point on the third base-line while threatening to kill them if the hitter doesn't get a hit. Now if that's not a clutch, high-stress situation, I don't know what is.
Obviously, there is no shortage of IDIOT managers in the Majors (many of them manage to be succesful despite their shortcomings...I vaguely remember Ozzie lambasting a player for trying to get to 1st base safely on a bunt, when Ozzie clearly instructed him to go for a sacrifice bunt..Ozzie said something about how players need to understand the importance of sacrifice)...Just curious, Which managers are viewed as "smart" by the BBTF crowd? I don't pay to much attention to in-game management for several managers (I tend to mainly watch local games so my "feel" for many managers is limited, I rely on box-scores and anectdotes and obviosuly there is no shortage of "smart" maangers that give "dumb" soundbytes for the media)?
"Runners Left on Base" to "Total Runners". If you have Brad Hawpe on second base 100 times a year, you're going to have more innings that end with a runner on third than you would if you had Juan Pierre on second base 100 times a year. The fact is that in actuality, Juan Pierre is likely to be on second base much more often than Pierre is, and thus scores more runs. But per time on base, you get more stranded runners, which can lead to frustration, I guess.
I think you know what I mean here. Ugh, time to get back to work.
Wouldn't he think they were equal?
Maybe, but he'd be wrong. The "walk-out-walk-out-single-walk-out" scenario hurts the opposing pitcher more than the other scenario.
You're missing my point -- I agree that what Dusty is saying is backward, old school thinking that makes no sense. I'm just trying to find out what it is that Dusty is saying (even if we know it's wrong).
Specifically, what exactly is "clog[ging] up the bases"? Is he saying that he doesn't want to see Henry Blanco on base when Juan Pierre comes to the plate, because Blanco will slow Pierre down on an extra base hit? If that's what Dusty is talking about (as McCarver did), I can at least understand it -- even if it's stupid.
In this case, though, I don't believe this is what Dusty is talking about -- Dusty's point is that OBP clogs the bases, even if it happens to be Juan Pierre that is on base.
So what does he mean? Is he saying that he likes to keep bases free for some other reason?
Yeah, hate for them to be late pulling that trigger.
Where is this evidence?
I was that player.
whenever people get all old school with me about OBP i always change it around and call it the "not making outs percentage" and ask if they really think that there is anything more important to a batter than not making outs.
That evidence is getting old- in SF he seemed to have that effect on some players in Chicago there is no evidence he ahs that effect AND he states a preference for guys who hack away, AND the Cubbies have gone out and gotten guys who hack away.
This isn't a situation where a manager anounces some platitudes or repeats some old time baseball spiel-and then does the opposite- he (in conjunction with Hendry) seems to be acting on his/their beliefs that agressiveness (at bat) and "chemistry" (as they see it in roster construction) are the most imporatant elements in assembling a club.
The 2003 club that almost went to the WS
1: Only won 88 games
2: Top 4 starters each pitched 200+ip and posted ERA+ of 175, 136, 133 and 103
what the team needed most was baserunners- but they didn't look for baserunners and openly disparaged the idea of needing baserunners
The next year the Cubbies won 89 games
the top 6 starters (100+ ip) put up ERA+'s of
165, 131, 123, 122, 113 and 113- but only 2 had 200+ip BUT THAT's 6 starters with approx 1000 ip between them and each had an era+ over 100
The team's biggest need? Baserunners again (they hit 235 homers)
2005: The teams top 5 starters post ERA+ of 131, 116, 109, 101, 94
2 guys with 200+ip, teh wheels are starting to come off
but this was still a staff performance most teams would love to have
the team's biggest shortcoming- yet again a lack of baserunners
what does the team do about that?
essentially NOTHING, bring in proven verterans Jones and Pierre and says IF OUR PITCHING IS HEALTHY...
GUESS WHAT IF YOUR PITCHING IS HEALTHY YOU TOP OUT IN THE MID 80s again* because fundamentally you do not have a good team- you have a few good players and a lot of dreck
* Which might be enough this year- but you wouldn't know in the off-season
So what does he mean? Is he saying that he likes to keep bases free for some other reason?
Obviously solo home runs are much more fun than multi-run home runs, because the hitter doesn't have to worry about running too fast and overtaking the other runners.
In at least two interviews I've heard of Hendry, as well as one of MacPhail, they've talked about the fact that the reason the team was so lousy in May/June was solely due to hitting with RISP . . . which Hendry himself chalked up to luck.
Of course, he also said that hitting with RISP is the most important stat that he looks at, even more than OBP.
I don't believe he's yet figured out that he's saying that he's looking for luck.
Batting averages were first calculated in 1865. In 1880, the number of called balls required for a walk was *reduced* to eight (and further reduced over the next decade to the present-day four). When it takes 8 or 9 wide ones to put a batter on, then batting average basically *is* OBP, and walks pretty much *are* something the pitcher does while the batter just happens to be standing there.
I guess Dusty is even older school than I thought.
&^%$ tanks, wish they would all go away so our army convoys would flow fast and efficiently."
No, but right now I am imagining Gen. Samuel L. Jackson saying "I am sick and tired of these $%&*%$@ tanks on this %$&*%$@ road", if that is any consolation.
You joke, but Podsednik is making about $2 million this season. The Cubs are talking about forking out 4-5 times as much for a guy who's basically the same player with a bit more defensive value.
I don't believe he's yet figured out that he's saying that he's looking for luck.
Isn't this the mantra of the Cubs brass ever since October 2003? That it's just bad luck that's holding them back?
That said, even in a leadoff hitter, I thikn baserunning should behind OBP on the list of priorities. Any other spot and it should be even further down the list.
I think you are hitting the nail on the head the first time. Why do you think Dusty isn't talking about slow guys holding up the faster guys? I really think he is. It makes perfect sense when considered with his speed obsession.
Excuse me? They didn't call him the penguin for nothing. He ran like he had a dick up his ass.
It was his gait, not his speed, that earned him that name. Sure, by the end he was slow, but in his prime, he wasn't a base-clogger. He wasn't Alfredo Griffin, but he was O.K.
What he's saying is garbled and nonsensical. He probably equates OBP with walks, and he doesn't like people who talk about OBP and walks.
2003? Long before that, I tells ya.
Of course OBP isn't the only thing that matters, and speed is an important skill. If you have Kevin Youkilis with a .360 OBP and Jose Reyes with a .340 OBP, I would prefer Reyes as my leadoff hitter.
But with Youkilis at .380 and Reyes at .320, I'd probably take Youkilis.
I recall a similar (perhaps the same) article that charted how often guys got into scoring position, and I recall one guy in particular that stood out as superior in this respect despite his low OBP: Corey Patterson.
1. Slow guy on first, batter gets a hit that he might try to stretch into a double, but is held up by the runner stopping at second.
2. Slow guy on first, batter wants to stretch a double into a triple, but is held up by the runner stopping at third.
3. Slow guy on second, fast guy on first, a single fails to score the man from second and the trailing runner has to stop at second.
4. Slow guy on third with bases loaded fails to score on a grounder or fly, so the man on second can't take the extra base.
Other situations, such as man on second who fails to score on a single, can't be called clogging the bases, because he's not holding up anyone behind him. It seems to me that in most of the situations described above, the trailing runner is probably taking a chance on the extra base; even the slowest runners can go from first to third on a solid double or first to home on a standup triple. How frequently does it happen that a runner legitimately has to put on the brakes and give up a base because of the guy lumbering in front of him? I'd be surprised if it happens more than a dozen times a season.
Well, its true--they weren't getting enough hits with runners in scoring position. But the root cause was that they haven't had enough runners (in scoring position or otherwise).
If your team gets an extra couple hundred baserunners a season, you'll still score more runs even if you hit .200 rather than .300 with RISP.
I think the effect of Slow Guy seeming to be constantly stranded at third when innings end might explain why his manager gets irrationally annoyed.
Cubbies have hit .270/.315/.420 with nobody on (league hits .261/.323/.425)
Cubbies have hit .257/.331/.417 with RISP (league hits .266/.356/.422)
Cubbies have hit .220/.315/.392 with RISP 2 outs (league hits .240/.349/.386)
actually with RISP the cubbies are a little better, relative to league- at slugging anyway...
Situational hitting isn't their problem- lack of overall hitting is their problem
It's simply mind-blowing to me that anybody couldn't look at a page of statistics and not immediately pinpoint the Cubs problem. From ESPN, here's the Cubs rank in the National League in various offensive categories.
Batting average - 5
Slugging - 12
Doubles - 16
Triples - 4
Home Runs - 10
K's (fewest) - 2
Stolen bases - 5
Stolen base percentage - 8
Sacrifice hits - 2
So, this is a team that's obviously fast (SB, Triples), has poor but not god-awful power (HR), and likes to play small ball (SB, SH).
Looking at these numbers, you'd think this team is certainly below-average in run-scoring but probably no worse than 10-12 in the 16-team National League, right?
Then there's this:
Walks - 16: here they trail the 15th team (Pitt) by 57 walks. By contrast, Pittsburgh trails the 7th-place New York Mets by 57 walks.
And hence, they end up here:
Runs - 16
IT'S THE WALKS! HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT THE WALKS!!?
And they ran Corey Patterson, who has power and speed, out of town. The Cubs seem to be an example of what happens when you construct a team based on characteristics that have no rational relationship to winning ballgames.
The really sad thing is that, when I was looking the team offensive stats at ESPN, it's obvious that the Cubs actually had a plan and they've executed it. They have batters who put the ball in play, generally on the ground (they have the highest GB/FB ratio in the NL by a pretty wide margin). They're a fast team (although largely clueless about baserunning), so they like to play a lot of small ball.
The problem is that their ideas are the exact opposite of what you want to do. Fly balls are better than ground balls because you get extra-base hits instead of singles and avoid GDPs. Balls in play are a pitcher's second-best friend, not a hitter's. Stealing bases and bunting aren't worth much.
So, not surprisingly, the Cubs are dead last - by a pretty solid amount - in the National League in run-scoring - and there's simply no evidence that anybody in any sort of leadership role - Dusty, Hendry, McPhail - has been able to figure this out. They've executed their plan just fine; the problem is that their plan stinks.
Not really. Read it again, in light of his comments on HRs. Dusty seems to be stressing that his biggest concern is having guys who hit the ball out of the park, not guys who merely "get on base."
Yes, he's used this in the past to specifically refer to walks, but in this context I believe he is being more general -- talking about the urge for HRs over singles.
Why do you think Dusty isn't talking about slow guys holding up the faster guys? I really think he is. It makes perfect sense when considered with his speed obsession.
That would be both consistent and comprehensible. The problem, though, is that if this was Dusty's view, he would say something like "I don't want [Blanco, Ramirez, Barrett, et al.] just clogging the bases for [Pierre, Izturis, Cedeno, et al.]."
He's not saying that and has never mentioned speed or baserunning in connection with "clogging the bases"; instead, he's taking the stand that his most pressing problem is the lack of HRs and guys who "just get on base" don't help him.
I don't believe he's yet figured out that he's saying that he's looking for luck.
--Isn't this the mantra of the Cubs brass ever since October 2003? That it's just bad luck that's holding them back?
Sure, but it's one thing to complain that you've had bad luck; it's another thing to specifically target guys based on statistics driven primarily by luck.
Put another way, even if you believe that you've lost the last few years because you've guessed wrong on coin flips, it doesn't mean that you should try to get guys who have guessed right the last few times.
Usually a bad plan is better than no plan if executed well- in this case not so much- of course part of their plan was a healthy Wood & Prior and they didn't execute that part very well.
Actually, on closer inspection, that appears to be true (at least in Chicago).
Coming into this season (using numbers through 2005), here have been the players with more than 250 PAs as a Cub under Dusty --
Miller: BB/PA was 9.8% under Dusty, versus 8.4% under others
Karros: 10.1% under Dusty, 7.8% under others
Grudzielanek: 5.6% under Dusty, 4.6% under others
Ramirez: 7.4% under Dusty, 5.7% under others
Alou: 10.0% under Dusty, 9.4% under others
Patterson: 5.5% under Dusty, 3.4% under others
Sosa: 10.5% under Dusty, 9.3% under others
Choi: 14.6% under Dusty, 12.4% under others
Bako: 10.0% under Dusty, 9.5% under others
Barrett: 7.4% under Dusty, 7.3% under others
Walker: 8.6% under Dusty, 8.0% under others
Garciaparra: 6.5% under Dusty, 6.4% under others
That's twelve. There are seven who declined --
Gonzalez: 6.9% under Dusty, 7.1% under others
Goodwin: 6.4% under Dusty, 8.6% under others
Lee: 11.1% under Dusty, 11.2% under others
Macias: 2.8% under Dusty, 5.9% under others
Hollandsworth: 7.7% under Dusty, 7.8% under others
Burnitz: 8.5% under Dusty, 11.9% under others
Hairston: 7.2% under Dusty, 7.8% under others
But does he hate his pitchers giving up walks? If he says so, he's BS'ing. Since Baker took over in 2003 the Cubs have been 16th, 8th, 13th, and 16th in BB allowed.
The really sad thing is that, when I was looking the team offensive stats at ESPN, it's obvious that the Cubs actually had a plan and they've executed it. They have batters who put the ball in play, generally on the ground (they have the highest GB/FB ratio in the NL by a pretty wide margin). They're a fast team (although largely clueless about baserunning), so they like to play a lot of small ball.
Time to recycle a joke I told earlier this season: The Cubs clearly tried to emulate the White Sox, only they accidentally looked at the Stats for the 1959 White Sox. Or maybe they just listened to what Ozzie said instead of looking at the 2005 Sox stats.
Hmmm...I wonder
2006 Cubs: 268/319/421 with 4.25 r/g, 698 K, 308 BB, 89 SB, 42 CS
1959 Sox: 250/324/364 with 4.29 r/g, 634 K, 580 BB, 113 SB, 53 CS
So we just about got it right ... except for the walks :-)
I think you will find that whether on an individual or team basis GB% is closely, and inversely, linked to BB%, if a hitter swings at bad pitches more often than not it will be pounded in the dirt to SS. And if a pitcher knows a hitter is not selective they are more likely to work down in the zone where it is harder to drive get a pitch in the air.
What about when we don't like it when pitchers don't get strikeouts, but don't care when hitters get struck out? ;-P
Anyway, you guys are just twisting what Dusty is saying. What he means is that hitters who take walks are just being selfish pricks who are trying to pad their nerd quotient. Instead of taking the wussy way out and not swinging at pitches out of the strike zone, they should be trying to mash those balls out of the yard. If you think like Vlad, you'll hit like Vlad.
The Cubs do think like Vlad. Vladimir Nunez.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main