Parts of Wrigley Field are being resodded this month. Photo taken at 8:45 am, 10/13/09, from Wrigley webcam
Baseball's division series ended with a whimper, although many of the games were close and interesting; only one series, the Phillies and Rockies, ended without a sweep. The last season in which there were no sweeps in the first playoff round was 2003; this is the second time in the last three years where there were three sweeps in the four series.
Lesson learned (are you listening, Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella?): even a 90+ win team during the regular season can go through three games where they look bad and don't get breaks and have some bad luck and lose three games in a row. The Dodgers, for example, had a five-game losing streak not long before the regular season ended -- all to teams with sub-.500 records (Pirates and Padres). Yet, they righted their ship and beat the Cardinals three straight. As Cubs fans we hope the Cardinals overreact the way the Cubs did after losing last year's NLDS.
There were some monumentally bad umpiring decisions in the postseason so far; we cannot know whether these bad decisions cost teams games (although in the case of the two bad calls on the same play made in the wee hours of Tuesday in game 3 of the Phillies/Rockies series, it might have), but there is no doubt that the time has come to expand the use of replay review in baseball.
Lesson learned: give each team two "red flag" replay review requests per game. This would include the HR replays now permitted (but exclude ball and strike calls -- everything else would be reviewable). It would involve strategy on the part of the managers; do you use your replay on a trapped/caught fly ball issue in the first inning of a scoreless game, or do you save it for later? Doing this would eliminate virtually all of the yelling, screaming manager/umpire arguments, reduce ejections and suspensions, and get nearly every close call like this right. To speed up review, add a fifth umpire to each crew; he would sit in the press box and review calls as needed. He would also serve as the official scorer, taking this job away from sportswriters (who shouldn't have it in the first place).
Pitching is king in the postseason: no team scored more than seven runs in any of the 13 games so far, and six of the games were decided by one run. And, as Mitch Williams pointed out on the MLB Network last night, one of the reasons baseball is a great game is "youneverknow": three lights-out closers during the regular season, Huston Street, Jonathan Papelbon and Joe Nathan, got lit up during key postseason innings, and Brad Lidge, who had one of the worst years for a closer for a playoff team in recent memory (if not ever), nailed down two wins for the Phillies.
Lesson learned: well, maybe there isn't one here, except that luck can be involved in any of these games, and of course, in a five-game series each game's result is more magnified. Street and Papelbon blew two saves each this year and Nathan blew five. Over the course of a long season, that doesn't ultimately matter if you save enough of your other opportunities (Kevin Gregg, for example, didn't). But in a short series, one blown save or two can be fatal. It doesn't mean that Papelbon, Street or Nathan can't be or won't be trusted next year -- or that Lidge couldn't suddenly BE trusted after having a miserable regular season and being yanked from the closer job.
TBS did a somewhat better job visually, covering this year's division series, than they did last year. (That wasn't hard, as they were awful last year.) I liked the strike-zone box, left in the corner of the screen, showing the pitch location for each at-bat, but only from the CF camera, not interfering with other shots. They still have a long way to go -- and with their limited number of sponsors, the constant repetition of advertising got unbelievably annoying after a while.
Lesson learned: Brian Anderson, the Brewers' main PBP announcer, was the best of the four. One thing he did that every other PBP man on a short series should do: he made excited calls for good plays for both teams. There was no way to tell whether or whom he was rooting for -- the mark of a good national announcer. Anderson should get more national attention. And Dick Stockton should be sent out to pasture, already.
Finally, I've had enough with the champagne celebrations for winning the division series. Doing that if you win a postseason spot during the regular season: fine. That's celebrating a full year of accomplishment. Doing it if you win the league championship series: fine. That's celebrating winning your league pennant. Doing it for winning the World Series: fine -- obviously. But doing it for winning a division series? What have you done, actually? Win three of five games to move to the next round. Stow the champagne for that, please.
Enjoy the break before the league championship series begin. I've put a poll on the right sidebar asking who you think will win the World Series out of the four remaining teams.
0 recs | 147 comments
7th Postseason Umpire for Replay
In the postseason, should there be a 7th umpire for replays? Having a LF umpire in the Yankees/Twins series didn’t help in calling that Joe Mauer ball down the left field line correctly.
memphiscub - October 13, 2009
There has been some talk...
… that the foul line umpires aren’t really necessary. Read this, for example.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
As an ump, myself,
I don’t agree with replay. For HR’s yes. There’s too many cases of fan interference.
Cuzzi flat out blew the call. He can argue that he’s not used to the position, but there’s a 3B, and Home Plate ump to help. Whatever happened to getting help? Or the Crew Chief over riding the call? Umps fell they’ve become unfallible at the MLB level. That’s the bigger problem.
VFTB Matt - October 13, 2009
I think...
… that having replay would get the calls right. You are right that umpires feel they’re infallible. Replay would help that attitude.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
I would hope...
it would get the calls right. Although, even in the NFL it’s still not perfect.
I’m just miffed that’s theres two other umps that can make that call, and can (and do) during the regular season, and neither of them even attempted at over turning it. They’re in the correct position to do so.
Not sure replay would help, I’d say it might make them even more pompous, like the strike zone cameras a few years ago. They need to get umps to realize they are not a part of the “show” and just there to enforce the rules. Too many of these guys think they’re like characters in the game. Dramatic strike calls, dramatic out calls, no adherence to rules (the in the vicinity turning DP calls come to mind). It’s mind boggling.
VFTB Matt - October 13, 2009
All the reasons you mention...
…. are good reasons to have replay. If the umpires know they might have their calls overturned, maybe they’d focus more on getting them right in the first place.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
Replacing the official scorer
is icing on the cake. I like the one replay per team unless the call gets overturned idea.
santo4hof - October 13, 2009
I agree with you Al, about replay.
But there is one thing. On a play such as Reed Johnson’s catch against St. Louis in August which was shown on ESPN’s replay to be a trap instead of a catch, how many bases would the runner be awarded?
There would have to be some kind of guidelines for a play like this.
I want everyone to know that I am not against replay.
Vermont Cubs Fan - October 13, 2009
They'd have to codify that in the rule book.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
Umpire discretion
I’m in favor of umpire discretion as the rule. If the umpire judges on a trap that if it was not call an out it would have cleared the bases or only one run would have scored, so be it.
It’s not perfect, there will be some complaints, but it is better than everyone repeatedly seeing high-def replays of missed calls.
cliff - October 13, 2009
Is this a case of...
the chicken and the egg?
Would we even be arguing replay if we didn’t have HD super slo mo replays from multiple angles? Or would we just accept the umps calls?
VFTB Matt - October 14, 2009
It's not just this, Al.
If the runner thinks he’s out when in reality the play is a trap, he’s not going to be running very hard. And the defender is going to come up acting like he made a diving catch.
In this situation, would it be umpire’s discretion as to how many bases the runner will be awarded?
Vermont Cubs Fan - October 14, 2009
Yes, I think it should be.
Al Yellon - October 14, 2009
One lesson the league needs to learn is better scheduling
eths - October 13, 2009
your point being that the Twins (in their new outdoor stadium next year)
and the Rockies should not be allowed to have home games in October? :-)
Or are you referring to the stacking of three games per night so that you have games finishing on the East and Central time zones at insane times of the night? On this I agree. The first game has to begin earlier in the day when they play 3 per day, or let two of the games overlap if necessary.
LAcarl519 - October 13, 2009
I'm talking mostly about the "insane" times, even if it did make breakfast baseball possible in Europe
eths - October 13, 2009
How about....
All of the above. Personally I wish the season was shorter. Playoffs should start around middle of September. This would solve the World Series from extending until Thanksgiving. As for the times of the game I think a lot of it has to do with all the games for the divisional series only being on TBS.So those triple and double headers just seem to last all day.
TJ3117 - October 13, 2009
I honestly would not mind a return to the 154-game schedule.
(And a contraction of playoff teams, but that’s a different matter.)
I think a lot of “casual” sports fans tire a little bit of baseball season when the NFL starts up and if the playoffs started a little sooner it would go a long way toward remedying that. Plus there’s the matter of not playing baseball in November.
cubsforever - October 13, 2009
You'll never get the 154-game schedule back.
You want every owner to give up the revenue from four home games every year?
It. Will. Never. Happen.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
Shorter season
Agreed. No way teams that are selling out go to fewer games. But I think the season can be shortened by having split double headers on Saturdays. That would allow the regular season to start a week or so later and end a week or so earlier.
cliff - October 13, 2009
Wouldn't split double headers...
…hurt TV dollars and attendance? Not as many fans could sit through 6 hours of baseball in 1 day — whether it be in the stands, or at home.
calicubfan - October 13, 2009
You're not expecting the same fans to watch all of both games.
Especially where the Cubs are concerned, they can easily sell out both ends of a split DH.
Al Yellon - October 14, 2009
Shorten the season by means of double headers?
Also very unlikely to happen.
eths - October 13, 2009
Why?
Wouldn’t attendance be higher on a Saturday in the summer than an evening in April for most teams? I think it benefits the owners. The issue is the player’s approval—I don’t know if that is why you believe it unlikely to happen.
cliff - October 13, 2009
Player approval seems remote to me
eths - October 13, 2009
I doubt season ticket holders would like it
calicubfan - October 13, 2009
Scheduling Problems - Too Many Off Days in DS
I believe that arises from TBS having all of the division series games. TBS wants those games to overlap as little as possible. Sure, if there is an overlap, Turner will put a piece of a game on TNT. Rarely, we will see four division series games on one day. That’s why there are too many off days in the first round. We could have had four games on Sunday, but the Dodgers-Cards series finished Saturday.
If Fox and TNT split the division series games, then we could see all four series going on the same day more often. That would cut down on the number of off days during the division series. I suppose neither Fox nor TNT wants to have their audiences split by having games going simulataneously because of that huge money they are paying MLB.
memphiscub - October 13, 2009
Perhaps Hendry overreacted
But let’s not forget that it happened to the Cubs two years in a row. It still may be simple coincidence, but when the same thing happens two times in a row (especially the complete lack of hitting) it’s hard to just sit tight and try it again with everything the same.
Luis - October 13, 2009
that's not figuring in the changes made between 2007 and 2008
The roster changed a lot between 2007 and 2008 — Murton, Jones, Hill, Floyd, etc.
elgato - October 13, 2009
I hope Hendry and Lou already learned their lesson
Watching the Cardinals fall on their faces (more on that in a second) MIGHT have been more food for thought. But if Lou and Jim have any brains, they realized that they overreacted to the 2008 NLDS two or three months ago — not over the weekend.
What’s ironic is that the Cubs will likely do less, after a disappointing 83-win season, than they did last winter after leading the league in wins. I know some of that is made necessary by the logjam of big contracts, but it’s still sad. I wouldn’t mind a major makeover this winter …
Finally, I’m SO, SO glad the Cardinals exited the playoffs exactly the same way the Cubs did in 2008 (and, essentially, in 2007). It will make being around Cardinals fans more tolerable. I can see them bragging even if they had lost in five games to the Dodgers.
elgato - October 13, 2009
With all due respect...
I’d argue that they didn’t overreact, but were actually quite rational in their thinking. The Cubs problem was with the execution. They needed big, productive, LH bats, who could force the opposing manager to make decisions, and not stick his late inning guy and closer out there for 3-4 innings. You want to start getting into that bullpen. The problem was for some inexplicable reason, their choices ultimately came down to Joey Gathright, Paul Bako, Aaron Miles, and Milton Bradley.
Substitute Bradley for Ibanez, Abreu, or Dunn, and Miles for…well, anybody, and I think Cubs fans are hailing Hendry right now for what I think would have been a much more successful season.
Damen Jackson - October 13, 2009
Rec'd
Luis - October 13, 2009
Agreed
I’ve been saying this for quite some time now. Every team in the game goes for righty/lefty balance.
dmlichte - October 13, 2009
Sure, but...
… that’s not the reason they lost three games. The 2008 Cubs led the NL in runs scored. Why would you want to blow up a team that did that?
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
Ask Hendry at the Convention.
chilango2 - October 13, 2009
Define "blow up"
As far as I’m counting the Cubs only changed second base (DeRosa for Fontenot) and right field (Edmonds for Bradley with Fukudome going to center). That’s 2 starting positions out of 8, and a lot of people would argue that 1 of them was almost obligatory (Edmonds… you had said many times that the Cubs made a mistake in resigning Gaetti, resigning/counting on Edmonds would have been pretty much the same thing).
Luis - October 13, 2009
Ha
beat me by a few seconds.
shoemile - October 13, 2009
I think it was only 1 second actually :P
Luis - October 13, 2009
There was also
Cedeno for Miles and Blanco for Hill.
But the real issues here was focusing on needing a LH hitter to separate Lee and Ramirez. Fixating on that caused Fukudome to have a rough first year transition as his manager tried to force him to be a player he couldn’t be. Then it pushed Dome to CF, causing us to dump Pie. Note that Pie and Dome are both LH – so, we made choices not just for L/R balance in general, but at one specific point in the lineup, a choice that made our defense worse, our clubhouse less positive, and our budget more strained.
DGU - October 13, 2009
How exactly did Lou "force" Dome to be a player he couldn't be?
And what exactly did Jim think he was getting when he signed him?
shoemile - October 13, 2009
Hitting him fifth...
was a recipe for disaster. As I put it then, “It. Won’t. Last.” It’s a completely different mindset, and goes against his natural desire to see pitches, and walk-first mindset. I’d also go so far as to say hitting him in the five hole helped ruin Fukudome last season.
Damen Jackson - October 13, 2009
why do the Cardinals ...
look like geniuses when they put Skip Shumaker at second, but the Cubs look like idiots when they put Fukudome in the No. 5 spot? Or Fontenot at third?
elgato - October 13, 2009
ummm...
…because moves like putting Schumaker at second and Franklin at closer and Smoltz in the rotation are smart moves made by a perennial championship contender. They don’t compound moves made out of necessity by employing them incorrectly. If they turned and hit Schumaker 5th, they’d be called idiots.
Other teams might have made more idiotic moves than the Cubs, but they’re amongst the league-leaders.
Your two points are examples of such…batting Fukudome, Bradley, Jeff Baker, Reed Johnson, etc., in the fifth spot in the lineup while not having solid OBP guys in front of their star run-producers. They hurt themselves twice there. When a team with this much talent has trouble scoring runs, you look like an idiot.
Putting Fontenot at third to open up a spot for Aaron Miles while Jake Fox rots in AAA or on the bench… Yup, you look an idiot when you do that and it doesn’t work.
Sure, when you have Ramirez healthy and Soriano healthy and productive and Soto healthy and productive, you can basically pick the lineup out of a hat and you’ll score runs… but the Cubs got very little of the latter two and basically never got all three.
The Cardinals made the proper adjustments during the season (acquiring DeRosa and Holliday to make up for losing Ankiel and Glaus, moving Franklin to closer), and they didn’t wait until the last minute to do it. Sure, they paid a steep price to just get crushed in the playoffs, like the Cubs did the last two years, but can we honestly say we wouldn’t feel better if it had happened to us again vs how this season played out?
When a team spends as much as the Cubs did, gets as far as they did even with all the problems, and doesn’t even make an effort to make up for it… they get called idiots.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
I don't really disagree with most of what you said
I was making a point more than I was asking a question. The Cardinals seem to do a better job making lemonade out of lemons than the Cubs.
I actually think gambles for the 2007 Cubs paid off in the short term — Theriot replacing Izturis, Jones in center. Since then, most of the gambles have backfired.
elgato - October 13, 2009
the ryan franklin thing is still up in the air on the smart-o-meter..
jesus christos - October 13, 2009
All-Star season, very low ERA
I’d say it was at least a mild success.
elgato - October 13, 2009
But they signed him to a contract extension.
They may regret that.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
good first half
gregg like second half
jesus christos - October 13, 2009
fair enough
on both points — I wasn’t looking at his numbers that closely.
elgato - October 13, 2009
ok...
He didn’t give up a single run or blow a save in August. He had one blown save in July. He had a bad September, but by then he wasn’t getting regular work as the Cardinals had it wrapped up pretty-much the whole month.
When he gets regular work, he’s pitched phenomenally out of the pen. I watched him coming up through the Mariners system and always knew he’d be a great reliever. He just gets a ton of grounders.
The bigger point is… when Jason Motte “won” the closer’s job in spring training and crapped himself in the first game, they didn’t just throw up their hands and say, “What can you do?” They moved Franklin to closer and got an All-star performance out of him. They relied on the veteran lefties Dennys Reyes and Trever Miller more. Even Motte, himself, ended up putting in a couple solid months out of the pen.
Not signing Reyes or Joe Beimel before the season was a major mistake for the Cubs. Both ended up in post-season bullpens, while the Cubs had nobody who could get lefties out until they picked up John Grabow, and he wasn’t enough.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
rec'd
DGU - October 13, 2009
Green
Archie - October 14, 2009
I suppose
In Japan though, his career slugging percentage was .543. I don’t think anyone expected him to be a huge power hitter, but he did show the ability to come through with the extra base hit. I guess I didn’t think the cubs were getting a #2 hitter when they signed him
shoemile - October 13, 2009
Honestly,
As I recall, many people — myself included — expect a three hitter, at best. Some doubles power, high OBP, maybe 15-20 homers. Maybe. Most folks that I talked too warned me that his power wouldn’t translate here.
If Hendry thought he was getting a slugger, he wasn’t paying attention.
Damen Jackson - October 13, 2009
Well...
… we did get doubles power from him this year. Maybe next year will be better.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
Dome
Even if he hits more homers, he’s not ideally placed fifth. He gets on base too often to bat lower than third in any lineup. His doubles power makes him too much of a threat to ideally bat higher than second. Doesn’t seem like too intricate a decision to screw up.
Even if Fukudome were to miraculously find a way to hit for the kind of power necessary to protect Ramirez and Lee and diversify the lineup, it would put one more bad hitter/OBP guy in front of them. It kills the lineup.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
I think he'd be best served (and the team too) hitting leadoff.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
sure
It doesn’t really matter as long as he’s in one of the top three spots… but if you bat him leadoff you sacrifice the fact that he is left-handed and can drive in runs. He shouldn’t bat in front of Ryan Theriot or Sam Fuld.
If the team can’t add a major improvement to the offense, which I think is a possibility. The best place for him is third with Fuld/Johnson and Theriot in front of him and Lee, Ramirez, Soto and Soriano behind him. Again, when all of these guys are healthy and productive, you can basically pick the lineup out of a hat.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
Interesting point on the drive in runs part
I agree with you.
But . . .they did that for 2 1/2 years with Soriano.
Shanghai Badger - October 13, 2009
yep
…and for 2 1/2 years, they were wrong to do so.
It didn’t matter all that much with Lee, Ramirez, Edmonds, etc., hitting like they do… but it did cost the Cubs a lot of runs… because Soriano is a sub-standard OBP guy and they had to employ sub-standard SLG guys later in the lineup to make up for having their best and highest-paid hitter hitting in a sub-optimal place in the lineup. It caught up with them when playoff time came around.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
was Soriano every the best hitter in the lineup?
elgato - October 13, 2009
ever
elgato - October 13, 2009
yeah
There have been times when he was the only guy in the lineup hitting for power. Of course, we’ll never know the impact moving him lower in the lineup would have had on the other hitters… but knowing you have to face a hot Soriano would probably make you pitch Lee and Ramirez differently. He can’t really change his fragility and defensive short-comings, but he still has this reputation in baseball.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
btw...
i meant, i don’t think they’ll make any major improvements to the offense, unless it’s at 2b (Figgins or Iwamura, maybe) and instead rely on getting healthy, productive seasons from Ramirez, Soto and Soriano to make the difference. I could really see the team with Fuld/Johnson in CF next year, and I really don’t have a problem with that.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
Exactly
Furthermore, it’s become clear that Dome needs regular rest. By trying to make Dome a lineup keystone, he was overworked, too. Who knows what Hendry thought he was getting exactlty, but what he got was a valuable player who has been pushed to be something he’s not both seasons as a Cub.
DGU - October 13, 2009
I'd venture to say
that throughout that first year, Jim, Lou, and everyone else associated with the cubs thought they were getting a lineup keystone for 12 million dollars a year. We see now that wasn’t the case.
shoemile - October 13, 2009
12 M is not what you pay a lineup keystone.
cf. Aaron Rowand making 12 M a year
DGU - October 13, 2009
I guess it depends on how you define 'keystone'
But Milton was signed to be a lineup keystone and he was making $10 million a year. Dunn made $10 million. Ibanez made $10 million.
None of those guys was an Abreu-esque bargain, either.
elgato - October 13, 2009
You're right on that.
But the point is that in Dome we were paying for other things as well – defense, a batting approach our team needed to grow in emulating, and a window into a market that could add new revenue.
DGU - October 13, 2009
bottom line
The Cubs overpaid Kosuke Fukudome — at least so far — even if you factor in the batting approach, defense and ability to attract Japanese fans.
elgato - October 13, 2009
If they overpaid
(something we aren’t in a position to judge at this point in his contract), it wasn’t by much. He’s been worth 19 M on the field apart from the value of the approach and Japanese market share.
The reason Dome seems so disappointing is precisely because he’s been asked to be something different than he is. If Ryan Theriot was asked to be a power hitter, we’d be disappointed with him, too. Oh, wait, Lou did ask Theriot to be a power hitter and it was disappointing. Oh well.
DGU - October 13, 2009
Kosuke's been worth $19 million over the course of two years
unless I’m reading the Fangraphs item incorrectly. The reason that looks reasonable compared with what he actually earned is that he only made $7 million in 2008. Subtracting that and the $12.5 million he made this year, the Cubs are still on the hook for $28.5 million over the next two years — and I doubt Kosuke will be worth that.
As for the value of his approach and Japanese market share, I think that’s akin to leadership ability and chemistry. It might be helpful, but arguing over the value is pretty pointless.
It’s not Kosuke’s fault that the Cubs overpaid him AND miscast him. But do you really think that Kosuke will be worth $28.5 million over the next two years — when he’s 33 and 34?
Kosuke HAS value and isn’t a Milton or Miles style disaster. But his contract along with others (especially Soriano’s) hurt the Cubs’ ability to improve the team.
elgato - October 13, 2009
He's overpaid
But not by much… he also brings value to a team because any team with a prominent Japanese player should be able to reap the rewards of a share of that market. In theory, he can make up any deficit on the field between his value and his salary by allowing the team to increase their payroll. Obviously, I can’t tell you whether the Cubs are taking advantage of that.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
That's just what I'm trying to say
He’s been overpaid the way he’s been used, by a bit, and only if we don’t factor in the Japanese market. Who knows how much was made by increasing Japanese interest in the Cubs. None of us do.
And he could end up being worth more if he’d be used with better discretion. How much of Dome’s slides come from exhaustion? If you can limit the depth of his slides, he becomes a much more valuable player.
DGU - October 13, 2009
DGU
Yes… I should have read better… I noticed I just said what you said over again. lol
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
Ah, but
you said it better.
DGU - October 13, 2009
hmmm...
highly debatable, but we’ll go with that! I do have a lot of experience with seeing how the Mariners have reacted to having Ichrio, Kaz Sasaki, Kenji Johjima, etc.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
And don't people say Rowand is way overpaid and a bust thus far?
I doubt Jim is looking for platoon players when he’s throwing out 12 million dollar a year contracts
shoemile - October 13, 2009
Dome's another example ...
of someone Hendry paid way too much for. $12 million per to be a platoon outfielder who needs regular rest and has little power or speed?
elgato - October 13, 2009
moving Dome to center didn't force us to dump Pie
The Cubs signed Gathright to replace Pie. The Cubs could have easily saved about $400k and kept Felix.
elgato - October 13, 2009
Agreed
shoemile - October 13, 2009
Right.
And Hill did a good job as backup catcher.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
Pie was an option for CF
If the Cubs had made it a priority to improve defense and/or to get younger and more athletic as well as to have LH bats in the lineup, Felix Pie was right there. He could have been given the starting job and batted 7/8. He could have been given the job in a part-time way with Reed Johnson or a similar player.
Joey Gathright didn’t replace Pie in any meaningful way. Pie was always more than a 5th OF and pinch-runner.
DGU - October 13, 2009
He could've been all those things you say in your first paragraph
But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have been a 5th OF and pinch runner either.
shoemile - October 13, 2009
I just totally disagree
The Cubs gave up on Pie because they didn’t think he would ever live up to expectations AND because they figured Gathright would be a better 5th OF and pinch runner.
elgato - October 13, 2009
Feel free to follow whatever belief you want on this.
The fact is that Pie was an option the Cubs had on roster. He could have played a solid CF and been given the chance to let his bat come along. And he’s LH. The point is that it’s not just LHedness. Jim and Lou chose a LH slugger over four or five other factors, factors that we seem to be heading into this offseason much more interested in.
DGU - October 13, 2009
I agree that Pie was an option
I just don’t think the presence of Fukudome or even the Bradley signing forced the Cubs to do anything. At worst, Pie was a cheap fifth outfielder. At best, he could have supplanted Milton or Fukudome.
elgato - October 13, 2009
Blew up?
The only “blowing up” I saw was giving the backup 2nd baseman the full time job. I don’t think anyone was comfortable with Fukudome full time in right, so they gave him old man Edmond’s job. This left the team with a hole in right field, and thus Bradley was signed. Like Damen mentioned, it wasn’t finding a new right fielder that was the problem. Signing Bradley was.
shoemile - October 13, 2009
Well,
I didn’t exactly say that. I’m not a fan, but I could have better accepted Bradley at less years and cost. It was silly to think Bradley could stay healthy, productive, and stable enough for three years in Chicago to justify that contract.
The real problem was rather than taking that 14 million or so and getting a difference maker, they embraced a College of Busters that blew back on them in a really ugly way. Bradley in a vacuum was a situation that you could live with. Taken together with the other guys, it’s just a mess.
Damen Jackson - October 13, 2009
Who for that 14 million
was the difference maker you would’ve considered?
shoemile - October 13, 2009
I don't really want to open that can of worms...
Damned if I can recall every name and rumor that got dangled last off-season. But FWIW, while I would have thrown up a little in my mouth over it, at least Adam Dunn can be counted on to bash 40 homers, and take the field for 145-plus games.
The point is though 14 million free gives you a great deal of flexibility in signing someone, or absorbing a big contract.
Damen Jackson - October 13, 2009
Now, on that I would have totally agreed with you.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
What was worse -- signing Milton or Miles?
I think the answer is obviously Milton if you consider 2010 and definitely 2011. But I think signing Miles — and putting so much on his shoulders — was just as damaging to the 2009 Cubs as signing Milton — and maybe more so. Consider:
— With Miles on the roster, DeRosa was tradable, leaving the Cubs without their supersub, best hitting second baseman and backup at third (not to mention a team leader, good guy, etc.).
- With Miles on the roster, Ronny Cedeno was tradable. I wasn’t a Ronny fan, but he would have been better than Miles -at least defensively — on the 2009 Cubs. I know both guys were horrible offensively this year. Also, Cedeno was part of the deal that got us Heilman from the Mariners.— With Miles on the roster, the Cubs never figured that Fontenot would have to play third (IIRC, Lou suggested Miles to back up Aramis in ST). It’s a debatable point, but learning the new position could have derailed Fontenot’s season at the plate.
You could keep going with this line of thought. Maybe the Cubs don’t trade Marquis and cash for Jose Vizcaino if they don’t sign Miles. Starting pitching wasn’t a real problem for the Cubs this year, but getting nothing for Marquis looks pretty bad.
Anyway, the Cubs weren’t wrong in deciding to get more left handed. They just chose the wrong guys and overpaid them.
elgato - October 13, 2009
argh -- ignore the strike throughs
elgato - October 13, 2009
What's worse? Being gored by a rhino or a unicorn?
Same result in the end.
(Man, do I have a keyboard full of wiseass today…)
Zeke - October 13, 2009
ha
elgato - October 13, 2009
well,
a rhino will stomp you after gutting your stomach while a unicorn will tenderly lick your wound with sincere apologetic remorse.
JFCubFan - October 13, 2009
Right.
I’d definitely rather be gored by a unicorn. Especially that one that Drew posts after the Cubs win. He seems like a nice unicorn that wouldn’t try to hurt you too bad even while goring.
So, ya, for me the unicorn for sure. Being stomped on would suck.
BleedsbluinMI - October 13, 2009
Unicorns can be vicious
and deceptive. Consider this a warning.
Bill Potter - October 13, 2009
Whoa. I'm a little freaked out now.
BleedsbluinMI - October 13, 2009
I never did like unicorns. ;-)
sue369 - October 13, 2009
Thanks for the warning.
I just evicted a unicorn from my apartment.
Vermont Cubs Fan - October 14, 2009
I agree with your last line
If we look at Jim’s “needs” after the 08 season, I don’t think I’d disagree with his assessment. Obviously who he decided fit those needs was the problem.
shoemile - October 13, 2009
he was also wrong in that he overpaid for them
elgato - October 13, 2009
true
But sometimes that’s what it takes. And other times Jim doesn’t realize he’s bidding against himself.
shoemile - October 13, 2009
if the Cubs correctly diagnosed the problem
… they overpaid and overreacted to fix it. Even without the benefit of hindsight, the Cubs overpaid (in years and dollars) for Bradley and Miles. Had either or both received less from the Cubs — or been allowed to sign elsewhere — 2009 likely would have been a better season and Hendry wouldn’t be as hamstrung going into 2010.
elgato - October 13, 2009
I don't think that...
2009 would have been much better with those guys — and the others that I mentioned — around, but yes, they would have been at least been better positioned to get back on course.
Damen Jackson - October 13, 2009
I'd like to see the Cubs ...
wait until later in the offseason to sign free agents this year, and wait for some bargains.
elgato - October 13, 2009
Meh....
I can’t think of a worse off-season in the last decade than this one for the Cubs to play chicken. I think they need to cut the nonsense, clear up the Bradley situation, rid themselves of the flotsam, sign what they need quickly — I think deflation should keep the prices moderate this year anyway — and be ready to field a 2010 team by the Winter Meetings. Then you can walk in from a position of strength, and decide whether it’s worth the bother to trade a Zambrano, maybe bring in a Lackey, or go gonzo with some other move.
Sales needs to start moving tickets, and media budgets for 2010 are getting planned now. I’d hope that the Ricketts send the message to stakeholders that they intend to at least compete next season.
Damen Jackson - October 13, 2009
I'm sure they will.
I can’t imagine Ricketts wanting to come in and have his first season as owner known as a noncompetitive failure.
That said, I doubt you’ll see any major deals announced until after the World Series, even if they are agreed to in principle now.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
Is there a deal agreed to in principle right now?
DGU - October 13, 2009
I don't know.
It’s possible, but I have no information.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
So our sweeps weren't the curse of Bartman?
katie casey - October 13, 2009
Agreed on everything.
Except I would just give them the “red flag” once per game. But I’m not 100 percent sold on losing the tradition of managers going out to yell at umpires, kicking and screaming. Imagine if this had existed when [name redacted] blew his knee after being tackled by his coach in San Diego. Different career? Different man, perhaps?
Champagne on Divisional Series is like my boss’ “performance” bonus: pointless, somewhat offensive, but here to stay.
chilango2 - October 13, 2009
Replay
It only took them until 2009 to figure out they need replay for home run calls. So it might be a while before MLB wakes up again and adds more replay. How is it this hard to figure something like getting the correct call added to the game? And don’t give me that tired old excuse “the human element.” Because if that was your team that got screwed you would be wishing for replay.
TJ3117 - October 13, 2009
Hitting with runners in scoring position
what stands out for me. Making tough outs, and freaking Bobby Abreu can hit, get on base and steal a base and should of been the Cubs rightfielder this year.
Phillies lineup is tough, I love there lineup.
I am ok with two challenges for a manager, only in the playoffs.
Grockcubs - October 13, 2009
I've always wondered if fatigue plays into umpiring
judgement. Adding another member to a regular crew and including booth/scoring as part of the regular rotation may ease fatigue. It also as another ump on premises to go on field in case of injury.
I like the idea of manager initiated challenges on fair/foul, fan interference, and tag plays. Not interested on force plays unless “in the area of second base” is eliminated or, dog forbid, a chalk circle is drawn around second establishing the set parameters of the vicinity play.
I’d rather see managers forced to not just argue, but burn a challenge if they are so certain the ump has it wrong. Better yet, give a manager one challenge. If they’re correct, give them another.
With trained eyes in the booth, I would also want the upstairs umpire to be able to change a call without challenge if the call is clearly wrong (not balls/strikes) without requiring managerial challenge – fair pole, etc.
N Oakley - October 13, 2009
Move home ump to a press box for replay reviews
Call balls and strikes using technology. Its already in place.
JPetey - October 13, 2009
Nooooo...bad idea
And who calls plays at the plate?
santo4hof - October 13, 2009
A live internet Vote by fans...
or the three on field umps could rotate around to where they are needed, similar to what they do when one goes down with an injury.
JPetey - October 13, 2009
Our future robot overlords approve of this idea.
AndrewJStone - October 13, 2009
Announcers and champagne
I don’t believe I heard Brian Anderson at all, but I thought Ron Darling did a good job during the little baseball I was able to watch.
If the players want to celebrate with champagne, and it is provided for them, knock yourself out. I am not a member of the celebration police. :-P
Dave in the basement - October 13, 2009
If Brian Anderson is the best
The rest is pretty bad.
Didn’t catch him much this week, but he overreacts to every fly ball the Brewers hit.
Shanghai Badger - October 13, 2009
Well, the rest IS pretty bad.
And he’s a real homer on Brewers telecasts, but you’d expect him to be, right?
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
It goes beyond being a homer
Medium deep fly balls are STRUCK WELL!!
Shanghai Badger - October 13, 2009
Anderson isn't a terrible homer.
He’s somewhere in the middle. He doesn’t seem to Cub-bash, as his partner does. That’s another part of the equasion with a “homer” announcer. Does he bash the opposition without reason, just to score points with the home audience?
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - October 13, 2009
Potential problem with replay
Game length is already a problem. In baseball (unlike football) there are a ton of bang-bang calls. I think most managers would be inclined to use all replay opportunities in every game. Imagine the Cubs trailing by a run in the 9th inning and the leadoff batter gets thrown out in a close play at first. The thinking will be “might as well use the replay. He was probably out but who knows”. This will lengthen the game and could cause some problems for pitchers. Imagine a 9th inning in a close game where there are 2 or 3 challenges in the same half inning. Are there some pitchers who would be impacted by that. You betcha.
I’m not really in favor of replay but I think at most you have a replay official and let him review calls. But no challenges. In baseball, you could install “base” cams that are automatically set on each base. The replay umpire could review each call pretty quickly and buzz the home plate ump in the event that he needed more time.
Ultimately you could just eliminate the umpire entirely. The technology is already there to call balls and strikes. A single umpire with some sophisticated video equipment could make the calls via a scoreboard. Or something like that….
TXCub - October 13, 2009
HR replays take about three minutes.
Arguments over really close calls can take far longer than that.
You’d allow only two per team, per game. That wouldn’t lengthen games very much.
Al Yellon - October 13, 2009
Yup
I rec’d this… I watch games on MLB Gameday all the time. It’s existence proves the tech is there to eliminate umpires from making anything other than a judgment call and enforce the rules.
The time you spend on replays can be made up by not having umpire’s ridiculous and goofy strike calls slowing down the game and basically eliminating any arguing about balls and strikes.
If the pitch is a strike, noise goes off, preferably from behind the hitter so he doesn’t get confused with crowd noise. If the pitch is a ball, noise goes off. If that gets you a walk, go take your base… maybe they can even play a funny noise at a home park when the opponent walks a guy… like they do on the Price Is Right when a guy busts in his game… but I digress.
I used to be a fan of keeping the game simple… keeping some of the tradition of the umpire, but they’re just so bad right now. I truly believe they’re threatened by the technology moving in on them… technology which is more accurate and dependable than they are… and they have a seriously bad attitude because of it. Maybe they’ve always been like this, but I just didn’t notice it when I was younger. But ever since they came back from their strike, I’ve noticed how bad they’ve performed… and wanted to minimalize their impact on what happens in a game.
I don’t care how many minutes it takes. It won’t take many to figure out fair/foul, disputed home runs or close plays at the plate. These plays don’t happen often enough, but every one of them should have the proper outcome.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
Don't be too sure about the accuracy of MLB Gameday
At work we use similar systems for European Soccer television broadcasting, in SD and HD. Due to various limitations such as the resolution of a television picture, positioning of the cameras, etc., etc. higher real life accuracy than c. 20 to 40 cm is not presently obtainable. An error of roughly 30cm, in comparison to an area which is about the size of an American football field, is not that bad, but not good enough, when scaled to a baseball situation, to say the ball was an inch in- or outside of the strike zone. On the other hand, if the MLB has set up multiple high speed cameras in each stadium with the correct geometry, filming only the area around home plate and the systems are well calibrated, then higher accuracy is possible. But I really doubt that they have done this.
1 inch = 2.54cm, 1 foot = 30.48cm
eths - October 13, 2009
I don't care
It has to be more accurate than arbitrary judgment by arrogant, childish humans.
jameslcrockett - October 13, 2009
I'm not childish!
I’m not, I’m not, I’m not!
Clutch16 - October 13, 2009
Yes you are, Yes you are, Yes you are...
eths - October 14, 2009 via mobile
Yes you are, Yes you are, Yes you are...
eths - October 14, 2009 via mobile
GO Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim...
…of Orange County, and greater Southern California!!!!
calicubfan - October 13, 2009
I don't even think there should be flags.
The problem that needs to be fixed is getting ALL calls right (Balls and strikes aside). If you have 2 poor umpires like Angel Hernandez or C.B. Bucknor working a game, a manager could burn through his 2 flags by the 5th inning. That would punish teams for bad umpiring.
Something needs to be worked out to where that 5th umpire on hand has the authority, and more importantly, the responsibility to over-rule the blown call. If he doesn’t, the whole world knows he screwed up. Keep it somewhat limited as to what calls the 5th umpire could over-rule, and test it in ST. If it works, great!
The problem with all of this is how it’ll change the game. Arguments and ejections are all part of the game. If a manager WANTS to get himself tossed to inspire his team, replay would change that.
calicubfan - October 13, 2009
And of course, Bud had to reject common sense, so he rejected further replays.
Did we expect anything else from MLBud?
I agree 100%, Al. Added bonus from your proposal: We don’t have to wait for the umpires to go into the clubhouse and back to review the replay. The additional umpire can do it from his seat upstairs. The call would take less time than the endless discussions between managers and umpires we have now.
Fraggin Judge - October 14, 2009
On another topic Al mentioned:
The elimination of the Cardinals and Boston proves that the playoffs are about the teams that are hot at this time. It’s not about overall records. Learn, please, Hendry and Lou.
On the other hand, we don’t have any wild card teams in the championship series this year. So, most division winners stayed hot in late September, early October.
Fraggin Judge - October 14, 2009
Most division winners except the Cardinals and Twins.
Al Yellon - October 14, 2009
At least two division winners have to be eliminated in the first round
Shanghai Badger - October 14, 2009
True.
Al Yellon - October 14, 2009
Jim Caple at ESPN.com
Interesting column by Jim Caple today. If you look down in his standard “tell your statistics to shut up” section, there are some interesting notes about player’s stats during the playoffs. The results seem very surprising at first, but less so upon further reflection.
The bottom line is that some people who were known as clutch post-season players had some terrible playoff series, sometimes the first several. The best approach is to get there as often as possible and keep trying until you break through.
vonde6 - October 14, 2009
whoops - forgot the link
Jim Caple link
vonde6 - October 14, 2009
More important in that link...
… is his call to shorten the postseason schedule. He’s 100% correct.
Al Yellon - October 15, 2009
I thougtht his was good, too
Shanghai Badger - October 15, 2009
*"thought this"
arghShanghai Badger - October 15, 2009
your "argh" brings up an interesting point...
What exactly would a Wisconsin Pirate go after? I mean, he’s already sitting on all the beer, sausage and cheese any self-respecting rascallion could possibly want. What else is there? He gets on his ship and sails the high seas (or Great Lakes as it were) for what reason? Over to Michigan for some booty apples? Down to Illinois to plunder some pizza?
Out with it, Cap’n Shanghai, or we’ll hang ye from the yardarm!
ballhawk - October 15, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.