PDA

View Full Version : Scott Rolen explains why Cubs are unable to win



croce_99
07-06-2010, 06:11 PM
From David Kaplan's blog (http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/david-kaplan-chicago-sports/)


Kaplan:
You have played a lot of games here at Wrigley Field during your career. Why do you think the Cubs haven't been able to win here?

Rolen:
I think I don't know is probably the politically correct answer. True answer? The facts or the truth? The facts? The facts as I see it, I think they have their hands full a little bit. I think they're limited in their facilities here, their batting cage, I think it limits their work. A little restricted obviously in the clubhouse and their weight room. A lot of facilities that other teams have. They play a different schedule than everybody in baseball. There's three things in my mind that are facts. I don't know if that's the truth because to me there's a difference between the facts and the truth. Well it's a night game now basically. You sleep in during the day, you play a lot of night games and you struggle with travel days and everyone struggles with day games. They're playing 50, 55, 60 whatever day games a year. It's a different schedule. So I know for us coming here playing four day games, we're beat. That's their season. That's what they're doing. It puts their backs against the wall a little bit. They have good players, they have good personnel, they know how to play baseball. They have a good organization, but you know honestly I think it's difficult for them. Like I said, when we're talking about facilities everyone talks about Wrigley Field. Great atmosphere we love coming here, the fans, batting practice, everything. Fantastic, the ivy the whole works. I'm in. There's a lot in the game today, there's a lot of beautiful facilities. That are geared towards working, towards perfecting you know your skill, towards video, you know a lot of things have changed in the game and I'm not sure what the other side looks like but you know batting cages and stuff, I think are a bit restricted. They have to work pretty hard, they've got their hands full. But great place to play, everyone loves playing here and good personel, good ball club, good players.


This forum is dead so a little conversation won't hurt. Rolen certainly didn't bash the team, just said what basically everyone has said in the past.

City doesn't allow more night games, so the Cubs can't control that. As long as Wrigley is in the residential area, they can't control how many night games they want.

Doogolas
07-06-2010, 06:19 PM
It's cool of him to say such nice things about the field. But he's right, we need to get the city to up the night games and then Ricketts needs to keep adding nicer **** to our clubhouse.

windycityD
07-06-2010, 06:24 PM
The only viable way to facilitate a regular number of night games is to move to the burbs. I would have no issues were that to happen. Despite the fact that everyone we play at home also has to adjust to our day games-heavy schedule, I do feel we play at some disadvantage. The Wrigley neighborhood associations wont ever sign off on 50-60 night games at Wrigley, we all know that.

croce_99
07-06-2010, 06:26 PM
It's cool of him to say such nice things about the field. But he's right, we need to get the city to up the night games and then Ricketts needs to keep adding nicer **** to our clubhouse.

Have you taken the Cubs Tour before? They walk you through the clubhouse and basically everything.
There really isn't any room for expansion. They can knock down a few walls but that's about it.
So basically what you see is what you get. The cubs remodeled the clubhouse this year, so I haven't seen the updated version. But 2 years ago, it was horrible. It was smaller than my apartment living room (sarcasm....)

And they have 1 TV :laugh2:

CUBDOM4life
07-06-2010, 06:46 PM
I agree.

chi416
07-06-2010, 06:50 PM
I still don't buy the "day baseball" excuse. The Cubs play more night games now then ever before. This year, they will play 77 days game -- compared to 50 for the White Sox (57 for the Cards). However, the Cubs play 28 day games following a night game the night before, the White Sox do that 31 times. Further, the Cubs should be at a huge advantage when they are at home, finished early for a game, and have a team traveling in late at night. I don't doubt that it can be an inconvenience and screw up someone's internal schedule, but I think the gap between their schedule woes brought on by day baseball is far less than it has ever been. Plus, it's not like the team hasn't had success over the last decade.

As for facilities, I think that's a fair point. However, it is one that is going to be addressed with the remodel of Wrigley in coming years.

semperfi
07-06-2010, 07:04 PM
Just build a new ballpark. Do what they did with Yankee stadium or just get a state of the art stadium. I'm sick of hearing about it every couple of months, just do it and get it over with. The people will come around if you just do it.

behindmydesk
07-06-2010, 07:11 PM
I agree with everything accept day games argument. He seems to make it like we come here and aren't used to it and we are beat. Wouldnt' that give the cubs an advantage.

croce_99
07-06-2010, 07:14 PM
I agree with everything accept day games argument. He seems to make it like we come here and aren't used to it and we are beat. Wouldnt' that give the cubs an advantage.

I used to think that myself.
Then you realize they're playing day baseball in the middle of July when it's 90 degrees out. Sure, both teams have to do it on that particular day. But over the course of 5 months, that has to just kill the body and exhaust you.

It's one thing for a team to do it 3 days a month. Cubs do it probably 20 times a month.

Kirel
07-06-2010, 07:17 PM
I agree with everything accept day games argument. He seems to make it like we come here and aren't used to it and we are beat. Wouldnt' that give the cubs an advantage.
Well, the rest of the league is playing either or at night or in tempurature controlled environments. I've little doubt that 50 or 60 games in 95 degree weather is going to wear out a player faster than 20 will. That's just basic physics. I don't think you get an advatange there becuase you play in it more often.

Thats a good question to think about. What portion of the 50 white sox or 57 cards day games are both day games and outdoors?

gocubs2118
07-06-2010, 07:26 PM
Uh, we won 97 games two years ago with the same facilities and the same game times. So many excuses come out when you just suck.

Kirel
07-06-2010, 07:28 PM
Uh, we won 97 games two years ago with the same facilities and the same game times. So many excuses come out when you just suck.
But were lousy in the playoffs.

And how can we say for certain that in another park with another schedule the Cubs wouldn't have won 101 games rather than 97?

It's likely not costing 20 games, but 4 or 5 wins is extremely significant.

Vandelay16
07-06-2010, 07:31 PM
We did fine in 2008...

croce_99
07-06-2010, 07:34 PM
Well it'd be insane to say the cubs will NEVER have a chance to win.

But I think it's fair to say the Cubs ARE at a disadvantage.

Darwinist
07-06-2010, 07:55 PM
We did fine in 2008...

We did fine in 1908 too...

TNSMOKIES
07-06-2010, 07:59 PM
We only hear about this stuff when we are losing. These guys are athletes, not actors or rock stars. They don't need a locker room full of 3D flatscreen TVs, yellow colored M&Ms, and a water fountain that delivers Perrier. That is what home is for with the salaries that are labeled as an "albatross."

You don't hear about the Rangers losing because they play in the Texas heat, you don't hear about the San Francisco Giants losing because of night fog pouring into the stadium. When you played baseball when did you play? In the DAYTIME because none of us grew up playing neighborhood stickball under lights. Sure the league you played in might have had nightgames, but when you played a pickup game it was during the day. These guys have played daygames for years and when they sign with the Cubs know what the schedule is like.

All that being said, I agree with Rolen that the Cubs don't have facilities like say the Yankees. No one does. I like how courteous he was in speaking about the traditions of the church of Wrigleyville. To say the Cubs aren't winning though because of the quality of life difference is silly. They didn't have ridiculous luxuries anywhere during the first 50 years of the 101 year drought. These guys are in play 162+ days a year, the batting cage doesn't make THAT big of a difference in my opinion. Maybe it does, and I am sure some of you will say that it does.

I would hedge my bets more on the pressure of playing in front of Chicago's die hard fans. When things are rocky, the media adds fuel to the fire. Everyone wants to win, especially the guys on the field who are getting paid to win. No one wants to stink at their job. Unfortunately this year we are seeing everyone stink at one time as a collective group, versus some of the teams over the past 7 years that have a different star every game. This season continues to slip further and further away and there is no answer to the questions posed. Either the team starts moving personnel and eating salaries to do so in order to win, or they use the ole "maybe next year" moniker and continue to cash in from all of the idiots that continue to pay top dollar to see an aging team of "oh we were so close" average players. With all my ranting and being 11.5 games out of first, I will still be watching tonight on the internet cheering my team. Having been a fan since 1987, I've seen alot worse and still believe this team could reel off 15 wins in a row putting us right back in the thick of things. If not, preseason football is about 41 days away.

scrubs101
07-06-2010, 08:02 PM
We did fine in 2008...

Cubs lost 14 of their last 28 in 2008.......then we all know what happened in the playoffs.

How can anyone say FOR CERTAIN that wear and tear from a season of day games had NOTHING to do with that?

windycityD
07-06-2010, 08:15 PM
We only hear about this stuff when we are losing. These guys are athletes, not actors or rock stars. They don't need a locker room full of 3D flatscreen TVs, yellow colored M&Ms, and a water fountain that delivers Perrier. That is what home is for with the salaries that are labeled as an "albatross."

You don't hear about the Rangers losing because they play in the Texas heat, you don't hear about the San Francisco Giants losing because of night fog pouring into the stadium. When you played baseball when did you play? In the DAYTIME because none of us grew up playing neighborhood stickball under lights. Sure the league you played in might have had nightgames, but when you played a pickup game it was during the day. These guys have played daygames for years and when they sign with the Cubs know what the schedule is like.

All that being said, I agree with Rolen that the Cubs don't have facilities like say the Yankees. No one does. I like how courteous he was in speaking about the traditions of the church of Wrigleyville. To say the Cubs aren't winning though because of the quality of life difference is silly. They didn't have ridiculous luxuries anywhere during the first 50 years of the 101 year drought. These guys are in play 162+ days a year, the batting cage doesn't make THAT big of a difference in my opinion. Maybe it does, and I am sure some of you will say that it does.

I would hedge my bets more on the pressure of playing in front of Chicago's die hard fans. When things are rocky, the media adds fuel to the fire. Everyone wants to win, especially the guys on the field who are getting paid to win. No one wants to stink at their job. Unfortunately this year we are seeing everyone stink at one time as a collective group, versus some of the teams over the past 7 years that have a different star every game. This season continues to slip further and further away and there is no answer to the questions posed. Either the team starts moving personnel and eating salaries to do so in order to win, or they use the ole "maybe next year" moniker and continue to cash in from all of the idiots that continue to pay top dollar to see an aging team of "oh we were so close" average players. With all my ranting and being 11.5 games out of first, I will still be watching tonight on the internet cheering my team. Having been a fan since 1987, I've seen alot worse and still believe this team could reel off 15 wins in a row putting us right back in the thick of things. If not, preseason football is about 41 days away.

I've been watching since 1977. Trust me, a day game heavy schedule is not working in our favor & this team cannot win six in a row, let alone 15.

When I was 13, I played in a traveling league that went from late April to early Sept. We played at least 40 games that season, both day and night. I was freaking exhausted at the end of that and that schedule is but a miniature fraction of what mlb players go through. They travel on planes constantly and have to balance families and exhaustion all the time. Day games do not that equation help, particularly those following a night game in the dead of summer.

TNSMOKIES
07-06-2010, 08:34 PM
I've been watching since 1977. Trust me, a day game heavy schedule is not working in our favor & this team cannot win six in a row, let alone 15.

When I was 13, I played in a traveling league that went from late April to early Sept. We played at least 40 games that season, both day and night. I was freaking exhausted at the end of that and that schedule is but a miniature fraction of what mlb players go through. They travel on planes constantly and have to balance families and exhaustion all the time. Day games do not that equation help, particularly those following a night game in the dead of summer.

Well here is to hoping they can win 6 :)

I understand what you are saying and believe you. I think my point is more of if the Cubs played only night games and they demolished Wrigley and built Yankee Stadium Midwest in Schaumburg and still lost 90+ games like they are on pace for this season then we wouldn't have any excuses to use except "the curse." I have no doubt that by the end of the 162 game season these guys are spent physically. I think though that if the lack of facilities were really having an adverse effect on these players careers, we wouldn't see too many people A) want to be on the team or B) stick around for longer than a season or two if they are a good player. Again, this is just my opinion about the facilities of Wrigley being part of the cause of a crappy team in 2010.

Kirel
07-06-2010, 08:43 PM
Well here is to hoping they can win 6 :)

I understand what you are saying and believe you. I think my point is more of if the Cubs played only night games and they demolished Wrigley and built Yankee Stadium Midwest in Schaumburg and still lost 90+ games like they are on pace for this season then we wouldn't have any excuses to use except "the curse." I have no doubt that by the end of the 162 game season these guys are spent physically. I think though that if the lack of facilities were really having an adverse effect on these players careers, we wouldn't see too many people A) want to be on the team or B) stick around for longer than a season or two if they are a good player. Again, this is just my opinion about the facilities of Wrigley being part of the cause of a crappy team in 2010.
The point isn't making excuses so much as asking if every cubs team in the last 20 years or so has had a worse record than it would have had the competition been on the same terms. You could liken the day heavy schedule to being the only team without a DH. You can still be good without one, but you'd be better still if on an even playing field.

This year it doens't mean much, the team just isn't very good. But if you go back and look at every year the Cubs missed the division or wild card, or even .500, by a game or two and you have to wonder what might have been in a different situation

BUD Bleachers
07-06-2010, 09:56 PM
Wrigley is a jewel, but I love the new parks a bit more.

Citi, Petco, Miller...amazing.

The Cubs just don't have the players and attitude to win a World Series.

More modern facilities could be established in the form of an annex attached to the park in the vacant lot on the corner of Waveland and Clark.

They want to use the space to make more money rather than invest in the facilities and team amenities.

There is plenty of great space in the Clybourn corridor to Division as they gentrify the area. The average fan can't let go of Wrigley. I could in a heartbeat. Just keep it in Chicago. No burbs.

scrubs101
07-06-2010, 10:07 PM
Wrigley is a jewel, but I love the new parks a bit more.

Citi, Petco, Miller...amazing.

The Cubs just don't have the players and attitude to win a World Series.

More modern facilities could be established in the form of an annex attached to the park in the vacant lot on the corner of Waveland and Clark.

They want to use the space to make more money rather than invest in the facilities and team amenities.

There is plenty of great space in the Clybourn corridor to Division as they gentrify the area. The average fan can't let go of Wrigley. I could in a heartbeat. Just keep it in Chicago. No burbs.

that's just false

zambo4president
07-06-2010, 10:11 PM
I'm glad it took Scott Rolen to enlighten us.

majestic
07-06-2010, 10:40 PM
wouldnt the cubs be an excellent road team then if this was actually true..

Captain Obvious
07-06-2010, 11:08 PM
Wrigley is a jewel, but I love the new parks a bit more.

Citi, Petco, Miller...amazing.



Yeah, but none of the new parks have the vibe Wrigley has. That vibe is what makes Wrigley, Wrigley. You can't get rid of that.

uptownfan
07-07-2010, 12:01 AM
I personally love going to day games. I think that's what brings the authentic "Wrigley experience" to many fans. However, I'd be all for making an adjusted schedule in the next few years in which they limit the number of day games played at Wrigley, if possible.

Kirel
07-07-2010, 12:09 AM
wouldnt the cubs be an excellent road team then if this was actually true..
Not necessarily. If the day schedule wears them down faster than other teams, the effect could well be cumulative and effect the players both at home and on the road.

socherball
07-07-2010, 12:21 AM
Whenever the day game argument comes up, I always bring up one point. What is the Cubs' excuse for the decades where EVERYONE was playing all or mostly day games?!

Do the extra day games take their toll? Probably a little. But c'mon. The Marlins have won a couple World Series and if you've ever been to Miami in July or August, those 7:00 start times are damn near as hot, and much more humid and uncomfortable than Chicago in the middle of the afternoon. Atlanta has had sustained success playing in similar conditions.

Face it, the reason the Cubs haven't won is because of personnel decisions more than anything.

zambo4president
07-07-2010, 01:00 AM
Wrigley is a jewel, but I love the new parks a bit more.

Citi, Petco, Miller...amazing.

The Cubs just don't have the players and attitude to win a World Series.

More modern facilities could be established in the form of an annex attached to the park in the vacant lot on the corner of Waveland and Clark.

They want to use the space to make more money rather than invest in the facilities and team amenities.

There is plenty of great space in the Clybourn corridor to Division as they gentrify the area. The average fan can't let go of Wrigley. I could in a heartbeat. Just keep it in Chicago. No burbs.

I spent the last 6 years in San Diego up until moving to Indy last week (****in Sucks) and while Petco is a very nice field, It's got NOTHING on Wrigley. Wrigley is one of the 7 wonders of the sports world. And all those Padre "fans" juss became fans about 3 weeks ago real **** everyone hates them.

Hi I am: Dan
07-07-2010, 01:42 AM
Just build a new ballpark. Do what they did with Yankee stadium or just get a state of the art stadium. I'm sick of hearing about it every couple of months, just do it and get it over with. The people will come around if you just do it.

No, remodeling Wrigley is an option but its one of the twin cathedrals in baseball. Wrigley and fenway. I couldnt just kiss this stadium goodbye and I cant believe you could

Milnertime
07-07-2010, 02:39 AM
The facilities can't be good for drawing in new free agents or even keeping young free agents.

That would be about the only thing I would change, although Kirel's making some really good points about the heat.

Canterbury
07-07-2010, 03:20 AM
I couldnt just kiss this stadium goodbye and I cant believe you could I can. Helloooo Lake Shore Stadium/Park/Field.

NORTH10
07-07-2010, 03:39 AM
It's definitely a problem. The rest is limited and work is limited. Compared to these modern parks, Wrigley is like a shack. Something needs to be done with the facilities and with the neighborhood agreements for night games.

redbird89
07-07-2010, 03:58 AM
Have you taken the Cubs Tour before? They walk you through the clubhouse and basically everything.
There really isn't any room for expansion. They can knock down a few walls but that's about it.
So basically what you see is what you get. The cubs remodeled the clubhouse this year, so I haven't seen the updated version. But 2 years ago, it was horrible. It was smaller than my apartment living room (sarcasm....)

And they have 1 TV :laugh2:

I do think that there is an advantage that comes with a new stadium. Stadiums like Busch Stadium and Miller were built with more modern conveniences in mind. I don't see much room to expand the facilities at Wrigley either.

As far as day games, I know in St. Louis it's not unusual to see temperatures over 100 by 3 PM. While we do have day games during weekends, we don't usually have day games during the week. I think a lot of the reason for more night games is that more fans can watch and come to games in the evenings. When Old Busch Stadium had the turf a few players did experience heat sickness, and every year there are fans that pass out or otherwise need medical help because of the heat. Chicago may be a few degrees cooler, but not much. I've lived with this heat all my life (though I don't usually spend three hours a day in it), and it's still difficult to deal with at times. You never completely get used to that kind of heat and humidity. Playing games at night is still warm, but not as bad. Playing games later in the evening is probably safer for everybody involved. I really don't think it give the Cubs an advantage, because they're not necessarily more acclimated to the heat than anybody else.

I would hate to see the city lose Wrigley Field to the suburbs. Hopefully they don't. However, if the Cubs want more night games, maybe the city and Wrigleyville will just have to learn to compromise.

chi416
07-07-2010, 09:45 AM
Personally, moving to the 'burbs to play more night games would be the worst the Cubs could do. Because of the stadium, neighborhood and large population within close proximity, the Cubs are able to enjoy the consistency of one of baseball's highest occupancy factors coupled with one of the highest average ticket prices. I know a signficant number of people who do go to Cubs games just for the experience/party/good time, etc. Those same people don't go to a Sox game and sure as hell wouldn't go to the burbs. There is no suburban location that will ever be the draw that Wrigley is. All that moving would do is inject far greater volatility to the revenue stream.

As for the day baseball, I'm sure it has some impact but I don't think it really explains recent success of failure. Throughout the 70s and early 80s the Cubs sucked not because of day baseball but because the Wrigley family was a terrible owner that unerinvested in the pro team and minor league organization. In 2003, I'd argue poor managing and bad luck played more into them losing to Florida than anything. As for 2007, teams get swept in the playioffs. In 2007, AZ swept us, Colorado swept AZ and Boston swept Colorado -- why doesn't anyone ever talk about the sweeps other than the Cubs. Further, many would argue that Lou screwed up Game 1 with Z and that had he kept him in we likely would have won and the series would have been different. In 2008, LA played well and many of our guys looked tight.

A New Century
07-07-2010, 10:32 AM
Whenever people discuss Wrigley's charm, they always reference the same things: bleachers, neighborhood, ivy, scoreboard, etc. They never mention anything about the grandstand and the "beautiful" netting underneath it.

How about the Cubs tear down the grandstand and build a more modern grandstand area, but keep the bleachers and everything that goes with it? They could remove the annoying posts from the lower deck, so no more limited view seats. They could redesign the clubhouse space (at least for the Cubs!) too.

I would think they could make the outside look very similar to the current facade as well. Basically, it would keep everything that we love about Wrigley, yet get rid of some of the eyesores and facility issues that currently exist.

Yagyu+
07-07-2010, 11:01 AM
Whenever people discuss Wrigley's charm, they always reference the same things: bleachers, neighborhood, ivy, scoreboard, etc. They never mention anything about the grandstand and the "beautiful" netting underneath it.

How about the Cubs tear down the grandstand and build a more modern grandstand area, but keep the bleachers and everything that goes with it? They could remove the annoying posts from the lower deck, so no more limited view seats. They could redesign the clubhouse space (at least for the Cubs!) too.

I would think they could make the outside look very similar to the current facade as well. Basically, it would keep everything that we love about Wrigley, yet get rid of some of the eyesores and facility issues that currently exist.

Yagyu: That's not a bad idea, son. What'd you say your name was?

ANC: I didn't.

[Cue spaghetti-western music. "I didn't" rides off into the sunset. Roll credits.]

BDawk4Prez
07-07-2010, 11:03 AM
Yagyu: That's not a bad idea. Son, what'd you say your name was?

ANC: I didn't.

[Cue spaghetti-western music. "I didn't" rides off into the sunset. Roll credits.]

:laugh:

MrPoon
07-07-2010, 11:12 AM
theres more to this article as well, and this is kinda the part where I feel this team needs to be up to par with the rest of the ****ing major league:




"The Cubs are very limited facility-wise and that dramatically limits the work the players can do day to day," he said. "The clubhouse and weight room are significantly below par. They play a different schedule than everybody else in baseball. The day games are very hard to deal with day after day. Plus, when you have so many different starting times from 1:20 to 12:05 to 7:05 then play mostly all night games when you go on the road, I think the Cubs have their back against the wall.

"In Cincinnati we have a track to get loose on and three batting cages that a pinch hitter can use before he comes up to hit. (The Cubs) don't have anywhere for a pinch hitter to get swings in before he hits."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-spt-0706-around-town--20100705,0,5504936.column


this obviously wouldnt solve all problems, but for christ sake. can we not get the guys on the bench somewhere to swing a ****ing bat before they walk out of the dugout??

windycityD
07-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Personally, moving to the 'burbs to play more night games would be the worst the Cubs could do. Because of the stadium, neighborhood and large population within close proximity, the Cubs are able to enjoy the consistency of one of baseball's highest occupancy factors coupled with one of the highest average ticket prices. I know a signficant number of people who do go to Cubs games just for the experience/party/good time, etc. Those same people don't go to a Sox game and sure as hell wouldn't go to the burbs. There is no suburban location that will ever be the draw that Wrigley is. All that moving would do is inject far greater volatility to the revenue stream.

As for the day baseball, I'm sure it has some impact but I don't think it really explains recent success of failure. Throughout the 70s and early 80s the Cubs sucked not because of day baseball but because the Wrigley family was a terrible owner that unerinvested in the pro team and minor league organization. In 2003, I'd argue poor managing and bad luck played more into them losing to Florida than anything. As for 2007, teams get swept in the playioffs. In 2007, AZ swept us, Colorado swept AZ and Boston swept Colorado -- why doesn't anyone ever talk about the sweeps other than the Cubs. Further, many would argue that Lou screwed up Game 1 with Z and that had he kept him in we likely would have won and the series would have been different. In 2008, LA played well and many of our guys looked tight.

Unless you build up in the air or below ground, there's no other way to go with the current park & layout. Period. The night games issue is also an albatross in that neighborhood. I'm not talking about Schaumburg here, just out of the city proper where you can build, get to it, and play more at night. You'll have full seats no matter where the Cubs play. They are a national product who would not lose an inch of their regional fan base via a regional move. Parking lots (what a concept, parking around a stadium), commuter trains, and bus lines = consistent revenue and jobs.

Tradition is one thing. Scheduling and facilities are quite another considering the current situation. The "experience & party" stuff is what's also wrong about this org because too many people go to Wrigley for what it has become- an outdoor beer garden for the frat, fake ****, and investment trader/ yacht crowd.

Bambino
07-07-2010, 11:21 AM
Face it .. we just stink !! If we were winning regularly the day baseball would be considered a major home field advantage. Instead when you are losing it becomes the big excuse.



BAM

chi416
07-07-2010, 11:37 AM
Unless you build up in the air or below ground, there's no other way to go with the current park & layout. Period. The night games issue is also an albatross in that neighborhood. I'm not talking about Schaumburg here, just out of the city proper where you can build, get to it, and play more at night. You'll have full seats no matter where the Cubs play. They are a national product who would not lose an inch of their regional fan base via a regional move. Parking lots (what a concept, parking around a stadium), commuter trains, and bus lines = consistent revenue and jobs.

Tradition is one thing. Scheduling and facilities are quite another considering the current situation. The "experience & party" stuff is what's also wrong about this org because too many people go to Wrigley for what it has become- an outdoor beer garden for the frat, fake ****, and investment trader/ yacht crowd.

I disagree -- most areas just outside of the City are terrible neighborhoods with nothing to do. There is a reason many new stadiums have been built in major cities as part of urban redevelopment plans -- it's about the whole experience and everything around there.

And, if you think the investment trader/yacht club is a problem now, wait for a new park. Almost every time a new park goes up, the average fan pays more and gets a worse seat. There will be more suites -- which means pushing seats further from the playing field - and very likely PSLs on top of higher priced seats. It's an economic model doomed to fail.

I'm a lifelong Cub fan and go to about 12 - 15 games per year and guarantee I'd go to nowhere near that many games if you put the stadium just outside the city. Anything to the south is crap, the west is still pretty desolate despite the United Center and north of the city doesn't offer much either in terms of available land. In terms of creating a sports and entertainment complex, there just isn't that footprint available close to the city with access to public transit, highways, etc. You really would get pushed out to places like Schaumburg -- and that experience would blow.

Kirel
07-07-2010, 11:55 AM
I disagree -- most areas just outside of the City are terrible neighborhoods with nothing to do. There is a reason many new stadiums have been built in major cities as part of urban redevelopment plans -- it's about the whole experience and everything around there.

And, if you think the investment trader/yacht club is a problem now, wait for a new park. Almost every time a new park goes up, the average fan pays more and gets a worse seat. There will be more suites -- which means pushing seats further from the playing field - and very likely PSLs on top of higher priced seats. It's an economic model doomed to fail.

I'm a lifelong Cub fan and go to about 12 - 15 games per year and guarantee I'd go to nowhere near that many games if you put the stadium just outside the city. Anything to the south is crap, the west is still pretty desolate despite the United Center and north of the city doesn't offer much either in terms of available land. In terms of creating a sports and entertainment complex, there just isn't that footprint available close to the city with access to public transit, highways, etc. You really would get pushed out to places like Schaumburg -- and that experience would blow.
A major sports franchise would probably develop quite a bit of entertainment aruond it, it's just sort of the nature of the beast.

And that said, for every person like you who won't travel out of the city, I'd wager there is one who won't travel in to the city. The city experiance, regardless of what your personal preferences are, isn't universally positive. I personally *HATE* being in wrigleyville during game time. It smells, it's loud, you need a damn shiv and the will to use it just to get a seat at taco bell, parkings a pain, the train is worse yet. The current experiance does blow for a significant fraction of fans.

windycityD
07-07-2010, 12:36 PM
I disagree -- most areas just outside of the City are terrible neighborhoods with nothing to do. There is a reason many new stadiums have been built in major cities as part of urban redevelopment plans -- it's about the whole experience and everything around there.

And, if you think the investment trader/yacht club is a problem now, wait for a new park. Almost every time a new park goes up, the average fan pays more and gets a worse seat. There will be more suites -- which means pushing seats further from the playing field - and very likely PSLs on top of higher priced seats. It's an economic model doomed to fail.

I'm a lifelong Cub fan and go to about 12 - 15 games per year and guarantee I'd go to nowhere near that many games if you put the stadium just outside the city. Anything to the south is crap, the west is still pretty desolate despite the United Center and north of the city doesn't offer much either in terms of available land. In terms of creating a sports and entertainment complex, there just isn't that footprint available close to the city with access to public transit, highways, etc. You really would get pushed out to places like Schaumburg -- and that experience would blow.

In addition to more seats & general capacity, all of which would sell out, you would literally eliminate the night game issue once and for all. That latter point cannot be "solved" in the current location. Those association people have money, own with property/ tax value, and they all vote. They will not budge there.

I don't pretend that the move and rebuild would be easy, and yes, it would take some serious planning and redevelopment work. The West side would be the most ready area. However, there is no way in hell the fan base would be diminished by a regional move, in proximity to the city proper, and under the conditions that commuter/ CTA trains were either already available or built and that you'd have expansive parking on-site. You'd have businesses beating down Ricketts' door to open up in the surrounding ball mall and Daley bending over backwards to facilitate the zoning laws on the heels of viable job creation. This is as much political as it would be/ is economic.

cowboydoc45
07-07-2010, 12:48 PM
In addition to more seats & general capacity, all of which would sell out, you would literally eliminate the night game issue once and for all. That latter point cannot be "solved" in the current location. Those association people have money, own with property/ tax value, and they all vote. They will not budge there.

I don't pretend that the move and rebuild would be easy, and yes, it would take some serious planning and redevelopment work. The West side would be the most ready area. However, there is no way in hell the fan base would be diminished by a regional move, in proximity to the city proper, and under the conditions that commuter/ CTA trains were either already available or built and that you'd have expansive parking on-site. You'd have businesses beating down Ricketts' door to open up in the surrounding ball mall and Daley bending over backwards to facilitate the zoning laws on the heels of viable job creation. This is as much political as it would be/ is economic.

This is a great point. Honestly, I love Wrigley, but would also love to see the team move into an up to date facility. I in no way want to see Wrigley torn down, but make it into a "shrine" of sorts, sort of like the Polo Grounds. Renivate it, and use it for other events...

scrubs101
07-07-2010, 01:01 PM
Have you guys paid ANY attention to what the new owner of the Cubs has said MULTIPLE times?? Cubs aren't going anywhere. He wants them at Wrigley for another 50 years. He's renovating the stadium and is probable building the "triangle building" next door for better facilities among other things

2014

ggross
07-07-2010, 01:14 PM
Whenever the day game argument comes up, I always bring up one point. What is the Cubs' excuse for the decades where EVERYONE was playing all or mostly day games?!

Do the extra day games take their toll? Probably a little. But c'mon. The Marlins have won a couple World Series and if you've ever been to Miami in July or August, those 7:00 start times are damn near as hot, and much more humid and uncomfortable than Chicago in the middle of the afternoon. Atlanta has had sustained success playing in similar conditions.

Face it, the reason the Cubs haven't won is because of personnel decisions more than anything.

By 1949 the Cubs were the only team without lights and night games were getting pretty common. So before that time and going back to the turn of the century - while everyone was playing day baseball, the Cubs won the pennant 10 times (1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1918, 1929, 1932, 1935, 1938, and 1945) and the World Series twice (1907 & 1908). Obviously, they haven't won either since.

ggross
07-07-2010, 01:47 PM
Rolen makes a good point. The facilities are subpar and the day games take a toll. There is no advantage when a visiting team rolls in fresh and rolls out tired. The Cubs were already tired from going through the grind X number of times before the visitors even arrived. And the effect is cumulative over a whole season. But these points are only part of the story.

Itís the circus atmosphere the players have to put up with everyday. Itís the national and visiting media who joke about curses and why canít the Cubs win, Bartman, Billy Goats and then they explain the Eamus Catuli numbers outside Wrigley. They replay the grounder through Durhamís legs, the black cat running past Santo in 1969, the Bartman play, etc.
Itís the Chicago media, many of them plotting Sox fans, making a joke of the teamís failures and setting failed expectations in the players minds. Itís asking new Cubs players at their initial press conference why the Cubs canít win - and do they believe the team is cursed and ******** questions like that.

I donít think it is random chance when a team totally falls apart (1969, 1984, 2003, 2008 playoffs). These guys are always waiting for the shoe to drop. It has been pounded into their heads from the day they became Cubs Ė bad things are gunna happen. And this just feeds itself. The look on Dempsterís face after being yanked in game 1 Ė after walking 7 in 4+ innings said it all. So did Zambranoís after the infield behind imploded the next day.

I believe it will take 1 of 2 things (or both) for the Cubs to win it all. They must either tear down Wrigley Field or theyíll need a real special group of players who can overcome all of the pressure and the nonsense.

Str1fe5
07-07-2010, 02:17 PM
Isn't the triangle building supposed to address the facilities problem?

3Fingers
07-07-2010, 02:43 PM
The point isn't making excuses so much as asking if every cubs team in the last 20 years or so has had a worse record than it would have had the competition been on the same terms. You could liken the day heavy schedule to being the only team without a DH. You can still be good without one, but you'd be better still if on an even playing field.

This year it doens't mean much, the team just isn't very good. But if you go back and look at every year the Cubs missed the division or wild card, or even .500, by a game or two and you have to wonder what might have been in a different situation
This is a great point.

And if we're going to look at it from a historical perspective, let's look at history.

The first night game in the major leagues was played in 1935. By 1941, 11 of 16 teams had lights, and by 1948, all but the Cubs did. So for argument's sake, I'll use 1935 as the pivot point.

In the 30 years leading up to and including 1935, when ALL teams played day games, the Cubs finished first or second in the National League 13 times. That's 43%. Pretty good.

In the 53 years between the first night night game in the major leagues and the first night game at Wrigley, when the majority of Cubs opponents played at night, the Cubs finished first or second in the league or their division only 8 times. That's 15%. Abysmal.

Obviously I can't prove cause-and-effect. There are other factors involved. But there's pretty overwhelming circumstantial evidence that playing so many day games relative to their opponents hurts the Cubs. Like Kirel (and Rolen) said, it's a cumulative effect over the course of a long season. Rolen put it very well ... when his team comes to town, it's three days and they're wiped out. For the Cubs, it's an entire season like that. Whether we think they should be able to handle the situation is irrelevant. The Cubs are the only team that has to.

Add in the lack of facilities, and you put a pretty decent group of ballplayers in a hole they have a hard time climbing out of.

3Fingers
07-07-2010, 02:46 PM
By 1949 the Cubs were the only team without lights and night games were getting pretty common. So before that time and going back to the turn of the century - while everyone was playing day baseball, the Cubs won the pennant 10 times (1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1918, 1929, 1932, 1935, 1938, and 1945) and the World Series twice (1907 & 1908). Obviously, they haven't won either since.
Sorry dude. Didn't see your post before I wrote mine.

Great point, obviously!

chi416
07-07-2010, 03:13 PM
This is a great point.

And if we're going to look at it from a historical perspective, let's look at history.

The first night game in the major leagues was played in 1935. By 1941, 11 of 16 teams had lights, and by 1948, all but the Cubs did. So for argument's sake, I'll use 1935 as the pivot point.

In the 30 years leading up to and including 1935, when ALL teams played day games, the Cubs finished first or second in the National League 13 times. That's 43%. Pretty good.

In the 53 years between the first night night game in the major leagues and the first night game at Wrigley, when the majority of Cubs opponents played at night, the Cubs finished first or second in the league or their division only 8 times. That's 15%. Abysmal.

Obviously I can't prove cause-and-effect. There are other factors involved. But there's pretty overwhelming circumstantial evidence that playing so many day games relative to their opponents hurts the Cubs. Like Kirel (and Rolen) said, it's a cumulative effect over the course of a long season. Rolen put it very well ... when his team comes to town, it's three days and they're wiped out. For the Cubs, it's an entire season like that. Whether we think they should be able to handle the situation is irrelevant. The Cubs are the only team that has to.

Add in the lack of facilities, and you put a pretty decent group of ballplayers in a hole they have a hard time climbing out of.

It's also pretty well chronicled that Wrigley Sr had a much greater passion for the team than did his son and that by most accounts his son was not a good owner in terms of fielding a winning team. I think the actual owner had a much greater contribution to the Cubs being a bad organization than did day baseball vs night baseball. Hell, look at Cubs history -- you don't assemble some of the atrocious records they did because of day baseball -- you do so because you have a bad organization (i.e. Pittsburgh and KC)

You can look at any host of factors and come up with advantages and disadvantages. Any time the Cubs play a home day game following a home day game they should have an advantage over a team who played the night before, arrived in Chicago at 1 or 2 in the morning and then have to be at Wrigley in less than 9 hours. That should be a huge advantage for the Cubs. Any time the Cubs play a home day game, travel and arrive before their opponent even finishes it sgame should also be an advantage. Further, being centrally located means far shorter plane trips during the season relative to say the Marlins or Giants. Almost 2/3 of the NL is within 2.5 hours by plane.

The reality is that the Cubs are locked into a certain schedule that is different. You can either take the "woe is me route" and let it destroy you or you can accept that it is your reality and learn how to make it an advantage. Look at the Twins -- they had a stadium that completely sucked and were a small market team with limited revenues. They learned to build their team around that and have had success. Look at Beane in Oakland -- he realized his fiscal limitations and how to better deploy money and succeed. Winners overcome obstacles, losers use them as excuses. The Cubs have enough financial resources that they should be able to assemble a team with sufficient depth to compensate for any wear and tear day baseball may create. Remember, they are the ones who chose in the past to not find ways to upgrade facilities for the benefit of players. Here are a couple of Ricketts first moves upon taking control...

"7) The players will have a new weight training center that will occupy the area that formerly was the umpires quarters. The umps have been relocated to the first base side of the field. In addition, the Cubs old weight room which is located in the clubhouse is being turned into a players lounge and dining room. The Cubs have also hired a team nutritionist who will be in charge of upgrading the food served in the locker room and monitoring players nutrition both at home and when the team is on the road.

8) The family lounge for players wives and kids is being completely renovated as the old quarters were embarrassingly spartan."

A team nutritionist -- how the hell did they not have one before? $120 mm+ payroll and "the rigors of day baseball" and you don't have something as basic as a nutritionist. Seems like proper nutrition is a good way to partially combat the effects of day baseball. Day baseball is merely an obstacle -- how you deal with it identifies success or failure. I'll gladly take Cub resources and day baseball over Marlin, Pirate or Royal resources and night baseball. The money should more than compensate for the grind of day baseball.

Look at KC and Pittsburgh -- do they suck because of night baseball? Could they be worse if they played more day baseball? Or are they just flawed organizations and are bad as a result. Troll through the pages here and I can show you volumes more about people *****ing about personnel decisions and how Epstein or Beane do it so much better. Those decisions would still be bad baseball decisions regardless if every game was played at night or not. While I agree that day baseball likely has some ill effect, it is not the reason (or even one of thetop 10 reasons) why this organization has struggled for years and years.

Sorry for the stream of consciousness but I really do think the day baseball is too big of a crutch and too small an explaining variable.

3Fingers
07-07-2010, 04:00 PM
It's also pretty well chronicled that Wrigley Sr had a much greater passion for the team than did his son and that by most accounts his son was not a good owner in terms of fielding a winning team. I think the actual owner had a much greater contribution to the Cubs being a bad organization than did day baseball vs night baseball. Hell, look at Cubs history -- you don't assemble some of the atrocious records they did because of day baseball -- you do so because you have a bad organization (i.e. Pittsburgh and KC)

You can look at any host of factors and come up with advantages and disadvantages. Any time the Cubs play a home day game following a home day game they should have an advantage over a team who played the night before, arrived in Chicago at 1 or 2 in the morning and then have to be at Wrigley in less than 9 hours. That should be a huge advantage for the Cubs. Any time the Cubs play a home day game, travel and arrive before their opponent even finishes it sgame should also be an advantage. Further, being centrally located means far shorter plane trips during the season relative to say the Marlins or Giants. Almost 2/3 of the NL is within 2.5 hours by plane.

The reality is that the Cubs are locked into a certain schedule that is different. You can either take the "woe is me route" and let it destroy you or you can accept that it is your reality and learn how to make it an advantage. Look at the Twins -- they had a stadium that completely sucked and were a small market team with limited revenues. They learned to build their team around that and have had success. Look at Beane in Oakland -- he realized his fiscal limitations and how to better deploy money and succeed. Winners overcome obstacles, losers use them as excuses. The Cubs have enough financial resources that they should be able to assemble a team with sufficient depth to compensate for any wear and tear day baseball may create. Remember, they are the ones who chose in the past to not find ways to upgrade facilities for the benefit of players. Here are a couple of Ricketts first moves upon taking control...

"7) The players will have a new weight training center that will occupy the area that formerly was the umpires quarters. The umps have been relocated to the first base side of the field. In addition, the Cubs old weight room which is located in the clubhouse is being turned into a players lounge and dining room. The Cubs have also hired a team nutritionist who will be in charge of upgrading the food served in the locker room and monitoring players nutrition both at home and when the team is on the road.

8) The family lounge for players wives and kids is being completely renovated as the old quarters were embarrassingly spartan."

A team nutritionist -- how the hell did they not have one before? $120 mm+ payroll and "the rigors of day baseball" and you don't have something as basic as a nutritionist. Seems like proper nutrition is a good way to partially combat the effects of day baseball. Day baseball is merely an obstacle -- how you deal with it identifies success or failure. I'll gladly take Cub resources and day baseball over Marlin, Pirate or Royal resources and night baseball. The money should more than compensate for the grind of day baseball.

Look at KC and Pittsburgh -- do they suck because of night baseball? Could they be worse if they played more day baseball? Or are they just flawed organizations and are bad as a result. Troll through the pages here and I can show you volumes more about people *****ing about personnel decisions and how Epstein or Beane do it so much better. Those decisions would still be bad baseball decisions regardless if every game was played at night or not. While I agree that day baseball likely has some ill effect, it is not the reason (or even one of thetop 10 reasons) why this organization has struggled for years and years.

Sorry for the stream of consciousness but I really do think the day baseball is too big of a crutch and too small an explaining variable.
Nobody is taking the "woe is me" route. All we're doing is discussing the comments made by Scott Rolen.

If you acknowledge that constant day baseball has an ill effect (you did), then you agree, at least in part, with what Rolen says. You may not consider it as big a factor as he does or I do, but you still acknowledge that the factor exists. Now throw garbage facilities AND things like questionable front-office moves into the recipe, and the cake starts to taste like sewage.

You have given us your opinions about the Wrigley family's care of the team, or lack thereof. Those are interesting, but they're your opinions. You can't substantiate them as any more of a cause for the Cubs abysmal history than I can with day games. But I can substantiate that the Cubs haven't won a single pennant since the remainder of Major League Baseball began playing night games in 1948.

What the Twins, A's, Royals, Pirates or anybody else does is irrelevant to the discussion of constant day baseball because none of them do it. But if you're going to include them in the discussion, then let's also include the fact that all of those teams have won at least one World Series -- all but the Royals have won multiple -- since 1970. In addition, every expansion team that has ever existed except for the Seattle Mariners and Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals has appeared in the Series since the Cubs have. Some of them, like the Marlins, have completely dismantled and rebooted their entire system -- and STILL won a ring.

Bad teams exist every year. But the Cubs have been bad for the overwhelming majority of the past 65 years. At some point, you have to look at factors that have existed for 65 years, not just the past few. One of those is constant day baseball.

chi416
07-07-2010, 04:52 PM
Nobody is taking the "woe is me" route. All we're doing is discussing the comments made by Scott Rolen.

If you acknowledge that constant day baseball has an ill effect (you did), then you agree, at least in part, with what Rolen says. You may not consider it as big a factor as he does or I do, but you still acknowledge that the factor exists. Now throw garbage facilities AND things like questionable front-office moves into the recipe, and the cake starts to taste like sewage.

You have given us your opinions about the Wrigley family's care of the team, or lack thereof. Those are interesting, but they're your opinions. You can't substantiate them as any more of a cause for the Cubs abysmal history than I can with day games. But I can substantiate that the Cubs haven't won a single pennant since the remainder of Major League Baseball began playing night games in 1948.

What the Twins, A's, Royals, Pirates or anybody else does is irrelevant to the discussion of constant day baseball because none of them do it. But if you're going to include them in the discussion, then let's also include the fact that all of those teams have won at least one World Series -- all but the Royals have won multiple -- since 1970. In addition, every expansion team that has ever existed except for the Seattle Mariners and Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals has appeared in the Series since the Cubs have. Some of them, like the Marlins, have completely dismantled and rebooted their entire system -- and STILL won a ring.

Bad teams exist every year. But the Cubs have been bad for the overwhelming majority of the past 65 years. At some point, you have to look at factors that have existed for 65 years, not just the past few. One of those is constant day baseball.

Correlation does not equal causality. You are merely cobbling together two facts and deeming them to have a causal relationship with no actual proof of correlation. The White Sox and Red Sox had very long droughts on par with the Cubs until recently but that doesn't mean the it has to be day baseball argument was made stronger -- it just means things aligned for them. Again, I would suggest looking at Cubs teams through the years and ask if those teams were victims of a year long gring from day baseball or just truly awful teams. Growing up, I recall teams that sucked from start to finish far more than teams that just faded away as the seasonw ent on -- and that's in the pre-lights era.

1948 - 1966 - 2/19 seasons .500 or better, avg win pct .428 -- that screams of bad organization not day baseball

1967 - 1972 - 6/6 seasons .500 or better, avg win pct .534 never went to post-season. 2 years with 1 team out of 10 making it. Best year lost came in 2nd at 92-70. Day baseball may have had a slight effect then.

1973 - 1983 - 1/11 seasons .500 or better, avg win pct .452 -- again more indicative of a bad organization than anything else

1984 - 2009 - 11/16 seasons at .500 or better, avg win pct of .492 -- definitely had some chances but also some terrible teams. I don't recall any of those teams looking especially drained. They destroyed San Diego in first 2 games in 1984 and had the Marlins on the ropes -- they didn't just all of the sudden have day baseball take it out of them.

I see a historically inept organization and an ever increasing amount of pressure as reasons for failing to win a title. From 1948 - 1983, save one 5 year period, they were an awful franchise that gave itself no chance to even have a shot at the playoffs. Since 1948, I think you can easily say they gave themselves very few chances to come close to the post-season (especially when it was a shorter post-season than today) and the effects of day baseball very rarely was even an issue as they were often eliminated well before the impact would have been felt to any reasonable degree.

3Fingers
07-07-2010, 06:02 PM
Correlation does not equal causality.
I could have sworn I said that exact thing in my first post.

All I'm saying is that day baseball is a factor.

A major-league player with 14+ seasons under his belt says that when he comes to Wrigley to play a series, he leaves far more tired than for a normal series with night games. I happen to think that's a pretty strong case for calling it a factor.


You are merely cobbling together two facts and deeming them to have a causal relationship with no actual proof of correlation.
You just did the same thing. Well, actually not.

You said the Cubs sucked from 1948 to 1983, so that must have been caused by a terrible organization. That's cobbling together one fact and one opinion and deeming them to have a causal relationship. At least I based my opinion on two facts.

You then said that the team played .534 baseball for 6 years in the late 60s and early 70s -- with the same ownership, I might add -- and the fact that they didn't make the postseason was because they ... played day baseball?

OK. If you say so.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-07-2010, 06:47 PM
What about the talks of the triangle building that was supposed to go up? Wasn't that supposed to be improved facilities for the team to use?

Bowski
07-07-2010, 09:16 PM
how many playoff games are played during the day time?

I'd love to see our night time record compared to other teams. If we suck at night then we're going to have playoff troubles...

TNSMOKIES
07-07-2010, 09:58 PM
Rolen makes a good point. The facilities are subpar and the day games take a toll. There is no advantage when a visiting team rolls in fresh and rolls out tired. The Cubs were already tired from going through the grind X number of times before the visitors even arrived. And the effect is cumulative over a whole season. But these points are only part of the story.

Itís the circus atmosphere the players have to put up with everyday. Itís the national and visiting media who joke about curses and why canít the Cubs win, Bartman, Billy Goats and then they explain the Eamus Catuli numbers outside Wrigley. They replay the grounder through Durhamís legs, the black cat running past Santo in 1969, the Bartman play, etc.
Itís the Chicago media, many of them plotting Sox fans, making a joke of the teamís failures and setting failed expectations in the players minds. Itís asking new Cubs players at their initial press conference why the Cubs canít win - and do they believe the team is cursed and ******** questions like that.

I donít think it is random chance when a team totally falls apart (1969, 1984, 2003, 2008 playoffs). These guys are always waiting for the shoe to drop. It has been pounded into their heads from the day they became Cubs Ė bad things are gunna happen. And this just feeds itself. The look on Dempsterís face after being yanked in game 1 Ė after walking 7 in 4+ innings said it all. So did Zambranoís after the infield behind imploded the next day.

I believe it will take 1 of 2 things (or both) for the Cubs to win it all. They must either tear down Wrigley Field or theyíll need a real special group of players who can overcome all of the pressure and the nonsense.

I agree with the special group of players. The Cubs need a group of young talented guys that don't falter under the pressure and play like they have something to prove. Or a group of guys like the Red Sox when they finally won. Pedro carried around a "little person" for Lord's sake. Manny pooped in the Green Monster. These guys came to the ballpark everyday and were themselves. Winners. Wrigley won't go away until the city condemns it, and as a Cubs fan, one of the reasons I love and follow team is because of where they play. Hopefully one day in my lifetime management will finally put together a team that can win there, day or night, and through October.

TNSMOKIES
07-07-2010, 10:01 PM
Yagyu: That's not a bad idea, son. What'd you say your name was?

ANC: I didn't.

[Cue spaghetti-western music. "I didn't" rides off into the sunset. Roll credits.]

Off topic but surely relevant: I love the Phil Collins "In The Air Tonight" model drum machine/beat maker as your signature.

Guny Highway
07-08-2010, 01:19 AM
Wrigley needs to go. Yes its one of the last remaining cathedrals of baseball, but its obsolete. The Yankees tore down the House that Ruth built, the Cubs can do the same about Wrigley. I live in WA State and attend a couple dozen games at Safeco Field in Seattle every season, having been to Wrigley and Safeco I can see why Wrigley creates such a dilema.

I sure Lou will say as such when he retires.

The whole superstitious curse of the Billy Goat, Bartman curse, loveable losers needs to go away. No more black cats, exploding the Bartman ball, wait till next year rally's. Fans get wrapped up in this, the media gets wrapped up on this and it reachers a hurricane like fervor when the Cubs are a contender in late August. I love the Cubs and thought the 2008 team was bullet proof. But you combine the wear and tear of all the summer day games in Chicago with the ghosts of failures past and fans just waiting for the whole thing to unravel you create a pressure cooker for the players come October.

Yes, they are profesionals, but they are also human.

Starting fresh in a new state of the art park would go along way towards moving foward.

I have seen too many strange misfortunes bedevil very good Cubs teams over the years.

poodski
07-08-2010, 08:51 AM
I vote for playing all games around 9 PM CST. I mean we just won a sweep playing late at night.

Jerry34
07-08-2010, 09:41 AM
Or at least play a significant portion of the regular season in Mesa.

cowboydoc45
07-08-2010, 09:57 AM
Or at least play a significant portion of the regular season in Mesa.

:laugh: this x 5

ggross
07-08-2010, 01:17 PM
Wrigley needs to go. Yes its one of the last remaining cathedrals of baseball, but its obsolete. The Yankees tore down the House that Ruth built, the Cubs can do the same about Wrigley. I live in WA State and attend a couple dozen games at Safeco Field in Seattle every season, having been to Wrigley and Safeco I can see why Wrigley creates such a dilema.

I sure Lou will say as such when he retires.

The whole superstitious curse of the Billy Goat, Bartman curse, loveable losers needs to go away. No more black cats, exploding the Bartman ball, wait till next year rally's. Fans get wrapped up in this, the media gets wrapped up on this and it reachers a hurricane like fervor when the Cubs are a contender in late August. I love the Cubs and thought the 2008 team was bullet proof. But you combine the wear and tear of all the summer day games in Chicago with the ghosts of failures past and fans just waiting for the whole thing to unravel you create a pressure cooker for the players come October.

Yes, they are profesionals, but they are also human.

Starting fresh in a new state of the art park would go along way towards moving foward.

I have seen too many strange misfortunes bedevil very good Cubs teams over the years.

Very much agree with all of this.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 03:04 PM
So Rolen is finally relevant again and this is what's on his mind?

Kirel
07-08-2010, 03:07 PM
So Rolen is finally relevant again and this is what's on his mind?
Yes, I'm sure it's safe to say that when asked "You have played a lot of games here at Wrigley Field during your career. Why do you think the Cubs haven't been able to win here?" that this is what he thinks of.

Seriously guys, you haven't yet noticed that reporters *ASK* questions, not just hide under a players seat waiting for them to talk to themselves so they can write down their musings.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 03:11 PM
Yes, I'm sure it's safe to say that when asked "You have played a lot of games here at Wrigley Field during your career. Why do you think the Cubs haven't been able to win here?" that this is what he thinks of.

Seriously guys, you haven't yet noticed that reporters *ASK* questions, not just hide under a players seat waiting for them to talk to themselves so they can write down their musings.

It was sarcasm. :sigh:

Kirel
07-08-2010, 03:14 PM
It was sarcasm. :sigh:
I think you missed the mark a little this time.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 03:16 PM
I think you missed the mark a little this time.

That's what she said!


BA-ZINGA!!!

redbird89
07-08-2010, 05:06 PM
A new stadium can be a good thing, in a lot of ways, but there are tradeoffs.

Still, you can make a new stadium that looks good. With Busch, the new stadium fits into the city much better than the old stadium did. You can make a good looking new stadium with better amenities. You can't guarantee that it will have the same atmosphere, but you have the same fanbase.

croce_99
07-08-2010, 05:09 PM
That's what she said!


BA-ZINGA!!!

:laugh:

Iffybiz
07-12-2010, 12:33 PM
I don't think Wrigley is the problem (though it was at one time) and I don't think day games is as big a problem as it's made out to be.
The biggest problem is the fans. No, not because they go to games even when the team is losing. It's because they can't accept the right way of the team going about getting a championship. For this team to ultimately win the fans will have to accept them being bad for a period of time until the team can build the farm system it needs to be successful.
Without a strong farm system you end up in lots of bad free agent signings with incomplete baseball players.
You also don't have the resources to make the deals at the trade deadlines that put you over the top.
You always get shortchanged on deals involving young players because no one trusts your talent to be any good.
The Cubs need to bite the bullet and go young as quickly as they can to get out from under these bad contracts.
That's going to mean they will be bad for a while until their farm system can catch up.
Will the fans be willing to go along with such a plan?
They always point to Yankees and Red Sox and say that they are successful spending money. That's true but they have the reputation of producing quality talent in their organizations and they keep the best of that talent for themselves.
There's one other point to make. You need a "complete" team and players. All five "tools" and willing to be patient at the plate as well. They don't all have to be all-stars but should all be compentent in all phases of the game. Building the team from within allows you do that.

3Fingers
07-12-2010, 03:22 PM
The biggest problem is the fans. No, not because they go to games even when the team is losing. It's because they can't accept the right way of the team going about getting a championship. For this team to ultimately win the fans will have to accept them being bad for a period of time until the team can build the farm system it needs to be successful.
OK, speaking on behalf of those who became fans prior to 2003 ...

We've been putting up with bad teams for the vast majority of our lives, so I don't know why you think we won't put up with more. Our team has made three playoff appearances this decade ... that's the best they've done since the 1930s.

So stop putting blame on the fans. We don't swing at every first pitch, forget to cover first, throw to the wrong base or force the same player to get thrown out on the bases four times in one series.

WCF23
07-12-2010, 04:38 PM
Its become a distraction though. Its sort of the Lebron James situation imo. If the Cubs leave Wrigley and then win the WS would it be as sweet? I don't really know, and my answer would probably be it really doesn't matter as long as they win. Its selfish, I know, but its sort of how I feel.

I think from FA standpoint, it would make life easier with better facilities and from an orginizational standpoint a new stadium would bring in way more revenue. More seating, accessibility would increase, more parking and the dollars that come with that, sponsorship dollars, and not to mention the economic growth around a new park.

In theory, Wrigley is an amazing place, but the functionality doesn't really live up to that billing. You can put ivy on the outfield walls anywhere. Its almost 100 years old and the Cubs have never won a championship while calling it home. Its almost uncanny how attached we all are to a building that is filled with more pain and heartache than anything else. I'm just as guilty as anyone but when you really step back and think about it you almost have to wonder why.

Iffybiz
07-15-2010, 02:36 PM
OK, speaking on behalf of those who became fans prior to 2003 ...

We've been putting up with bad teams for the vast majority of our lives, so I don't know why you think we won't put up with more. Our team has made three playoff appearances this decade ... that's the best they've done since the 1930s.

So stop putting blame on the fans. We don't swing at every first pitch, forget to cover first, throw to the wrong base or force the same player to get thrown out on the bases four times in one series.

I've been a fan for over 40 years and you aren't speaking for me. Maybe you need to read some of this board sometime. Most on here think by adding a few more players in FA this team will "compete." Even if it were true that most will accept a losing team in order to win, Cub's management/ownership doesn't seem to get it. Unless one loud clear voice comes from the fans to go the farm system route, they're going to keep doing things this way.
And while you're right the fans don't play, they allow these things to keep happening by the support of players who play the game the wrong way.
You really think Adam Dunn is a great "fundamentals" guy? Yet that's the name I'm seeing on this board right now.
There are right ways and wrong ways to play baseball, the Cubs neither sweat teaching the "right" way nor do they sign players who play the right way. Thus they are doomed to be bad or in a good year competitive. Until the fans fight for that kind of team, this is what they will continue to get.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2010, 02:44 PM
I've been a fan for over 40 years and you aren't speaking for me. Maybe you need to read some of this board sometime. Most on here think by adding a few more players in FA this team will "compete." Even if it were true that most will accept a losing team in order to win, Cub's management/ownership doesn't seem to get it. Unless one loud clear voice comes from the fans to go the farm system route, they're going to keep doing things this way.
And while you're right the fans don't play, they allow these things to keep happening by the support of players who play the game the wrong way.
You really think Adam Dunn is a great "fundamentals" guy? Yet that's the name I'm seeing on this board right now.
There are right ways and wrong ways to play baseball, the Cubs neither sweat teaching the "right" way nor do they sign players who play the right way. Thus they are doomed to be bad or in a good year competitive. Until the fans fight for that kind of team, this is what they will continue to get.

Ryan Theriot and Marlon Byrd

Iffybiz
07-15-2010, 02:47 PM
On a team of how many?

Mell413
07-15-2010, 04:38 PM
I've been a fan for over 40 years and you aren't speaking for me. Maybe you need to read some of this board sometime. Most on here think by adding a few more players in FA this team will "compete." Even if it were true that most will accept a losing team in order to win, Cub's management/ownership doesn't seem to get it. Unless one loud clear voice comes from the fans to go the farm system route, they're going to keep doing things this way.
And while you're right the fans don't play, they allow these things to keep happening by the support of players who play the game the wrong way.
You really think Adam Dunn is a great "fundamentals" guy? Yet that's the name I'm seeing on this board right now.
There are right ways and wrong ways to play baseball, the Cubs neither sweat teaching the "right" way nor do they sign players who play the right way. Thus they are doomed to be bad or in a good year competitive. Until the fans fight for that kind of team, this is what they will continue to get.

I'm not sure I'm buying the playing the right way argument. The right way to play baseball is to sign guys that can get on base and score runs. We need power from a power position, which is why Dunn's name has been mentioned. Who would be a player that plays the right way in your eyes?

JayBandit
07-15-2010, 10:24 PM
Have you taken the Cubs Tour before? They walk you through the clubhouse and basically everything.
There really isn't any room for expansion. They can knock down a few walls but that's about it.
So basically what you see is what you get. The cubs remodeled the clubhouse this year, so I haven't seen the updated version. But 2 years ago, it was horrible. It was smaller than my apartment living room (sarcasm....)

And they have 1 TV :laugh2:

Isn't that what the "triangle building" would help with? There is a lot they could do with the surrounding area to help make lives better on the guys. I mean, we're talking about a very wealthy entity, ANYTHING is possible as far as the infrastructure.

The biggest issue is dealing with the night/day game ratio, and I think over time it may increase more and more as it has...but SLOWLY. So, perhaps another 100 years from now, we'll be normal like the rest of the teams out there, haha.

Iffybiz
07-22-2010, 02:26 PM
I'm not sure I'm buying the playing the right way argument. The right way to play baseball is to sign guys that can get on base and score runs. We need power from a power position, which is why Dunn's name has been mentioned. Who would be a player that plays the right way in your eyes?

I think you kind of miss my point. This shouldn't be about one player but all of them. First and foremost a team needs to be designed not to beat itself. That's right I said DESIGNED. That's the biggest problem with just filling holes with free agents, there's no plan, nothing beyond "he adds to the offense."
Nevermind that you're adding another slow running, poor defensive player to a team has a lot of them already by adding Dunn. If all you want to do is add power, then why change at first, you get power and defense in Lee.
As I said, the team should be designed around not beating itself. Solid defense, good overall team speed, smart baserunners who know how to take an extra base, good to great OBP, pitchers who keep walks to a minimum, enough hitters and pitchers on each side to take advantage of match ups.
I know what the next question is, how are they supposed to find these players? The answer is, you grow them. You draft guys who play the way you want to play. Your system teaches them to play the way you want them to play. When you make a trade you trade for guys who play "the Cubs way" same with signing free agents.
Marlon Byrd was a great signing not because he was superstar or could hit 50 HR's but because he does everything well. You put 8 guys like Byrd as your regulars you're going to be a winner. Those are the kind of guys you develop, sign and trade for and you start getting rid of the rest. Now.

Kirel
07-22-2010, 02:52 PM
I think you kind of miss my point. This shouldn't be about one player but all of them. First and foremost a team needs to be designed not to beat itself. That's right I said DESIGNED. That's the biggest problem with just filling holes with free agents, there's no plan, nothing beyond "he adds to the offense."
Nevermind that you're adding another slow running, poor defensive player to a team has a lot of them already by adding Dunn. If all you want to do is add power, then why change at first, you get power and defense in Lee.
As I said, the team should be designed around not beating itself. Solid defense, good overall team speed, smart baserunners who know how to take an extra base, good to great OBP, pitchers who keep walks to a minimum, enough hitters and pitchers on each side to take advantage of match ups.
I know what the next question is, how are they supposed to find these players? The answer is, you grow them. You draft guys who play the way you want to play. Your system teaches them to play the way you want them to play. When you make a trade you trade for guys who play "the Cubs way" same with signing free agents.
Marlon Byrd was a great signing not because he was superstar or could hit 50 HR's but because he does everything well. You put 8 guys like Byrd as your regulars you're going to be a winner. Those are the kind of guys you develop, sign and trade for and you start getting rid of the rest. Now.
I'm not sure that's practical.

Yes it's nice to have a cohesive team philosophy, but practically you get what you get and that's life. You may pick guys who fit your philosophy but some of them simply are not work out that well. It's simply naive to believe you are going to grow a dozen or more players that do everything well in your farm.

There is also an issue of efficency. A team that is steadfast and unwilling to adapt will never be efficent. The rest of the league is constantly adjusting to eachother. Team philosophies can shift in a couple of years, but it's not always nessecery going to take that long.

3Fingers
07-22-2010, 03:45 PM
I've been a fan for over 40 years and you aren't speaking for me. Maybe you need to read some of this board sometime. Most on here think by adding a few more players in FA this team will "compete." Even if it were true that most will accept a losing team in order to win, Cub's management/ownership doesn't seem to get it. Unless one loud clear voice comes from the fans to go the farm system route, they're going to keep doing things this way.
And while you're right the fans don't play, they allow these things to keep happening by the support of players who play the game the wrong way.
You really think Adam Dunn is a great "fundamentals" guy? Yet that's the name I'm seeing on this board right now.
There are right ways and wrong ways to play baseball, the Cubs neither sweat teaching the "right" way nor do they sign players who play the right way. Thus they are doomed to be bad or in a good year competitive. Until the fans fight for that kind of team, this is what they will continue to get.
Wow. You're not even listening to what I'm saying.

I just talked about things like throwing to the wrong base and the same guy getting thrown out on the bases four times in the same series ... that's playing the game the wrong way. So why are you jumping down my throat?

And YOU need to read the board ... I don't have 10,000 posts, but I have never, ever, not once, called for the Cubs to sign somebody like Adam Dunn. Not because he necessarily plays the game the wrong way, but because he gives away runs with his abysmal defense no matter where they put him. I truly believe he tries ... he just can't catch the ball. I also was against the signing of Alfonso Soriano, in part because I believe he plays the game the wrong way ... bad defender, notoriously streaky hitter, self-centered ... but mostly because he's just not terribly bright when it comes to baseball (see "throwing to the wrong base" above).

I've taken a good bit of crap from those who like Dunn and Soriano, which is part of the reason I don't post as much as others. So please don't blast me for things you know nothing about.

At the same time, I'm not going to light my underwear on fire because the Cubs take more than a season to rebuild this mess. I've waited my entire life, and I'll wait as long as it takes. That's part of being a loyal fan. I ALWAYS support my team and its players. I may not like the way they play, but I support my team.

I mean, when you say "stop supporting," what do you propose we do? Stop going to games? Become a White Sox fan? Burn all my Cubs gear? Sorry. Not gonna do it. I'm going to root for Alfonso Soriano as long as he's wearing Cubbie blue, even if he drives me insane (only guy I've ever seen to drop a routine fly ball to give up the lead, then hit a home run to take it back).

hoggin88
07-22-2010, 04:10 PM
Wow. You're not even listening to what I'm saying.

I just talked about things like throwing to the wrong base and the same guy getting thrown out on the bases four times in the same series ... that's playing the game the wrong way. So why are you jumping down my throat?

And YOU need to read the board ... I don't have 10,000 posts, but I have never, ever, not once, called for the Cubs to sign somebody like Adam Dunn. Not because he necessarily plays the game the wrong way, but because he gives away runs with his abysmal defense no matter where they put him. I truly believe he tries ... he just can't catch the ball. I also was against the signing of Alfonso Soriano, in part because I believe he plays the game the wrong way ... bad defender, notoriously streaky hitter, self-centered ... but mostly because he's just not terribly bright when it comes to baseball (see "throwing to the wrong base" above).

I've taken a good bit of crap from those who like Dunn and Soriano, which is part of the reason I don't post as much as others. So please don't blast me for things you know nothing about.

At the same time, I'm not going to light my underwear on fire because the Cubs take more than a season to rebuild this mess. I've waited my entire life, and I'll wait as long as it takes. That's part of being a loyal fan. I ALWAYS support my team and its players. I may not like the way they play, but I support my team.

I mean, when you say "stop supporting," what do you propose we do? Stop going to games? Become a White Sox fan? Burn all my Cubs gear? Sorry. Not gonna do it. I'm going to root for Alfonso Soriano as long as he's wearing Cubbie blue, even if he drives me insane (only guy I've ever seen to drop a routine fly ball to give up the lead, then hit a home run to take it back).

I still don't get why Soriano gets labeled as self-centered by our fanbase. What has the guy done to be labeled as such? He always takes the blame for his shortcomings, never gives anyone any problems. I'm convinced it has a lot to do with his contract. If he was making less 10 mil a year I'm betting you wouldn't be calling him self-centered.

There's my off-topic two cents.

Milnertime
07-22-2010, 04:20 PM
I still don't get why Soriano gets labeled as self-centered by our fanbase. What has the guy done to be labeled as such? He always takes the blame for his shortcomings, never gives anyone any problems. I'm convinced it has a lot to do with his contract. If he was making less 10 mil a year I'm betting you wouldn't be calling him self-centered.

There's my off-topic two cents.
This.

3Fingers, I've grown to enjoy reading your posts, but I think you are dead wrong about Soriano. There was an article a couple of weeks ago talking about how great of a guy he is in the clubhouse. And has there been one single hustle issue since the home run incident early on this season? I can't remember one...he's busted his *** all year long save that one play.

3Fingers
07-23-2010, 11:49 AM
This.

3Fingers, I've grown to enjoy reading your posts, but I think you are dead wrong about Soriano. There was an article a couple of weeks ago talking about how great of a guy he is in the clubhouse. And has there been one single hustle issue since the home run incident early on this season? I can't remember one...he's busted his *** all year long save that one play.
Thanks for that. And I can respect what you're saying.

The real issue for me is his defense. We all know what he is offensively ... prone to incredible streaks where he can carry a team for two weeks, other streaks where he'd have trouble hitting in A-ball. But as a guy who took great pride in his defense as an outfielder when I played (mostly because I didn't hit very well!), it kills me to watch him play out there. I know that compared to some other left fielders like Carlos Lee and Adam Dunn (when he played outfield), he's "above average." But Carlos Lee is big and lumbering and slow. He can't help what he is. Soriano is supposed to be an athlete, but he does things out there that simply make me wince. He takes terrible routes to the ball. He often jogs after the ball. He always, always goes for the big assist, even when throwing to second base is the right play because there's no hope of gunning down the lead runner. Fundamentally, he's one of the worst outfielders I've ever seen.

So maybe I should amend what I said: These are the things that I perceive as self-centered. I may be way, way off base here. I fully admit it. But if he were truly dedicated to being a better team player, he'd have worked out some of these issues by now.

As a guy who loves watching the fundamentals of the game being executed properly, it's tough for me to like Soriano. To me, a play where an outfielder hits the cutoff man on a throw to the plate, and the cutoff man then cuts down a runner trying to advance, that's a beautiful play. It transcends statistics, and it saves games. Even more importantly, you don't have to be a superstar to make that play. But Soriano, supposedly a superstar, almost never does. He makes mistakes that I've coached out of high-school players in a week.

And yes, for that he's paid $18MM. I admit, that bothers me. I don't begrudge players their money. But compare Soriano to a guy like Albert Pujols, who was once known as a very average or worse defender. He's now among the best, and he made himself that way through hard work.

After five years in the outfield, where is the improvement in Soriano? That he stopped hopping?

I guess it's a matter of being able to accept the bad with the good. At his salary, it's hard for me to accept. Maybe I'm in the minority. That's OK. I'll take the heat. And I'll root for Soriano as long as he wears the Cubs' uniform.

Kirel
07-23-2010, 12:04 PM
Thanks for that. And I can respect what you're saying.

The real issue for me is his defense. We all know what he is offensively ... prone to incredible streaks where he can carry a team for two weeks, other streaks where he'd have trouble hitting in A-ball. But as a guy who took great pride in his defense as an outfielder when I played (mostly because I didn't hit very well!), it kills me to watch him play out there. I know that compared to some other left fielders like Carlos Lee and Adam Dunn (when he played outfield), he's "above average." But Carlos Lee is big and lumbering and slow. He can't help what he is. Soriano is supposed to be an athlete, but he does things out there that simply make me wince. He takes terrible routes to the ball. He often jogs after the ball. He always, always goes for the big assist, even when throwing to second base is the right play because there's no hope of gunning down the lead runner. Fundamentally, he's one of the worst outfielders I've ever seen.

So maybe I should amend what I said: These are the things that I perceive as self-centered. I may be way, way off base here. I fully admit it. But if he were truly dedicated to being a better team player, he'd have worked out some of these issues by now.

As a guy who loves watching the fundamentals of the game being executed properly, it's tough for me to like Soriano. To me, a play where an outfielder hits the cutoff man on a throw to the plate, and the cutoff man then cuts down a runner trying to advance, that's a beautiful play. It transcends statistics, and it saves games. Even more importantly, you don't have to be a superstar to make that play. But Soriano, supposedly a superstar, almost never does. He makes mistakes that I've coached out of high-school players in a week.

And yes, for that he's paid $18MM. I admit, that bothers me. I don't begrudge players their money. But compare Soriano to a guy like Albert Pujols, who was once known as a very average or worse defender. He's now among the best, and he made himself that way through hard work.

After five years in the outfield, where is the improvement in Soriano? That he stopped hopping?

I guess it's a matter of being able to accept the bad with the good. At his salary, it's hard for me to accept. Maybe I'm in the minority. That's OK. I'll take the heat. And I'll root for Soriano as long as he wears the Cubs' uniform.
Well, there are a few issues to consider. One being that Soriano was waht, nearly 30 when he converted to the OF? It's unlikely that he's as mallable as a high school player and he's probably never gonig to be sound funadmentally.

Another being that demanding perfect fundamental execution, while it occasionally does win games, is going to limit player abilities in other facets of the game to the point that you either cannot win because your players aren't good enough or you cannot actually find enough players to fill your team. As much as people wax poetic about solid fundamental players, the vast majority of them are not very good. They are players who made the majors not because they were good ballplayers, but because they did the right things.

Another is that you shouldn't hold all players up to the standard of a star defensive CF or shortstop. It's not fair for one thing, but more importantly it's not practical. You take your average CF and put him in LF, yeah he's going to outfield Soriano, but he's also going to hit much, much worse. In the end the team is no better, and very probably worse off.

Your standards probably preclude well over half, if not three quarters of major leaguers. At that point I think you ahve to sit back and reconsider your standards instead of complaining about major leaguers being wrong. And you really ahve to get over hte "at his salary" stuff. Players salaries have *NOTHING* to do with them looking good while playing and everything to do with when they were free agents and how productive they actually are.

Also, as an aside, calling Pujols one of the best defenders is a bit much IMHO, as is using him as an exmaple here. His fielding is generally around average at 1B, and outside a 3 year window('05 to '07), has never been extraordianry or even up to Soriano's level. It's easy to praise 1Bs, but you are holding different standards here. You expect Soriano to be up to par with Franklien Gutierrez and Ichiro but you are only holding Pujols up to the likes of Derrek Lee and Prince Fielder. To make your point valid you need Pujols to be able to stand up to the defensive skills of say Chase Utley or Adrian Beltre, two players that are *WAY*, *WAY* better fielders than Pujols.

3Fingers
07-23-2010, 12:46 PM
Well, there are a few issues to consider. One being that Soriano was waht, nearly 30 when he converted to the OF? It's unlikely that he's as mallable as a high school player and he's probably never gonig to be sound funadmentally.

Another being that demanding perfect fundamental execution, while it occasionally does win games, is going to limit player abilities in other facets of the game to the point that you either cannot win because your players aren't good enough or you cannot actually find enough players to fill your team. As much as people wax poetic about solid fundamental players, the vast majority of them are not very good. They are players who made the majors not because they were good ballplayers, but because they did the right things.

Another is that you shouldn't hold all players up to the standard of a star defensive CF or shortstop. It's not fair for one thing, but more importantly it's not practical. You take your average CF and put him in LF, yeah he's going to outfield Soriano, but he's also going to hit much, much worse. In the end the team is no better, and very probably worse off.

Your standards probably preclude well over half, if not three quarters of major leaguers. At that point I think you ahve to sit back and reconsider your standards instead of complaining about major leaguers being wrong. And you really ahve to get over hte "at his salary" stuff. Players salaries have *NOTHING* to do with them looking good while playing and everything to do with when they were free agents and how productive they actually are.

Also, as an aside, calling Pujols one of the best defenders is a bit much IMHO, as is using him as an exmaple here. His fielding is generally around average at 1B, and outside a 3 year window('05 to '07), has never been extraordianry or even up to Soriano's level. It's easy to praise 1Bs, but you are holding different standards here. You expect Soriano to be up to par with Franklien Gutierrez and Ichiro but you are only holding Pujols up to the likes of Derrek Lee and Prince Fielder. To make your point valid you need Pujols to be able to stand up to the defensive skills of say Chase Utley or Adrian Beltre, two players that are *WAY*, *WAY* better fielders than Pujols.
First of all, I have already fully admitted that it's hard for me to watch guys who aren't reasonably sound fundamentally. Along those lines, I think you're dead wrong ... you don't give Major-League players nearly enough credit. Most of them have good fundamentals -- ESPECIALLY the superstars. Part of the reason they're so good is because they're so fundamentally sound. You're seeing fundamentals as something so rudimentary as to be unnecessary to someone with superstar abilities. As if anybody off the street can master the fundamentals of baseball. That's simply not true. There are hundreds of physical fundamentals and just as many mental fundamentals ... the more of them you lack, the more you get exposed.

I think you're missing my point about Pujols. First of all, no matter whether you believe it's warranted, his reputation is as a very good first baseman. (By the way, what makes you think playing first base is easier than playing any other position?) But he has IMPROVED his defense over the years, and he got that way because he worked hard at it. Read the accounts. Apparently HE wasn't averse to coaching.

Finally, I don't have to get over anything regarding salary. I'm entitled to think anything I want. And I do not have a problem with much money they make. Nobody in this world is more of a free-market economist than I am. If somebody would pay me $20MM to do what I do, I'd take it without flinching. But I'd damn sure hold myself to the same standard as others making $20MM in my field (and I GUARANTEE you, my employer would).

I don't care whether we're talking $20 or $20MM ... if two guys are similar in salary, I'm going to compare their ability. I don't expect a guy who can barely handle an $8 an hour convenience-store job to be able to run a bank. But I do expect a guy being paid to be a bank CEO to be able to run a bank.

Same with ballplayers. Compare the highest-paid guys. That's fair. Alfonso Soriano is among the highest-paid players in the game, but he simply doesn't stack up.

Kirel
07-23-2010, 09:44 PM
First of all, I have already fully admitted that it's hard for me to watch guys who aren't reasonably sound fundamentally. Along those lines, I think you're dead wrong ... you don't give Major-League players nearly enough credit. Most of them have good fundamentals -- ESPECIALLY the superstars. Part of the reason they're so good is because they're so fundamentally sound. You're seeing fundamentals as something so rudimentary as to be unnecessary to someone with superstar abilities. As if anybody off the street can master the fundamentals of baseball. That's simply not true. There are hundreds of physical fundamentals and just as many mental fundamentals ... the more of them you lack, the more you get exposed.


Honestly, I think the issue is much more you don't like Soriano, so you won't forgive small gaffes and you dramatically magnify weaknesses in him that you don't in other players. Almost every player has a flaw in their game. Your dislike of Soriano is, to my mind, entirely irrational.

I'm not saying fundamentals are unnessecery, but I am saying having a failing in one or two is not nearly the crisis you make it out to be. The player is still more productive than a replacement level bat with fundamentally sound defense. The point of the game is to win, not to look choreographed.


I think you're missing my point about Pujols. First of all, no matter whether you believe it's warranted, his reputation is as a very good first baseman. (By the way, what makes you think playing first base is easier than playing any other position?) But he has IMPROVED his defense over the years, and he got that way because he worked hard at it. Read the accounts. Apparently HE wasn't averse to coaching.


While Pujols got better for a while, at this point he's probably at his career worst defensively. To some degree his defensive reputation is due to his bat, it's easy to make the jump from great hitter to great player, and once you've gone to great player it's easy to assume he's a great fielder. He's not though. He may have improved, but ultimatly it didn't mean all that much and I think you are putting him on a pedestal unfairly. Soriano has "improved" dramatically moving to the outfield over what he used to do at second base. His defensive cieling just isn't that high.

And are you really going to argue with me that first is as difficult to play as shortstop? Beyond that, you made a point about Soriano being good compared to the lousy LFs in the majors, but Pujols is barely above average against all the clodding, defensively challanged 1Bs. Again, you are showing bias. You are discrediting Soriano on something but ignoring it with Pujols.


Finally, I don't have to get over anything regarding salary. I'm entitled to think anything I want. And I do not have a problem with much money they make. Nobody in this world is more of a free-market economist than I am. If somebody would pay me $20MM to do what I do, I'd take it without flinching. But I'd damn sure hold myself to the same standard as others making $20MM in my field (and I GUARANTEE you, my employer would).


If your employer was a major league team, I'd guess they wouldn't. You cannot take normal employment concepts and apply it to free market services. Players aren't salaried employees so much as contractors providing services in a very limited market. It's an entirely different game. There is, at best, 200 players in the world at Soriano's level, at any given point there are maybe 2 or 3 available. You can't compare him to others making the same amount because the circumstances are different.

You are right, you are free to think what you think. But I don't think many people are going to agree with you. 10 minutes of econ 101 is enough to punch mile wide holes in your reasoning.


I don't care whether we're talking $20 or $20MM ... if two guys are similar in salary, I'm going to compare their ability. I don't expect a guy who can barely handle an $8 an hour convenience-store job to be able to run a bank. But I do expect a guy being paid to be a bank CEO to be able to run a bank.

Same with ballplayers. Compare the highest-paid guys. That's fair. Alfonso Soriano is among the highest-paid players in the game, but he simply doesn't stack up.

It's not even remotely fair, it's blind to the realities of a free market, free agency, and players(and incredibly unfair to those players not at the top end of the market.)

A free agent that got 5/20 in 2007 was paid better than one that got 5/20 in 2009, even if both are making 20 million this year. Soriano got his contract at what was essentially the height of a free agency bubble. Other players did not, it's just not directly comparable.

The funny thing about baseball is that most of the time, it's those bank manager CEO types that make the equivalent of 8 bucks an hour. The vast majority of the time the highest paid players are not nearly the best players in the game, that's just the nature of the beast. Salary does not reflect current talent, it reflects relative value at a point in time.

Iffybiz
07-24-2010, 01:34 PM
Wow. You're not even listening to what I'm saying.

I just talked about things like throwing to the wrong base and the same guy getting thrown out on the bases four times in the same series ... that's playing the game the wrong way. So why are you jumping down my throat?

And YOU need to read the board ... I don't have 10,000 posts, but I have never, ever, not once, called for the Cubs to sign somebody like Adam Dunn. Not because he necessarily plays the game the wrong way, but because he gives away runs with his abysmal defense no matter where they put him. I truly believe he tries ... he just can't catch the ball. I also was against the signing of Alfonso Soriano, in part because I believe he plays the game the wrong way ... bad defender, notoriously streaky hitter, self-centered ... but mostly because he's just not terribly bright when it comes to baseball (see "throwing to the wrong base" above).

I've taken a good bit of crap from those who like Dunn and Soriano, which is part of the reason I don't post as much as others. So please don't blast me for things you know nothing about.

At the same time, I'm not going to light my underwear on fire because the Cubs take more than a season to rebuild this mess. I've waited my entire life, and I'll wait as long as it takes. That's part of being a loyal fan. I ALWAYS support my team and its players. I may not like the way they play, but I support my team.

I mean, when you say "stop supporting," what do you propose we do? Stop going to games? Become a White Sox fan? Burn all my Cubs gear? Sorry. Not gonna do it. I'm going to root for Alfonso Soriano as long as he's wearing Cubbie blue, even if he drives me insane (only guy I've ever seen to drop a routine fly ball to give up the lead, then hit a home run to take it back).

I think you and I are actually on the same "side" here. My points were made in general terms for Cubs fans (some of who are calling for Dunn) not you in particular.
The things you complain about (throwing to wrong bases etc) are what I'm talking about when I say "playing the game the right way."
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what it would take to change the thinking process in Cubs management. They seem to not believe that Cub fans would be willing to go thru a major rebuilding process. I don't think anyone should stop being a fan but somehow the message needs to be delivered that we're willing to take a year or two of poor teams if it means they will be consistantly good.

Iffybiz
07-24-2010, 01:49 PM
I'm not sure that's practical.

Yes it's nice to have a cohesive team philosophy, but practically you get what you get and that's life. You may pick guys who fit your philosophy but some of them simply are not work out that well. It's simply naive to believe you are going to grow a dozen or more players that do everything well in your farm.

There is also an issue of efficency. A team that is steadfast and unwilling to adapt will never be efficent. The rest of the league is constantly adjusting to eachother. Team philosophies can shift in a couple of years, but it's not always nessecery going to take that long.

I didn't just pick the idea of "the Cub Way" out of the hat. It came from "The Yankee Way." Every player that comes to the Yankees from outside the organization is sat down and explained to what is expected of them. If they don't measure up they will not end up there very long.

I realize that even the best concept will have to deal with players who aren't perfect, however the question is how far do you let them slide before you're just a losing team? Take something I know you have great respect for OBP. How many guys in your lineup with poor OBP are allowed before your offense suffers? Or power? Or hitting behind runners? Or bunting?

How many poor defensive players does it take to make a crappy defense?

How many bad baserunners does it take to be a bad baserunning team.

How many bad team elements does it take to just be a "bad" team?

Unless you have some sort of "baseline" for your team you'll just keep putting bad teams on the field. Like the Cubs.

Doogolas
07-24-2010, 02:15 PM
I didn't just pick the idea of "the Cub Way" out of the hat. It came from "The Yankee Way." Every player that comes to the Yankees from outside the organization is sat down and explained to what is expected of them. If they don't measure up they will not end up there very long.

I realize that even the best concept will have to deal with players who aren't perfect, however the question is how far do you let them slide before you're just a losing team? Take something I know you have great respect for OBP. How many guys in your lineup with poor OBP are allowed before your offense suffers? Or power? Or hitting behind runners? Or bunting?

How many poor defensive players does it take to make a crappy defense?

How many bad baserunners does it take to be a bad baserunning team.

How many bad team elements does it take to just be a "bad" team?

Unless you have some sort of "baseline" for your team you'll just keep putting bad teams on the field. Like the Cubs.

Two years ago everyone would have said that this team is full of unselfish players who play the game the right way. Well, just in case you haven't been paying attention, it's basically the same team. And they're not as bad as their record indicates.

One "bad" team is "keep putting bad teams on the field" now? We've had a .500+ record I want to say all but 3 years since 2001. And of those three none have been in the last 4 years. So I'm not sure where the "keep putting bad teams on the field" thing comes from. This year isn't over yet. And even then, only in 02 and 06 do the teams really qualify as "bad". The other was basically just a .500 team. And if we talk the current regime, Hendry has put exactly one bad team on the field. Cause he took over in 2003.

Doogolas
07-24-2010, 02:15 PM
Ugh.

Darwinist
07-24-2010, 02:24 PM
I didn't just pick the idea of "the Cub Way" out of the hat. It came from "The Yankee Way." Every player that comes to the Yankees from outside the organization is sat down and explained to what is expected of them. If they don't measure up they will not end up there very long.

I realize that even the best concept will have to deal with players who aren't perfect, however the question is how far do you let them slide before you're just a losing team? Take something I know you have great respect for OBP. How many guys in your lineup with poor OBP are allowed before your offense suffers? Or power? Or hitting behind runners? Or bunting?

How many poor defensive players does it take to make a crappy defense?

How many bad baserunners does it take to be a bad baserunning team.

How many bad team elements does it take to just be a "bad" team?

Unless you have some sort of "baseline" for your team you'll just keep putting bad teams on the field. Like the Cubs.


You do realize that Soriano, one of the focal points of this discussion, was brought up and played for the yankees for five years? Did he forget the "yankee way"?

What is more likely? The yankees win because they have instituted the "yankee way"? Or that they outspend everyone else by a significant amount? What about all the other teams that win? Do/did they have the white sox way? or the marlin way? No, you put together the best team you can, and you hope you get lucky.

3Fingers
07-25-2010, 11:28 PM
I think you and I are actually on the same "side" here. My points were made in general terms for Cubs fans (some of who are calling for Dunn) not you in particular.
The things you complain about (throwing to wrong bases etc) are what I'm talking about when I say "playing the game the right way."
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what it would take to change the thinking process in Cubs management. They seem to not believe that Cub fans would be willing to go thru a major rebuilding process. I don't think anyone should stop being a fan but somehow the message needs to be delivered that we're willing to take a year or two of poor teams if it means they will be consistantly good.
Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing, too.

Soriano gave us yet another example of playing baseball the wrong way in the 6th Sunday night against the Cardinals. Fundamentals of baseball 101 ... "make the throw chase you back." For those of you who don't know what that is, when you get a base hit, you run hard and don't stop until the outfielder makes the throw back to the infield. When the ball leaves the outfielder's hand, you stop. When you see it's on line, you go back to the base. It's a basic fundamental of baserunning.

In this case, Soriano hits a bloop down the line. Instead of running hard out of the box, he lollygags to first. If he runs hard and follows the basic fundamental of making Ludwick's throw chase him back, he would have been standing on second instead of first because Ludwick misplayed the ball. But no ... he lazily settled for a single, putting Soto in a double-play situation, which is exactly what happened.

Can I guarantee the Cubs would have scored if Soriano had played the game the right way? Of course not. But one thing I CAN guarantee you ... Soto would NOT have grounded into a double play to end the inning.

Now ... are you people honestly going to tell me that only low-paid or impressionable players can be taught that fundamental? Forget salary. Plays like this are inexcusable, yet Soriano does things like this virtually every night.

You can't win consistently doing stuff like this.

3Fingers
07-26-2010, 11:09 AM
You do realize that Soriano, one of the focal points of this discussion, was brought up and played for the yankees for five years? Did he forget the "yankee way"?

What is more likely? The yankees win because they have instituted the "yankee way"? Or that they outspend everyone else by a significant amount? What about all the other teams that win? Do/did they have the white sox way? or the marlin way? No, you put together the best team you can, and you hope you get lucky.
I would submit to you that he never learned it.

That's why they had no problem getting rid of him.

Yes, I know they got A-Rod for him, but Soriano (then a much younger man with a track record) was not the original carrot for Texas in that deal. Robinson Cano was, along with a shortstop prospect named Joaquin Arias and some pitching prospects. The Yankees didn't want to give up Cano, and that's when they turned the talks toward Soriano.

Pretty shrewd by the Yankees, if you ask me.

Doogolas
07-26-2010, 11:13 AM
Why does anyone in the universe think Soriano is a problem for this team? The guy is loved to death by all his teammates, when he was getting *****ed at by the media at least 5 guys told the media to eat **** and die.

On top of that, he's supposedly as hard a worker as anyone on the team not named Byrd. Soriano plays the game "the right way" everybody plays the game "the right way" it's just when the team isn't winning that's what everybody likes to say is the problem.

A couple years ago it was: "Soriano is a little unorthodox, but he plays the game the right way."

Iffybiz
07-26-2010, 02:24 PM
Soriano is an example of a bigger problem. If Soriano was the only player who had a problem running the bases or playing defense a team could compensate for that. When the whole team isn't very good at it, then you have a problem.
Same thing with his OBP, you could get by with his not taking enough walks or enough pitches, if everyone else did what they could.

That's been the problem. Too many guys do things the wrong way, that's what I mean when I say "bad baseball" it has nothing to with their record. If you have enough talented guys (and Soriano is talented) your record is likely to be okay if not good.

Talent alone isn't enough. The talent has to work and fit together. I'm sure Soriano is a good guy and people like him. That doesn't make him a sound player.

Iffybiz
07-26-2010, 02:32 PM
You do realize that Soriano, one of the focal points of this discussion, was brought up and played for the yankees for five years? Did he forget the "yankee way"?

What is more likely? The yankees win because they have instituted the "yankee way"? Or that they outspend everyone else by a significant amount? What about all the other teams that win? Do/did they have the white sox way? or the marlin way? No, you put together the best team you can, and you hope you get lucky.

Learn some history. The Yankees have been successful for a long time, a lot longer than the current free agent spending has been around.

Ozzie learned from the feet of Bobby Cox and his teams are fundimentally sound. No, it's not about "luck." Are the Twins lucky? They put a tough gritty team that always is close to winning despite having nearly nothing to spend. That would mean that the Royals are unlucky since they have no payroll too.

Are you trying to tell me that the Cubs haven't won because they've been unlucky for over 100 years?

mballa22191
07-26-2010, 02:51 PM
Uh, we won 97 games two years ago with the same facilities and the same game times. So many excuses come out when you just suck.

This... period

3Fingers
07-26-2010, 03:59 PM
Why does anyone in the universe think Soriano is a problem for this team? The guy is loved to death by all his teammates, when he was getting *****ed at by the media at least 5 guys told the media to eat **** and die.

On top of that, he's supposedly as hard a worker as anyone on the team not named Byrd. Soriano plays the game "the right way" everybody plays the game "the right way" it's just when the team isn't winning that's what everybody likes to say is the problem.

A couple years ago it was: "Soriano is a little unorthodox, but he plays the game the right way."
First of all, the fact that his teammates like him doesn't make his mistakes go away. There's obviously no way to know, but I'd bet that ANY of those teammates who stuck up for him in the media was secretly muttering to himself when Soriano was still standing on first while Ryan Ludwick kicked the ball around out in right field. Baseball is a fraternity. They stick up for their own. But I guarantee they didn't appreciate that play. I've been in the locker room reporting on these guys. I'd hear them byotch to themselves, but if I asked, I was promptly told to f-ck off.

For the record, my distaste for Alfonso Soriano's game goes back to his Yankee days, and it's never waned. Do I love his home runs? Yeah, I do. Do I hate his Little-League miscues? Yeah, more than I can say. More than I love the home runs.

In this case, I'm only using Soriano's gaffe in Sunday's game as an example. Like Iffybiz said, he's only one guy. We have a lot of guys playing pretty bad baseball, so it becomes that much more difficult to overcome the Jeckyl-and-Hyde play of Soriano. In 2008, Soriano played just as goofy, but we had more guys playing good ball to cover up his mistakes. Unlike 2008, we're constantly beating ourselves this year. Close games, where the margin between winning and losing is often something like a bad baserunning play or throwing to the wrong base or missing the cutoff man, the problem gets magnified.

Of course, whenever I have called out Soriano for something like this, everybody quotes his OPS. Well, I get that, but OPS is accumulated over a large sample size. It only takes a sample size of one screw-up to blow an entire game. Hitting four home runs the next day won't bring back the previous day's unnecessary loss.

Soriano is the quintessential example of how a winning organization cannot use statistics alone to determine the value of a player or his contribution to a team. Even a guy like me, who is new to advanced stats, can understand that they are vitally important, and growing in importance all the time as they become more and more sophisticated. But baseball can't live in a vacuum. Gotta WATCH how guys play, too. Winning organizations insist on developing and signing guys who are willing to play the game the right way. Winning organizations have a firm grip on stats, scouting and development ... all three.

All that being said, there's absolutely nothing I can do but buck up and accept the fact that Alfonso Soriano will be a Cub for the next four years and roughly 60 games. Nobody's going to take that contract off our hands, so go Fonzie.

Doogolas
07-26-2010, 04:06 PM
You know who else is standing on 1B? A-Rod, Cano would have been, the Yankees have plenty no hustle guys. Soriano is not a problem. I DO watch how guys play. I watch them plenty. A lot of players are standing on first at that, in fact, I'd say more are on 1B than 2B on the particular play.

Soriano is the most hated player by fans for absolutely no reason. Especially this year, he's played very hard and has played great defense. Every player has blunders, even Byrd. Byrd made the biggest blunder of anyone yesterday. That play in the OF that led to a triple for Jon Jay? He overran it, slipped trying to slow up and the ball bounced out of his glove.

Everybody makes mistakes. It's part of baseball.

I mean, if you hate Soriano for your own reasons, that's whatever to me. But that play is not an example of anything except how baseball players act on pop ups. It happens all the time. With all teams.

1908_Cubs
07-26-2010, 04:13 PM
First of all, the fact that his teammates like him doesn't make his mistakes go away. There's obviously no way to know, but I'd bet that ANY of those teammates who stuck up for him in the media was secretly muttering to himself when Soriano was still standing on first while Ryan Ludwick kicked the ball around out in right field. Baseball is a fraternity. They stick up for their own. But I guarantee they didn't appreciate that play. I've been in the locker room reporting on these guys. I'd hear them byotch to themselves, but if I asked, I was promptly told to f-ck off.

For the record, my distaste for Alfonso Soriano's game goes back to his Yankee days, and it's never waned. Do I love his home runs? Yeah, I do. Do I hate his Little-League miscues? Yeah, more than I can say. More than I love the home runs.

In this case, I'm only using Soriano's gaffe in Sunday's game as an example. Like Iffybiz said, he's only one guy. We have a lot of guys playing pretty bad baseball, so it becomes that much more difficult to overcome the Jeckyl-and-Hyde play of Soriano. In 2008, Soriano played just as goofy, but we had more guys playing good ball to cover up his mistakes. Unlike 2008, we're constantly beating ourselves this year. Close games, where the margin between winning and losing is often something like a bad baserunning play or throwing to the wrong base or missing the cutoff man, the problem gets magnified.

Of course, whenever I have called out Soriano for something like this, everybody quotes his OPS. Well, I get that, but OPS is accumulated over a large sample size. It only takes a sample size of one screw-up to blow an entire game. Hitting four home runs the next day won't bring back the previous day's unnecessary loss.

Soriano is the quintessential example of how a winning organization cannot use statistics alone to determine the value of a player or his contribution to a team. Even a guy like me, who is new to advanced stats, can understand that they are vitally important, and growing in importance all the time as they become more and more sophisticated. But baseball can't live in a vacuum. Gotta WATCH how guys play, too. Winning organizations insist on developing and signing guys who are willing to play the game the right way. Winning organizations have a firm grip on stats, scouting and development ... all three.

All that being said, there's absolutely nothing I can do but buck up and accept the fact that Alfonso Soriano will be a Cub for the next four years and roughly 60 games. Nobody's going to take that contract off our hands, so go Fonzie.

The problem is when you use a single instance of his screwing up a little play, I can point to a game winning home run, a 3-homer day, a play where he threw someone out at the plate.....they're all single instances.

The bigger picture is what does Soriano do over a large sample size. You can find an instance of any player striking out or making an error that blew a game. I bet I can find 5 of them by Pujols with my eyes closed. But I could give a **** because he's still the best hitter in the game, period.

Watching players play is important for young players. For older guys the numbers will tell you what you're seeing and quantify that. By dismissing stats and saying 'well i just dont like HOW he plays the game' is silly. The way he plays the game is subject to your own personal biases and your memory, which isn't perfect. Stats do not lie. And Soriano has a large enough sample size to prove his worth on the field is actually pretty damn good.

3Fingers
07-26-2010, 04:23 PM
You know who else is standing on 1B? A-Rod, Cano would have been, the Yankees have plenty no hustle guys. Soriano is not a problem. I DO watch how guys play. I watch them plenty. A lot of players are standing on first at that, in fact, I'd say more are on 1B than 2B on the particular play.

Soriano is the most hated player by fans for absolutely no reason. Especially this year, he's played very hard and has played great defense. Every player has blunders, even Byrd. Byrd made the biggest blunder of anyone yesterday. That play in the OF that led to a triple for Jon Jay? He overran it, slipped trying to slow up and the ball bounced out of his glove.

Everybody makes mistakes. It's part of baseball.
I'm sorry, man. I respect your posts a lot, and I believe you DO watch how guys play. But I think you're wrong about Soriano's baserunning.

That was not a hard baserunning play. The play's right in front of you. If you follow the fundamental and run hard until the guy throws, you make it to second standing up. I'm not talking Alfonso Soriano. I'm talking YOU. Hell, I'm 50 years old ... I could've made it to second on that play (although admittedly I would have destroyed a hamstring or gotten a hernia or something!).

Yes, Byrd made a mistake on Jay's triple. But it was a physical mistake. Those happen, and most managers understand that. You will NEVER hear me squawk about Soriano striking out or simply making an error (well, unless he drops a fly ball right to him ... then my head bounces off the ceiling).

I'm talking about stuff like throwing to the wrong base (see Soriano against Houston) because you think you can throw out a lead runner who's 3 strides from the next base. Or missing the cutoff man. Or making the third out at third base (see Soriano against St. Louis on Saturday).

I'll give you an example in Soriano's favor ... the wild pitch in the 9th Sunday night against St. Louis. Some players wouldn't have even tried to make it to second ... the ball didn't bounce away that far. But Soriano made it without a throw. He didn't make it because of his speed. He made it because he got a great secondary lead. Good fundamentals = good baseball = good result.

JayBandit
07-26-2010, 07:57 PM
I'm talking about stuff like throwing to the wrong base (see Soriano against Houston) because you think you can throw out a lead runner who's 3 strides from the next base. Or missing the cutoff man. Or making the third out at third base (see Soriano against St. Louis on Saturday).


It's funny that you blame Soriano for throwing to the wrong base. His back was to the infield, he turned and threw it based on the yelling of Castro. In fact, Bob Brenly went on about it for the next 5 minutes how that shows how Castro is still a bit green and wasn't telling him the right base (Theriot and Ramirez could be seen pointing to the correct base).

And as far as Soriano stealing a base last night, the announcers were complaining the first few pitches that Soriano didn't have a good secondary lead and that he was just not even trying to run the bases. Valentine went on and on about it!

Mell413
07-27-2010, 01:21 AM
Learn some history. The Yankees have been successful for a long time, a lot longer than the current free agent spending has been around.

Ozzie learned from the feet of Bobby Cox and his teams are fundimentally sound. No, it's not about "luck." Are the Twins lucky? They put a tough gritty team that always is close to winning despite having nearly nothing to spend. That would mean that the Royals are unlucky since they have no payroll too.

Are you trying to tell me that the Cubs haven't won because they've been unlucky for over 100 years?

The Twins were making bad baserunning decisions vs the Yankees in the playoffs last year so teams like them make mistakes. Hell even the Angels made mistakes in the playoffs last year. Soriano makes his share of mistakes as does every player in the majors.

I wouldn't say the Sox are fundamentally sound since they rank toward the bottom in defense. I would say much of the teams success has to do with their starting staff. Hitting 200 HRs in 2005 helped too and I don't know how that made them fundamentally sound.

This Cubs team is better off with Soriano despite the occasional mistakes.