Swing at Strikes, Take Balls, and Other Bullets

How about a random check-in on where the Cubs stand in the reverse standings (that is, how close they are to the bottom)? After six straight losses, the Cubs stand at 43-64, better than only the Astros (36-74 (they won’t be caught, which is exactly what they wanted)), and the Rockies (39-68). Take that as you will.

  • So, Brett Jackson had a rough night against the Padres – in four at bats, he struck out four times. It was a microcosm (emphasis on “micro”) of the fears folks have about Jackson’s game. Manager Dale Sveum said the issue was swinging at, and taking, the wrong pitches. “Basically it came down to swinging at strikes,” Sveum said. “I don’t care who you are, if you don’t swing at strikes you’ll have a tough time. When he got two strikes on him, he couldn’t lay off pitches that were quite a bit out of the zone …. He’s going to be in [the lineup]. That was part of the deal, that he’s going to be here to develop and what we see and make adjustments and go from there. Bottom line doesn’t matter unless you’re swinging at strikes.”
  • For his part, Jackson knows the issue, and wants to work. “It’s something I’m working on cutting down and like I said [Sunday], I’ll keep working with [hitting coach James Rowson] and Dale and keep improving my swing,” Jackson said. “There’s no doubt in my mind we’ll get the ability out of me …. Obviously, the guys tonight had good stuff and made some good pitches, and I chased some pitches that I shouldn’t have chased. I think when it comes to striking out, a lot of that has to do with me chasing pitches that I don’t need to swing at, and missing pitches I do swing at. That’s something I’ll figure out. It’s baseball, and I’m going to keep improving as a player until I can’t improve any more.”
  • Sveum said that a play at third base by Josh Vitters on a tough grounder by Cameron Maybin was the defensive play of the game. (It was also SportsCenter’s top play, for whatever that’s worth.) If Vitters keeps that part of his game up, he’ll get more starts.
  • Speaking of those young players and Sveum, the Cubs’ manager admits that, at this point, his mindset in how he handles game decisions has changed. “Truthfully, a lot of this is development and watching,” Sveum said, according to the Tribune. “To tell you the truth, even as a manager, you probably do some things you wouldn’t do in certain situations, just to see how a guy would handle [it] in the future.” Like it or not, that’s the right attitude to have at this point. We always joke about “next year,” but right now, that’s a reality. When it comes to playing decisions, Sveum needs to be thinking about 2013 and 2014, not 2012.
  • Bryan LaHair will continue to be the odd man out of the Cubs’ lineup, with Anthony Rizzo having taken his spot at first base, and Brett Jackson having taken his spot in the outfield (by way of David DeJesus sliding back to right). I have no doubt that the Cubs would like to trade Alfonso Soriano, but, until/unless they do, LaHair is bench material. And that indicates that the Cubs don’t exactly have big plans for him in 2013. I don’t think they much like him in the outfield, anyway. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the Cubs unload LaHair on an AL team in the offseason for a mediocre pitcher.
  • The Under Armour All-America Game (a showcase of the best high school talent in the country) will be played at Wrigley Field on August 18. You can get tickets here, if that’s your thing.
  • Ryan Dempster, himself, now confirms that he never listened in on any calls between the Cubs and Dodgers at the Trade Deadline. Given that he’s got very little reason to take a bullet for the Cubs at this point, I think we can put this story to bed.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

138 responses to “Swing at Strikes, Take Balls, and Other Bullets”

  1. Leroy

    PLEASE put the Dempster story to bed!

    1. stillmisskennyhubbs

      Amen to that. Please, let’s move on and stop the second-guessing, what-iffing, and finger-pointing.
      (There, I’m out of hyphenated dislikes.)

  2. hansman1982

    It is so nice to see a manager manage the game for next year when the team is clearly out of it. No sense in over-worrying about winning today’s game and not developing the players that we have.

    If you manage the game for your job, you wont have a job. That is why guys like Quade and Valentine will not have managerial jobs in 2013.

    1. DocPeterWimsey

      “If you manage the game for your job, you wont have a job. That is why guys like Quade and Valentine will not have managerial jobs in 2013.”

      Baseball has many examples of managerial decisions (both retention and firing, as well as “pocket” firings such as Francona’s last year) being based on the last month or two of the season. Baseball has very few examples of losing managers being retained because FOs recognized that the manager was experimenting for the future rather than trying to win now. What is unique about this situation is that Sveum seems confident that he can lose and come back next year. That lets him experiment with young players in a way that a manager fighting to keep his job cannot.

      1. Leroy

        I don’t see any reason NOT to bring back Sveum next year.

  3. North Side Irish

    I think the “Reverse Standings Check” needs to be a regular feature. It’s really one of the most important aspects left for this season and as weird as it may sound, we should be OK with the Cubs losing as many games as possible from here on out. No sense in winning a few extra games to finish with the 6th worst record…Cubs should be shooting to draft #2 or 3.

    1. TonyP

      I will never root for the Cubs to lose, I don’t give a rip about the draft position. It will play out how it plays out.

      1. JP cubed

        TonyP I have never watched a single Cub game and wished for them to lose but if someone asked me if I’d rather have the best prospect in next years draft or the 10th best prospect in the draft I think we’d all take the 1st… Neither team picking in the top 10 was even close to sniffing the playoffs so we might as well find the bright spots where we can.

        1. TonyP

          2005 Draft- Which pick would you like to have from this year?

          1 Justin Upton Arizona Diamondbacks SS Great Bridge High School
          2 Alex Gordon Kansas City Royals 3B University of Nebraska
          3 Jeff Clement Seattle Mariners C University of Southern California
          4 Ryan Zimmerman Washington Nationals 3B University of Virginia
          5 Ryan Braun Milwaukee Brewers 3B University of Miami
          6 Ricky Romero Toronto Blue Jays LHP Cal State Fullerton
          7 Troy Tulowitzki Colorado Rockies SS Long Beach State University
          8 Wade Townsend Tampa Bay Devil Rays RHP Rice University
          9 Mike Pelfrey New York Mets RHP Wichita State University
          10 Cameron Maybin Detroit Tigers CF T. C. Roberson High School
          11 Andrew McCutchen Pittsburgh Pirates CF Fort Meade High School (FL)
          12 Jay Bruce Cincinnati Reds CF West Brook Senior High School
          13 Brandon Snyder Baltimore Orioles C Westfield High School
          14 Trevor Crowe Cleveland Indians CF University of Arizona
          15 Lance Broadway Chicago White Sox RHP Texas Christian University

          1. dabynsky

            Really can’t look at the drafts from previous years and just go by draft order. Tons of teams passed on the most talented players over signability issues, not saying that was the case in your example because I don’t honestly know or remember. Your point though about not knowing who the best player in a draft in any given year is well taken, but this year and every year going forward there is a tangible benefit to being bad. Having the most money to spend allows you the flexibility to do creative things like the Astros did in the draft, and it gives you the most to spend on international amateurs which is really important.

            1. North Side Irish

              The part about the size of the draft and international pools is as important as the draft position itself. I loved how the Astros took advantage of their draft pool savings to sign multiple players above slot in later rounds. I’m actually pretty glad to see them leaving the division because I feel like Luhnow “gets it”.

              And this year the international FA pools were all equal, but having a bigger pool next year enables the Cubs to outbid just about anyone for a player they really want, or allows them to sign multiple players.

          2. JP cubed

            Valid point and great example but the higher we pick the more options of players we can pick from. Going off your example however I don’t want the 3rd pick in that draft:). Jeff Clement is about the only 1 of that group I’ve never heard of… On a different note that was a hell of a first round.

          3. stillmisskennyhubbs

            See above comment re: second-guessing and what-iffing. Pointless exercise.

    2. KidCubbie

      And considering that the next draft is suppose to be less talent laden than this years, i would want the highest draft slot possible.

      1. Cooper

        I thought the general opinion was that the 2013 draft (next year’s draft) was a stronger talent pool than 2012 (this past draft).

        1. dabynsky

          Everything I’ve read suggested that it is a weak pool like this year. It might be slightly better than this year, but it is most likely going to be no where deep as 2011 was.

          1. Drew7

            I have read both opinions on the strength of next year’s draft. The only thing that tells me is that we really have no way of knowing either way: it is nearly impossible predict how many preps will improve and how much they will improve in 10 months.

        2. TonyP

          I’m under the impression that the 2013 draft is less talented. However I could be wrong about that.

          1. North Side Irish

            At one point people expected the 2013 draft to be stronger than 2012. But due to injuries and attrition, it currently looks pretty weak and nowhere near as good as 2011. Long way to go and things will certainly change a ton between now and then.

  4. 5412


    If Jackson is going to lead off, and K’s so frequently, it leads to a question. Can he bunt? At least if he can pull the infield in, it might improve his chances of getting a hit when he does make contact?

    1. dabynsky

      Because bunting takes away some of his main assets as a ballplayer (the ability to take pitches and hit for power). I am not certain that leadoff is going to be his eventual role, but unless teams are playing a dramatic pull shift then I don’t see the advantages in BJax bunting a lot (except artificially lowering his K rate).

    2. Internet Random

      If Jackson is going to lead off, and K’s so frequently, it leads to a question. Can he bunt?

      I’d just like to thank you for not misusing the phrase “begs the question” here.

      Carry on.

  5. TheJDawg

    Over/Under.. Brett Jackson has 50 strikeouts in his first 100 MLB at bats…I’ll take the over…

    1. dabynsky

      Hmm, going by at bats will make it closer, but I will take the under.

    2. Featherstone

      Also taking the under. Im saying 40 Ks in 100 ABs

  6. BD

    I don’t think LaHair is that bad in the OF- but he has to hit/get on base. If his OBP is high enough, they won’t have a problem playing him.

  7. Joel

    I wonder if this hole in Jackson’s game can be fixed. It seems to have plagued him for a long time, and didn’t really improve in the minors. Are there examples of other players who struck out a lot and then notably improved their contact rate?

  8. ottoCub

    My guess is that Bryan Lahair will take an offer from Japan this winter. At this point in his career, it would be a good career move. He can stick it out in the U.S. for a few years, making just over league minimum salary to be a part-time player. Or he can go to Japan, play for a handful of years, have fun, and make much more money.

    1. Quintz

      I would love to see the look on the FO’s collective face if Bryan LaHair walked in and announced that he had “taken an offer” in Japan.

  9. rcleven

    On the bright side Wood pitched a decent game last night. Not great but decent. Went 6 and gave up only 2 runs. Has got to stop giving up the lead off walks. Has to spot his fast ball better(everything was waist high and up). Had great location on his curve and change.
    Focus is on Jacksons 4 K’s but there are 8 other hitters who did nothing last night. 5 hits last night and 1 came from Wood. All Cub hitters just offered at anything thrown up there.

    1. Featherstone

      At this point with our rotation I will take a quality start any day of the week.

  10. Patrick G

    I think Brett Jackson is going to be a Bj Upton type player in the future. Low average with some pop and speed and strikes out a lot. I was hoping the Cubs get BJ in the offseason to give him a change of scenery, but him and Jackson in the same lineup could be rough

  11. John Moore

    Brett, Any news on Stewarts rehab, will he return this year, and what about next year for him and the Cubbies? Thanks

    1. dabynsky

      Not Brett, but Ian Stewart has been pretty consistent on saying that he doesn’t expect to play til 2013 and not be with the Cubs. He has yet to elaborate on why he doesn’t expect to be back on twitter, but he has been super consistent about that.

      1. North Side Irish

        He has also repeatedly said he would like to come back (what else is he going to say?) and would sign right now if the team offered him $1.5M for next season. I loved his defense and would like to see what he could do offensively while healthy, but no reason to impede Vitters at this point.

        1. dabynsky

          I would like to see what a healthy Ian Stewart is capable of doing, but I just don’t hold out much hope of that happening with the comments I’ve seen.

    2. TonyP

      I chatted with Ian on Twitter, a few days ago. and he said that we wouldn’t start baseball activities under mid September at the earliest. So I think this year is out. He also said the Cubs are an option for 2013, just have to see how it plays out.

      1. dabynsky

        That is good to hear. I am usually not on twitter that late at night for Ian Stewart time, but the few times I’ve seen him talk about the Cubs next year I’ve just seen no as the response. Like I said, I would love to see what a healthy Ian Stewart is capable given his patience and power.

        1. hansman1982

          from what I have seen he typically says that he won’t be back but he would love to be back.

          1. Ben

            Yeah, he is pretty candid on twitter and he makes it sound like he would come back but the FO probably won’t tender him…….and he said he is out for the year multiple times

        2. TWC

          His power? Are we talking about the ca. 2009 Ian Stewart (who still wasn’t very good even though his numbers were inflated in Colorado) or the more recent .289 SLG Ian Stewart from 2011-2012?

          1. Flashfire

            He’s been injured for 2+ years, from what I understand, so the 2011-2012 Stewart would be the result of injury. He really does seem like a Theo player to me. If he’s healthy and willing to take peanuts (may not have any offers), I could see a minor league deal with an invite to spring training.

          2. Internet Random

            I think he’s referring to Stewart’s amazing powers of observation, and perhaps to his obligatory Hendrix perm.

          3. Quintz

            In his defense his road numbers were pretty much the same as home ones that year. I have no real opinion on Ian Stewart, just thought he’d probably want that out there if he was here.

  12. Mush

    I am not sure how good Lendy Castillo will be. Does anyone know how long he has to be on MLB active roster for the Cubs to keep him?

    1. dabynsky

      90 days. Expect to see him up within a week.

  13. Patrick G

    Excited to see Raley pitch tonight! Wish I got Cubs games in NY. MLBN definitely won’t be putting Cubs-Padres on either.

  14. Mush

    It could be a nice bench with LaHair, Stewart, Sappelt, Cardenas.

    1. Quintz

      A bunch of GM’s for good teams just vomited all over the place.

  15. North Side Irish

    Kind of off topic, but Baseball America released their list of Best Tools in each league, which is basically the top 3 in a variety of different offensive and defensive categories. Cubs got two mentions: Barney was the second best defensive 2B behind Phillips and Campana was the third fastest baserunner (behind Bourn and Dee Gordon).

    Not sure who else on the Cubs could have been mentioned, but with 25 categories, two is a depressingly low number. Especially when one of the two is no longer on the big league team.

    1. Patrick W.

      With 75 spots an average team should have 2.5 representatives, and this is realistically a 20% below average team, so … seams about right.

      1. North Side Irish

        It’s 25 categories and 3 spots for each league. So it’s actually 75 spots for 16 teams which is about 5 reps per team. But the Cubs probably still shouldn’t have more than 2 reps…like I said, not sure who else should have been included.

  16. Trigger

    Shouldn’t they be batting B. Jackson in the 8 hole at this point? Seems like the best place for him, certainly better than lead-off.

    I’d also rather not see Mather in any starting line-up, lefties on the mound or not. Mather is not the future. Either leave in DeJesus or let LaHair flail around against the lefties the rest of the year, or release Mather and let Sappelt get some play. Mather starting is contrary to what Sveum is saying, it seems. Sveum has pretty much lost me. I’d also be starting LaHair over DeJesus. The only good thing about DeJesus is his OBP, which I think LaHair can match with added power DeJesus doesn’t have. I just don’t get what Sveum is trying to do.

    1. Featherstone

      I agree with you that mather needs to be cut because he really isn’t doing much of anything anymore. DeJesus offers better OBP than LaHair and significantly better defense in the outfield. Lahair really isn’t a natural outfielder

      1. Trigger

        Thank you, I don’t feel that crazy for wondering why Sveum has Mather starting. OBP LaHair .346 – DeJesus .353. Close enough for me. You’re right, DeJesus has the obvious defensive advantage, while LaHair has the power advantage. Does the power advantage outweigh the defense liability? I don’t know about that.

        I don’t like seeing LaHair riding the bench, I guess. DeJesus is a fine player, no knock on him, just looking at the future. If Brett Jackson Ks 20+ times in the next ten games, perhaps him going back to AAA would be best and then I can see more of LaHair.

        1. hansman1982

          Since May 1 this is LaHair’s line:

          233 .310 .386

          Thats a .696 OPS, a testament to how ridiculous of an April he had and an explanation of why he should not be starting for a week or two.

          1. SplitFinger

            We all knew LaHair wasn’t the real deal. He will not be with the Cubs next year.

            1. DocPeterWimsey

              As recently as the All Star break, there were plenty of people who thought that any dropoff by LaHair was simply due to him getting rusty from not batting every day. Even now, LaHair’s numbers basically suggest good old fashion variation around a mean. He’s a guy who will hit 20+ HR and draw 80 walks for you if you play him a full season. He never was better and he’s still not worse.

              1. SplitFinger

                Doc, so he is platoon material at best?

                1. DocPeterWimsey

                  Yes. But he’s very good platoon material: most pitchers are RHP and he’ll be an OPS improvement for most teams in either LF or 1B, and even at DH. An AL team could really benefit from using LaHair as the regular DH against RHP with occasional starts at 1B or LF to give the regular a DH day off, with a regular RHB being DH against LHP with a 4th OF or 5th IF getting a spot start to keep them loose.

                  (Or at least that is what I would do!)

              2. J R

                I was won who was absolutely jocking LaHair early. But that dude looks terrible at this point. I have never seen someone fall off a cliff that fast. Maybe that type of stuff/fall is normal, and I am blind but he looks like a completely different guy in my book.

                1. J R


                2. SplitFinger

                  Pro pitchers figured him out bro!

    2. D.G.Lang

      I believe that the Cubs are:

      1, Checking out Jackson and Vitters to be sure that they are going to be good in the future,
      2, Working hard for the highest draft position possible.
      3, desperately trying to trade Soriano to poen up another outfield position to allow Lahair more playing time and improve high draft position.
      4, seriously considering trading Barney for good pitching prospects if the farm has a suitable replacement.

  17. Bric

    Brett- quick question. Sori is still owed around 40 million. Since it’s August he has to be placed on waivers before he is traded. So how can he be traded to a team without the other teams knowing how much the Cubs are willing to eat of his contract? I understand some of it’s a gentlemen’s agreement not to mess with other teams’ potential trades but can you please explain it again? I’ve never really understood it.

    1. dabynsky

      Again not Brett, but Soriano will clear waivers because of the amount he is owed. Once he does that he can be traded to any team, and the Cubs will have to eat a ton of money to make it happen.

    2. Quintz

      Your question just confused me all to hell and made me feel dumb. So I’m anxious to hear someone answer it.

      1. Bric

        Sorry, bro, I tend to confuse many people including myself.

        1. Quintz

          I’m easily confused, don’t blame yourself.

    3. JB88

      Waivers is effectively a two-step process.

      Step 1: Team A places Player X on waivers. Any other team (preference going to losingest teams in the same division to winningest team in the same division, then losingest team in the other division to winningest team in the other division) can claim Player X and in the process agrees to pay the remainder of the contract.

      Step 1A: Assuming Player X is claimed on waivers, Team A can either allow the waiver claim to go through or pull Player X off waivers. If Player X is pulled off waivers, he cannot be placed on waivers again the same year.

      Step 2: If no team claims Player X, Team A is free to negotiate with any team to trade the player, subject to the same restrictions as before July 31st (though I’m not sure how 10-5 rights work in that case). To that end, it is basically a no-brainer that Soriano will clear waivers. The Cubs can then negotiate a trade with another team, offering to eat as much or as little of Soriano’s contract as it sees fit. Again, money paid to another team over a certain amount (I seem to recall $3MM, but I am pulling that out of my rear) needs to be approved by the commissioners office.

      CAVEAT: While the waiver period technically lasts until the end of the season, the effective cut-off date is 8/31, since to be eligible to be placed on a team’s playoff roster, a player must be on the roster by 9/1.

      1. hansman1982

        Actually a player can be placed on waivers again, just after being pulled once they are placed on Irrevocible waivers – if someone claims Player X that team gets the player.

      2. Bric

        Thanks for the clarification. I thought that once a player cleared waivers the same rules apply for him to be traded. In other words he first has to be offered to be traded to the Astros, then up the line until a deal can be made for him.

  18. scorecardpaul

    and the player still has his earned rights to block said trade

  19. scorecardpaul

    in Sorianos case…
    1) he will be placed on waivers
    2) no team will claim him ( no team would be that stupid)
    3) Cubs will be free to work out any deal they can with a team Soriano would aprove a trade to

    1. die hard

      see above…hes worth more to Cubs than to other teams…

  20. Dustin S

    The Cubs would never admit that they’re aiming for #1, but Vitters and Jackson coming up already and Raley starting tomorrow are a pretty big sign that for the rest of 2012 wins aren’t the top priority. They had the problem up until July 31 where maximizing trade value for some of the guys outweighed the draft race. Now though if they lose every game from here on out they wouldn’t complain too much at least privately.

    As for Jackson, I wish I could be more optimistic but it’s hard to think he’ll suddenly figure out the strikeout problems with the same hitting coach in Chicago that he had at Iowa in Rowson (before Rowson was promoted). Unless that gets fixed he probably doesn’t fit in Theo’s high OBP style that he wants and it wouldn’t surprise me to see him dealt. The downside is that without LaHair and Jackson, it’s a pretty big gap for OF prospects until Soler and Almora. Our other OF prospects are a ways off and/or haven’t really been tearing it up this year. Szczur maybe, but he’s he has been cold too since moving up to Daytona. Overall in the farm system IF seems pretty stacked, but OF I’m a little more worried about especially if Jackson doesn’t pan out. Granted though it’s possible they could move some guys like Lake to the OF.

    1. baseballet

      I agree Dustin. Unless Jackson significantly improves his whiffaneering, I think can’t see him being a starter in the major leagues for very long, even on the Cubs. A hitting coach can sometimes help, but I’m never optimistic about major improvements due to coaching.

      I’d be really happy if either Jackson or Vitters was a quality starting player for the Cubs in two years. Right now I’m pessimistic about both of them. Maybe Vitters, Jackson and LaHair can all be study buddies and learn Japanese together.

  21. cubsin

    I always root for the Cubs to win. When they don’t, the consolation prize is they’re better positioned for the 2013 Rule 4 and International Drafts.

  22. Adam1680

    Is it me, or is Brett Jackson talking about striking out quite comical?

    I missed the pitches I swung at and should’ve swung at, and missed the pitches I shouldn’t have swung at.

    What a monumental concept.. If you miss the ball, you’re going to strike out..

  23. Stu

    I have a question. When is it OK for the Cubs to try to win? When will we be “loaded” enough?

    1. TonyP

      Today and every game day going forward. :-)

  24. die hard

    Losing on purpose has become an Olympic sport now…So shouldnt be surprised if Cubs do it too…is that whats been going on all season?…Lets hope not…but one wonders why Sveum, not Sandberg (proven winner) hired?

    1. TWC


      1. SplitFinger

        Are you for real? The BN police? You need to get banned!

        1. MichiganGoat

          Guess who’s back… (LOL)

          1. SplitFinger

            die hard?

            1. MichiganGoat

              Or BetterJoeFinchSplit… I lose track of the names you use.

              1. BetterJoeFinchSplit

                If thats what you want to call me , O.K..

                1. Bric

                  OK- just so we’re all on the same page- Die Hard has always been Die Hard, Better news is now Splitfinger, and Betternews 2.0 is neither of the above? Am I right?

                  1. MichiganGoat

                    Yes sir

                    1. Bric

                      Thanks Brett and Goat for clearing it up. Not that matters that much (My name’s Brian but Brett occasionally responds to me by calling me Berry) It’s all good in the BN.

                    2. BetterNews

                      Apology your way also. I am “hot headed” sometimes. If I think I am being insulted, I “bark” back. Sorry if I offended you. I sincerely mean that.

    2. DocPWimsey

      Read Moneyball…..

      1. die hard

        read it too…movie better tho…with Sandberg this team is .500…..and with some luck maybe contending for new playoff slot..he would have helped Barney and Castro become the stars they could be because he was in same boat at their age…he wouldnt accept anything less than a winner

        1. Turn Two

          movie grossly exaggerates everything- book is a great read- movie was, in my opinion, very poorly done

        2. DocPeterWimsey

          Ordinarily fantasy stories of this scale include hobbits and dragons.

        3. Stinky Pete

          Also with Sandberg at manager, Harry Truman reanimates and wins the democratic nomination. Huh, I can do that too…

      2. Scotti

        FWIW, Theo doesn’t agree with moneyball/Beane on the lack of importance of manager (see time/effort in recruiting best manager vs. Beane’s process). I would assume that that is especially so in a situation where the field manager does so much training (and coordinates even more). One of the best things about Theo is how UN- moneyball he has been (closers, manages, “clutch” (i.e. big players stepping up), drafting h.s. players, trading for good field/no hit SS, etc.). And, no, these things didn’t become the “new moneyball.” The moneyball view on them was wrong-headed to begin with.

  25. SplitFinger

    Love the Sveum picture! Is he scratching his head? Is he asking players to think? Is he questioning his own decisions? What is the take on this by fans!

    1. Stinky Pete

      Maybe he has a dry scalp.