Quantcast

haters gonna hate pandaThis week’s BN fantasy contest runs on Friday, and you should sign up. It’s free, it’s easy, it’s fun, and we’re playing for a $300 prize pool. The full details are here.

  • Dale Sveum doesn’t care what you think about his performance as manager of the Cubs. “That’s people’s prerogative,” Sveum told the media, including CSN. “I don’t really care what people think about me. That’s part of this job. You’re always going to be second-guessed and all that. There’s nothing you can do about that. Players are put into positions to perform. And if they don’t, obviously, the decision-making is always going to be second-guessed.” This is, of course, the right attitude to have. Even if we were blasting Sveum for a particular, correctable decision, I’d hope like hell he wasn’t listening to me or you. Instead, I’d hope he’d already know the issue – or would have a staff in place that helps him divine and correct the issue. No good can come from Sveum paying attention to the morass of commentary floating around the ‘net.
  • If Sveum did use the Twitterz to respond to his critics, however, I’d like to think he’d use that picture liberally. (Relatedly, there are so many good “Haters gonna hate” images out there that it was brutally difficult choosing the best one to use here.)
  • Speaking of which, GM Jed Hoyer is still defending his manager. “He’s kept the guys really upbeat. He continues to relate really well to the players,” Hoyer told Patrick Mooney of Sveum. “I’ll say the same thing I said at the end of last year: The talent on the team – we’re not up to par right now with the Cardinals and the Reds. Those are really strong, mature organizations and that’s what we’re trying to get to. In the meantime, he’s doing his best with the product that we have and that’s on Theo and on me – the talent.”
  • Hoyer also defended Sveum’s use of Carlos Marmol in that fateful 9th inning, based mostly on what Sveum had available at the time. If Blake Parker, who was warming up at the time, had come in and blown the game, Hoyer said folks would have questioned Sveum for using an inexperienced young pitcher in a save situation.
  • Sveum confirmed, by the way, that, if a save situation comes up and Kevin Gregg is unavailable, Carlos Marmol will no longer be used. He’s going to stick to lower-leverage, earlier innings.
  • In his Cubs debut last night, Henry Rodriguez showed what he can do – which is to say he threw near triple digits … and hit the umpire and Carlos Beltran on successive pitches.
  • David DeJesus had his MRI yesterday, but unfortunately it didn’t reveal much. It confirmed he’s got a shoulder sprain, but there still isn’t a time line for his return. And there’s still swelling.
  • Javier Baez was the Florida State Player of the Week for the second time after his four-homer game buoyed his week. His teammate, Jorge Soler, has missed a little time with a slight calf strain. He might end up on the DL, but it’s not anything serious.
  • Although it wasn’t precisely his point in either case, Jim Callis says he likes former high-end draft picks Anthony Rendon and Carlos Correa better than Kris Bryant, the Cubs’ top pick this year. Not that it’s a knock on Bryant, mind you.
  • Stinky Pete

    Frankly, “Mild calf strain” scares the &^$*@ out of me….

    • Cubbie Blues

      ^ This. I’m certain in the next few days we will be hearing about the possible of amputation.

  • MikeW

    “If Blake Parker, who was warming up at the time, had come in and blown the game, Hoyer said folks would have ripped Sveum for using an inexperienced young pitcher in a save situation.”

    I have to imagine smart fans wouldn’t. Smart fans would have said, “Anyone but Marmol in this situation”.

    • http://none millhah

      ^this x 10

    • RoughRiider

      You are correct sir.

    • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

      Well there aren’t too many smart fans out there, so Hoyer is right. We would’ve been hearing it.

      • SirCub

        Liked!

    • Voice of Reason

      Or, maybe smart fans would have said, “You know, we’re not going anywhere this year. Maybe if Marmol got right and started getting people out we could move him in a trade. Maybe we won’t get much, but at least we could move him. That won’t happen unless he pitches. This year wins and losses don’t matter, it’s about building a minor league system and developing the kids. Getting Marmol corrected and traded would help add to the rebuild”.

      • 5412

        Hi,

        I’m with you on this one. Pitching Marmol had a lot to do with the big picture. Does it really make a difference if we lose 95 or 105 games the year? We get a higher pick if we do the latter.

        If Marmol pitched well it might turn into a prospect instead of just releasing him.

        Regards,
        5412

        • RoughRiider

          If pigs could fly backward and upside down.

          Yes it does make a difference if the Cubs win 95 or 105. When starters are throwing quality starts only to lose later in the game because of a poor bullpen or no hitting, then eventually the players we would like to see stay get fed up and leave through free agency or ask to be traded or in some cases just become malcontents. Baseball is a team sport but players still care about their own stats and nobody likes to lose. Thinking it’s okay to lose because you will get a higher draft pick will only result in a constantly bad team.

          • Voice of Reason

            So, if players get fed up and want to be traded, why didn’t Soriano accept a trade?

            You are incorrect. It doesn’t matter what this team does this year. Players aren’t looking at the Cubs and saying they will never play there because they want to lose. Players see what is going on and that they are rebuilding.

            Even if they weren’t rebuilding, they could go to a free agent this off season and offer that player more money than any other team and that player would take the Cub offer. Why? In most cases it’s all about the benjamins, baby!

            So, to say that the players would get fed up or leave or ask to be traded is unbelievably false. And to say that it matters whether the Cubs lose 95 or 105 games is even more unbelievably false!

            • RoughRiider

              Unreasonable voice. Players care if a team loses or not and they do get fed up. If the team has players that don’t care you don’t want them on your team anyway. Yes, they will “take the benjamins”. When was that last time a Cub team owned by Ricketts paid a premium player to come play for the Cubs? In case you didn’t hear Soriano got pissed the other day. I’m guessing he’s going to be traded in the next couple of months and somewhere along the line you will hear him saying he loved Chicago put was tired of losing and glad to be on a contending team.

              • Voice of Reason

                Players understand what position the Cubs are in right now. They are looking at the Cubs and saying… total rebuild. They understand what that means… a lot of losing. I sure hope that veterans don’t want to be a part of it!

                Since Ricketts bought the team, it hasn’t been in a position to buy a high price free agent. He went into rebuilding mode immediately which was the right move. So, that point is moot.

                Sure Soriano will say he loved Chicago and got tired of losing. But, that’s not a Ricketts thing. Check the wins and loses for the Cubs over the past one hundred years. There is a constant track record of not winning. So, Soriano isn’t alone in being tired of losing at Wrigley Field. That is where Ricketts comes in and is doing the right thing. Changing the culture and the way of building a team. Through developing young talent.

                Again, you’re wrong to say wins and loses matter this year for the Cubs. They simply don’t.

                • RoughRiider

                  Wins and loses always matter. If you think that it doesn’t and that the players don’t get tired of it, suffer for it and get frustrated and angry about losing, you’ve probably never played the game in any meaningful way. Players don’t look at 5 year rebuilding plans and say. I want to be a part of that.

      • MikeW

        Yes it matters, because then you’re getting Parker experience in high-leverage situations, which could be valuable down the road. Its not that difficult to understand.

        • Voice of Reason

          High leverage situations? He could be the closer for a team that will lose 100 games. What type of high leverage is that? There’s no pressure in that situation.

          Getting Marmol pitching right and trading him for whatever is another step in the rebuilding process.

          Then, we’ll be closer to getting Parker into being the closer on a team where there is real pressure. That’s the goal here.

          It’s not that difficult to understand.

          • willis

            That’s a fucking ridiculous attitude. Wins and losses mean zilch and there is no pressure in closing a major league game? Jesus Christ how does that even get rationalized in one’s brain? Every game matters and every win is good for this team. And you know what, maybe giving Parker a shot to close it out gives him a huge confidence boost and puts him as a solid option out of the pen? God forbid that happens.

            • Voice of Reason

              It might be ridiculous, but it’s true. Wins and losses this year don’t mean a thing. It’s about developing the kids and trading for more prospects.

              He can only be a solid option out of the pen if he gets a shot at closing? If that’s the case then maybe we better trade him, too.

              • mudge

                Wins and losses might cost you 10,000 tickets a game. But that’s not the point. Every game is meaningful.

              • willis

                Yeha because the kids are really developing under Sveum. Oops, wait, no, they are getting worse. So that argument doesn’t work.

                And if you want kids to develop, then why the hell not give them opportunities instead of throwing wins in the trash by using a terrible pitcher?

              • MikeW

                “It’s about developing the kids”

                You mean, by having them pitch in high leverage situations instead of a guy who’s proven he can’t?

                OK, got it.

          • MikeW

            You’re so wrong buddy.

      • cubmig

        ?????? This year’s wins and losses don’t matter. ?????

        There goes another year of my life as a fan.

        • cub2014

          Wins and losses don’t matter this year and it
          does suck. I believe in the plan that Theo has
          but this team had better look considerably better
          going into spring training next year!!!!!!

          • dshea

            You mean 2015.

            • cub2014

              dshea I would expect: 1. sign Garza 2. trade for
              a top starter, 3. sign someone like Ellsbury and a
              4. power hitting outfielder. 5. Then rent a 3B and
              6. resign Gregg you have a potential 90 win team.
              So yes 2014

          • willis

            They won’t. They will be worse. Big selloff, too early for the “prospects” to be ready, how do you expect better?

            • cub2014

              What you talkin’ bout Willis,
              After they unload: Feldman,Soriano,Dejesus,Barney,
              Villanueva plus other low value pieces(Marmol,Camp,
              Ransom,etc.) They will bring in around 10-15 prospects.
              They will use prospects to go after a top starting pitcher
              giving them potentially best starting staff in NL (have to
              resign Garza). Then they need long term FA: left power
              OF and leadoff CF (Ellsbury) and rent a 3B. Also sign Gregg.

              • Drew7

                “…and rent a 3B.”

                Our 3B platoon has been worth 2.2 WAR – good for 8th in MLB – and costs just over $1m this year.

                • cub2014

                  “rent a right 3B” they are playing better than was
                  expected. But Valbuena and Ransom are settling
                  in at .240-.250 unfortunately the HR will drop off.
                  These 2 have been around a long time and their
                  power numbers will level off and give you something
                  closer to their career numbers. So trade Ransom,
                  find a right handed hitting 3B for 1-2 years. Until
                  Bryant and or Baez are ready.

                  • Drew7

                    Valbuena hitting .250 has nothing to do with why the platoon has been so successful – it’s been his ability to work counts and get on base. The fact that BB% and K% tend to stabilize much faster than other peripherals, coupled with his very sustainable BABIP of .282, tells me that his performance is much closer to sustainable than you seem to think. Not to mention he has been more than solid in the field.

                    Ransom obviously isn’t a long-term solution anywhere, but he’s always hit LHP very well, (wRC+ of 123)and he doesn’t kill you in the field either. Sure, his power is unsustainable, but even after some heavy regression his numbers will be fine for the short-end of a platoon.

              • willis

                If you think they will do all of that, then good for you and I wish I had your optimism. No way they do all that.

  • Spencer

    “Hoyer said folks would have ripped Sveum for using an inexperienced young pitcher in a save situation.”

    This is just unequivocally not true. I said it yesterday in the comments – if Blake Parker came in and blew the game, how many people would’ve said, “Oh man! I wish Sveum would’ve used Marmol in that situation because he has so much more closing experience than Parker!!” I doubt very highly that that would’ve been the commentary from many fans. I’m sure there would’ve been disappointment, but at least it would’ve shown Sveum has learned from his numerous past mistakes of trying to have Carlos Marmol close games.

    • hansman1982

      No, the chorus would have been:

      “WHY IN THE F$^% DID THEY PUT MR. 13 PROFESSIONAL INNINGS IN THERE INSTEAD OF SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

      • Spencer

        No.

        • hansman1982

          Yes

          • Chad

            I agree with Hans here. Everyone would have complained no matter what decision Sveum made if the result had been blown save. If marmol had shut it down nobody would be saying it was a bad mood. Sometimes people here forget how difficult the game of baseball is and how managing at the ML level is not easy (I presume, I have not done it). Hindsight is 20/20 and everyone here can say, “I wouldn’t have used Marmol” blah blah. Probably the same people that want Russell to pitch 3 innings of relief every game.

            • Jp3

              No

              • hansman1982

                Yes

                • Jp3

                  😝

                • Koyie Hill Sucks

                  Not really, if anything more people have complained about Sveum relying on the same crappy pitchers (Marmol and Camp) over trying a younger pitcher.
                  In fact I think most agree that if the cubs will suck they would rather see younger players get the chance to suck.

            • RoughRiider

              You are wrong. Any pitcher but Marmol. Maybe all these games are meaningless but I don’t feel that way. He should only be used when the damage can’t be so bad that a starting pitcher that throws well and has a 3 run leed can’t lose a win based on a Marmol preformance. It was alright to put him in untill he let the someone on base. He should have been pulled at that time. His history over the last 2 years dictates that he can’t be trusted in a save situation.

              • JBlades

                The second half of last year, Marmol was consistently closing games. A lot of good relievers cannot close games out. Look at Russel, he is an excellent set up man but put the ball in his’ hand in a closer situation and watch his ERA sky rocket. Marmol is getting paid a lot of money and over his’ career has saved plenty of games. This year is a wash, and he may turn it around like last year(highly unlikely) and get some value or salary relief back and trade him.

            • Dave

              Totally disagree.
              You know what you’ll get with Marmol trying to close games and its not good
              I would not complain if Marmol never sees a closing opportunity for the Cubs again regardless of the outcome using a different pitcher .

          • BT

            Yes.

        • DocPeterWimsey

          Hansman is right, I think: too many people buy into the “proven closer” nonsense. Of course, the nonsense works both ways: Marmol is not going to be any better in low leverage situations. We just won’t notice.

          The simple fact is that the Cubs bullpen is a delight for batters and coaches on the other team. Gregg has thrown well, but we know that is a small sample size illusion. Russell’s results look good, but his peripherals don’t look as good, and the rest have peripherals to match their performance.

          The “proven closer” nonsense does have one silver lining: there might still be FO’s out there who believe this nonsense, too. Every year, it seems, some team wastes good prospects or good money on the “proven closer” only to learn that the last few months fail to predict the next few months (as predicted by the tiny sample sizes that relievers always have). If Marmol has a successful run, then some sucker might give the Cubs something for him: after all, Marmol has “proven” that he can close before.

          • Jp3

            Canseco has proven to hit home runs before, I don’t want him in the lineup because… Oh wait maybe he would look good in this lineup

          • hansman1982

            “If Marmol has a successful run, then some sucker might give the Cubs something for him: after all, Marmol has “proven” that he can close before.”

            This, if Marmol had come out and gotten the 3-run save, you then try him in a 2-run save situation and a 1-run save situation. Worst case scenario, he stumbles along the way and his trade value is the same as if you never tried him in those scenarios.

            Best case, you (and Marmol) gain confidence in his “clutch” pitching abilities and, so do other teams. They won’t trade for him as a closer but as someone you can hand the ball in the 9th inning every few days, sure.

            3-run saves are the perfect place to pitch Marmol, it doesn’t matter if you are Rivera or Marmol, they’re gonna get blown at about the same rate.

            • Spencer

              If that last sentence is true, then how come they aren’t?

              • hansman1982

                I really wish I could find the article where I got this from.

                • TonyP

                  I have heard this also………..

                • TWC

                  Isn’t that in the bullpen section of The Book?

            • Jp3

              So he stumbled in the gate or on the blocks during the race. Hansman I believe you’re right in that some hindsight 20/20 fan would have screamed the next morning about why are we using someone with 13 innings but the majority of cub fans would’ve said at least we tried someone different. I will say that I’m not sure Theo/Jed specifically said use him in this situation but I bet they strongly encouraged Sveum to use him in a way that they could leverage some trade value out of him and it just imploded…again….

              • willis

                And again, it wasn’t using him. It was not pulling him after it was clear he was going to blow the game. That’s the issue. Not one fan would have bitched if Marmol was yanked and Parker (enter whatever reliever you want) came in and blew it. At least there was an effort made to win. In this case there was not.

            • DarthHater

              “3-run saves are the perfect place to pitch Marmol, it doesn’t matter if you are Rivera or Marmol, they’re gonna get blown at about the same rate.”

              Do you have a reference to data or a study to back up this statement, hans? I find it surprising and, if true, very interesting, but I’d like to see the proof.

              • hansman1982

                I’ll keep searching for it, I want to say it was a Baseball America article that delved into it.

                • Rich H

                  Are you talking about the 96.7% conversion rate? That is what the league average is for 3 run saves over the last 10 years.

                • TWC

                  Yeah, I just found it. It’s the first section (The Three-Run Save) of Chapter 8 (Leveraging Relievers) in The Book. Pages 208-215. You might be able to preview a few of those pages on Amazon.

                  • Cubbie Blues

                    I still haven’t made the comittement to delve into The Book. It’s still sitting on my table.

                  • Hansman1982

                    And that is, probably, exactly how I read it.

                  • DarthHater

                    Excellent. Thanks, TWC. I’m in the middle of Baseball Between the Numbers right now. The Book is next on my reading list.

                  • Patrick W.

                    I just can’t get through The Book. I use it like a reference book, where I look stuff up, but reading it from the start my eyes glossed over so much I couldn’t see anything in my mother’s basement.

                    • TWC

                      Yeah, I’ve read it in stages. I flipped through and read all those The Book Says… boxes, then read the first chapter about 50 times, and then worked my way through it. It’s still mostly for reference though.

                • RoughRiider

                  It must have been written in 2010 and not in 2013

                  • TWC

                    What does when it was written have to do with the conclusions that it drew from the data the authors collected? FWIW, I believe the data reviewed in the Leveraging Relievers chapter came from 1999-2002.

                    • RoughRiider

                      Referring to the success of Marmol in 2010 vs 2013.
                      Conclusions can be wrong and data can be skewd to fit the conclusion.

                    • TWC

                      “Conclusions can be wrong and data can be skewd to fit the conclusion.”

                      Which is why they provide the methodology for you to see how they arrived at those conclusions.

                      Some of you folks cross into saber-phobia.

          • When the Music’s Over

            You had me nodding all the way until you brought up Marmol building trade value.

            Reality is most of the time Sveum has shit on one hand and diarrhea on the other. Either way he’s going to have to draw a mustache with one of the hands and deal with the stench wafting into his nose. Not completely defending the guy, as he makes some real questionable moves, but he’s got his hands tied when it comes to the bullpen.

            Either way, why argue about this bullpen (or this team for that matter), and how many additional wins it blows. At this point, you may as well zero in on what you can and root for those things.

          • YourResidentJag

            Yes, absolutely true and why I don’t care ultimately about our bullpen. Case in point with proven closers. The Detroit Tigers should acquire Papelbon. Fangraphs–The Detroit Tigers should acquire Jesse Crain. Big Difference.

    • Rebuilding

      Man, if you guys are really going to defend using Marmol in that situation there is really nothing you won’t defend. Sveum shall be manager for life. That was a horrible decision. He does some things right, but you really diminish your defense of him when you defend stupid. There is not one Cubs fan I know who would have ripped Sveum for not using Marmol. NONE. Have you guys been to the ballpark lately? Whenever Marmol comes in everyone laughs because we know there is a high probability of a show.

  • Kevin F.

    Jed Hoyer is the anti-Kenny Williams. Post-2005, KW made a practice of handing his managers sub-par or ill-fitting talent and then letting them take the heat. It continues, since this is still his roster.

  • mudge

    I wouldn’t have complained. Hansman, some of us don’t like Sveum’s moves so much. Not because they don’t work out, but because they don’t seem too swift. At the time, regardless of results. Not all of us complain just because the team loses.

    • Rizzo 44

      I agree with this 100%

    • hansman1982

      And there are a lot of decisions that I don’t agree with. I don’t think he should have left Marmol in as long as he did but I just don’t like getting to fired up about individual decisions. There are mountains of data that he has about matchups that I don’t have to tell him what is the best decision.

      Looking at this season as a whole, I think he has done a pretty good job. He has used the bullpen about as well as you could, SP have gotten their leashes extended and shortened where appropriate. He has done a fantastic job sticking to the platoons.

      • BluBlud

        There is not much Sveum has done that can be described as fantastic. I don’t like the way he throws his players under the bus. Protecting your player is a part of managing. Maybe he can call Doc Rivers and have a conversation about that.

        As far as his in game decisions, iffy at best. I not sure you can say Sveum has done a good job sticking to the platoons. When Theo and Comp signed the likes of Schierholtz/Hairston, Dejesus/Sappelt and you can add in the Sweeney’s and Borbon’s, he had no choice. He was told that they were going to platoon. He didn’t make tht decision. His substitutions are almost comical at times, and his use of the BP is horrible. I don’t our BP is as bad as the stats say, I think Sveum’s confusing use of them makes them worse.

        With that being said, I don’t think Sveum is the reason our record is what it is. All his bad decision may have cost us a game few games, but not many. And as a player, even if you are brought in in the wrong position, you still have to perform.

        • hansman1982

          “I don’t like the way he throws his players under the bus. Protecting your player is a part of managing.”

          I’m not a fan of some of his comments; however, since there has been a lack of complaints coming from the players, I think he talks to them about it first.

          “…his use of the BP is horrible.”

          “I don’t our BP is as bad as the stats say, I think Sveum’s confusing use of them makes them worse.”

          Please back this up with something other than the “eyeball test”.

          “I not sure you can say Sveum has done a good job sticking to the platoons. When Theo and Comp signed the likes of Schierholtz/Hairston, Dejesus/Sappelt and you can add in the Sweeney’s and Borbon’s, he had no choice.”

          So Theo is filling out the lineup card now?

          “He was told that they were going to platoon. He didn’t make tht decision.”

          And how many other managers have stuck to platoons? GM’s don’t just assemble a random collection of guys and tell the manager to figure it out. Every year teams construct platoons and every year managers abandon them within weeks.

          • BluBlud

            As far as the platoons, Theo and jed made those decision, and Sveum really doesn’t have to much say so in it. I would be willing to bet Sveum has absolutely 0% to do with that decision. This is not a team playing for a title, there are playing players to maximize their value, and that is definitely a decision that’s coming down from above his head.

            As far as the BP, their is really no way to prove it any other way but the eye test. There is no stat for what a player would have done if he had played in situation A vs situation B.

            • hansman1982

              “As far as the platoons, Theo and jed made those decision, and Sveum really doesn’t have to much say so in it. I would be willing to bet Sveum has absolutely 0% to do with that decision.”

              So he’s merely a puppet doing what the FO tells him to do when things go well and the FO is powerless to change his weak areas?

              If you look at bullpen usage according to leverage, you see the guys you expect in the high leverage situations.

              • BluBlud

                No, he’s not a puppet at all. I just don’t think he has much say so in the starting lineup as far as lefty vs righty matchups. Sure, he switch out Sweeney with Dejesus, or Soriano with Hairston all he wants, but if playing Hairston when Schierholtz should be in the lineup, he doesn’t have much say so in that.

      • mudge

        I agree about the starters, he generally takes starters out at appropriate times. I remember Quade leaving Dempster in to labor on until the obligatory 7th or 8th inning homer. Sometimes Sveum’s bullpen management drives me up a wall. & he could be more politic with how he talks about players to the media. But all of us aren’t calling for his head. In fact I like the guy and want to see him do well. At what point does W-L matter?

        • BluBlud

          I can recall a few times when pitcher were not at the “limit” and he took them out, only to watch the BP blow the game.

          • hansman1982

            and I can recall a few times where guys were not at the “limit” only to have the bullpen do a marvelous job holding the lead.

            • BluBlud

              I agree. I’m not as down on our BP. I stated the other day, that we were 2 decent arms from having a very good BP. It the few guys who he continues to pitch thats mind boggling.

  • Rizzo 44

    Another excuse for this Manager on the Marmol issue. He should have been taken out for anyone. The bat boy, the ball girl, the drunk fan out in the LF bleachers, hell anyone for that matter. Marmol should pitch the first inning of every game with a day off here and there. Then start the starters in the second inning. For those who think this idea is dumb, this gives the Cubs time to come back if he gets killed. They won’t to use him so bad this is how they should use him. I supported the decision to hire Dale when the Cubs FO made that choice. I wanted Mike Maddux all along, but Dale has to be accountable for some of these mistakes. If we didn’t have Marmol this year, I wouldn’t be a grumpy gauss about this season and how it has gone.

    • Patrick W.

      To summarize: you would have applauded the use of, say, Darwin Barney, over Marmol (your other choices aren’t on the roster), you think Marmol should pitch 80 innings, the Cubs should have signed a manager who didn’t want to manage here, and I should GFM (that last one was preemptive)

      • TWC

        Heh.

        • DarthHater

          That last one applied to you, too, sonny.

          • RizzoCastro

            Oh look we have three tools with nothing important to say trying to be haters on RIzzo 44 how sad. Why be a dick? Everyone should be able to have an opinion without someone being a dick acting like they know it all. When most of you don’t know jack about baseball.

            • Patrick W.

              What’s this base ball you speak of?

              My point was actually just some sarcasm but I’m happy to explain. 1) I don’t believe the “ballgirl” was a better choice than Carlos Marmol, so giving the benefit of the doubt I switched to an actual rostered player, who would also not have been (in my granted-by-you opinion) a better choice than Marmol. 2) If you don’t think Carlos Marmol should be pitching, why would you think he should pitch 80 innings? It seems really ridiculous (in my granted-by-you opinion) to suggest that he should start every other game. 3) It was reported that Theo Epstein said that Mike Maddux pulled his name from consideration for the Cubs managerial job (though Maddux himself has been cagey about that, even denying it at one point) and so hiring him over Dale Sveum was not an option, if Theo thought (perhaps wrongly) that Maddux had declined to be considered for the job. 4) Rizzo 44 likes to tell people to GFT, which is not at all in alignment with your suggested that everybody should be able to have an opinion or not be a dick.

            • DarthHater

              GFY

              • hansman1982

                Can we make GFY the 2013 version of YOLO??!?!????????!?!??!??!??

                • Cubbie Blues

                  No.

      • Rizzo 44

        Correct

      • Rizzo 44

        Barney could have done what Marmol did against the Mets. Marmol didn’t even get an out. A player bunted to move runners up (something the Cubs don’t do under Dale). Other than that Marmol just saw 2 bombs and the game was over.

        • DocPeterWimsey

          “A player bunted to move runners up ”

          It’s a side note at this point, but Marmol coughing up the HR took the spotlight away from Terry Collins making one of the stupidest managerial moves that I’ve witnessed all year. When you have a pitcher struggling to throw strikes (and who is forced to take a lot off of pitches to make them strikes), you do NOT give him a free out with a sacrifice. It’s a small matter over the grand scheme of things, but at that moment, it reduced the Mets’ chances of winning: the probability of Marmol getting two outs before the guy at second scored to tie the game was a lot higher than the probablity that he’d get 3 outs before the guy on 1st scored. (Given how bad the other relievers are in the Cubs pen, this would not have been greatly altered by Dale switching pitchers, either.)

          • RizzoCastro

            The call to move the runners up with the bunt was not a stupid move. The Mets have been struggling most of the year to score runs. He had two on with none out and moved them both up into scoring position. How is that stupid? Dale should do this a little more maybe get the offense going a little. Dale made the worst mistake in this game by either manager when he brought Marmol into the game in the 9th to close the game after he has said about 10 times Marmol will not be an option anymore in the 9th with a save situation at hand. Anyone in the pen would have been a better option.

            • RizzoCastro

              Rizzo 44 is correct in what he was saying. Dale needs to go and take Marmol with him. Most and I say most because some on here must like Marmol can’t stand Marmol and would love to see him cut.

            • Spriggs

              The Mets probably would not be struggling to score runs if they faced Marmol every day. He can’t throw strikes. He grooves pitches when he decides he needs to throw one. There is never a smart time to bunt against a pitcher who puts runners on base like Marmol does.

              • RizzoCastro

                Wow people really don’t understand the game.

                • Cubbie Blues

                  I agree, *some* people don’t.

            • hansman1982

              So bringing in Marmol was dumb because it was guarranteed to end in a blown save but then giving Marmol an easy out was smart?

              • RizzoCastro

                You people read so much into everything. Must all be lawyers and doctors. Yes it was the correct move to put the runners in scoring position. Man you people are really dumb.

                • RizzoCastro

                  It moved the runners up 90 feet with 1 out and took away the chance for a double play to kill the rally. Baseball logic tells you to do what Collins did. Have any of you people played baseball?

                  • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                    What’s baseball?

                    • hansman1982

                      Scholars maintain that it is a sport where real men go and smack a round ball around and things like the will to win, heart, hustle, scrap and Tebowing make gods out of mere mortals.

                      Deciphering the sport is tricky because so few have played the game the right way and cannot speak about it and the only way one can determine anything within the sport is just knowing it when they see it.

                    • RizzoCastro

                      And you obliviously aren’t one of those people who knows it when you see it.

                  • hansman1982

                    It also decreased the number of runs they could have expected to score based on the historical data baseball provides.

                    • RizzoCastro

                      They only needed 2 to tie. WOW! And Guess what guys they got it and got another to win all in the same inning. The play was the correct play. WOW

                    • Cubbie Blues

                      The outcome does not show that it was the correct decision. The outcome only shows what happened. To come to the correct decision you need to look at data points which shows they had a greater chance of scoring the runs without bunting than with.

                    • DarthHater

                      You mean, you think baseball decisions should be based on what has and has not worked in past baseball games? Man, you are really dumb and must never have played baseball. :-P

                    • RizzoCastro

                      Dumb

                    • Cubbie Blues

                      Yup, it’s totally dumb to look at statistics and past data points to find out what has the best odds of winning is. Totally worthless.

                  • DarthHater

                    According to Tom Tango’s online run expectancy charts, the odds of scoring at least one run with one out and runners on second and third is about 5.5% higher than the odds of scoring at least one out with zero outs and runners on 1st and 2nd. Therefore, there is a potential gain to a successful sacrifice bunt in the latter situation.

                    However, not all sacrifice bunt attempts are successful. If the attempt is unsuccessful, leaving the runners at first and second with one out, then the odds of scoring at least one run decline to about 22.2% less than they were before the out.

                    Therefore, the break-even point for a sacrifice bunt with no outs and runners and first and second is approximately 80%. That is, the bunt has to be successful about 80% of the time for the strategy to increase the odds of scoring at least one run.

                    • DarthHater

                      *odds of scoring at least one run with zero out

                    • RizzoCastro

                      The correct play was called and the win went to the METS. How hard is that to understand? Your arguments are not any good. Collins did the right thing with the player he had up to bat. And in turn it worked out how it was supposed to for the Mets. The odds work in there favor.

                    • hansman1982

                      Mmm, Baseball Prospectus put the RE as higher for 1st and 2nd no outs (1.404) than 2nd and 3rd with 1 out (1.2298).

                      Then again, we may be talking about two different things.

                    • hansman1982

                      “The correct play was called and the win went to the METS.”

                      No, the wrong “play was called” and it worked out for the Mets.

                      It’s like choosing the run the ball on 4th and 20 and still getting the first down.

                    • DarthHater

                      Note: Even if you have an 80% bunter at the plate, the strategy only makes sense if the game is so close that you are playing for a single run. If you need more than one run, then bunting with zero outs and men on first and second is always a bad strategy because it reduces the aggregate number of runs you are likely to score (see hansman’s comment above).

                    • DarthHater

                      Joe,

                      According to the charts I looked at, the odds of scoring went down but the total runs expected went up. So I think we were talking about two slightly different things.

                    • hansman1982

                      “the strategy only makes sense if the game is so close that you are playing for a single run.”

                      This, and you have to factor in that Quintanilla can get on base 29% of the time and that Marmol allows the batter to reach 40% of the time.

                    • DarthHater

                      Every major league team these days uses run expectancies to assist in decision-making and spends tons of $$$ on all kinds of “dumb” statistical analysis.

                    • DarthHater

                      Yea, you’re right. I was just trying to make the basic point. Actually, I don’t claim to know for sure what the right strategy was in that specific situation. But I do know that it’s moronic to think that the answer is obvious or that it has anything to do with how much baseball one has played.

                    • JB88

                      But, Brett, he doesn’t say “condescending,” he says ““Patrick W. you sir are a complete dick with your condensing words and attitude.”

                      Which I interpretted to mean he’s calling Patrick W. “Little Richard”, because I don’t know how someone could be a “complete dick” and be “condens[ed]” without also by definition being “Little Richard.”

                  • Patrick W.

                    If you have the situation where you have runners on 1st and 2nd and nobody out, you will, on average, score 1.56 runs. If you have the situation where you have runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out, you will, on average, score 1.45 runs. You have reduced the number of runs you can expect to score by 7% by bunting. That’s just based on what has happened historically. I’m curious if you think the Cubs should have walked the bases loaded to get the force out back in play? Because lots of baseball logic tells you to do that. If the Cubs had done that, the average number of runs the Mets could have expected to score goes up to 1.63, a full 11% swing from where they were were in favor of the Mets.

                    • Patrick W.

                      We jumped all over that one! NERDS.

                    • RizzoCastro

                      Well when the Cubs win with all of you guy’s logic please let me know. Because as long as Marmol continues to come out there in the 9th we will continue to lose more than we win. As long as Dale is the coach we will continue to lose more than we win. The correct play in the 9th to stay of a double play to move both runners into scoraing position was the bunt. The numbers you all spit out don’t take into affect the inning and the situation at hand. So go ahead and spit out numbers, but all of you are wrong. The correct play was the bunt and putting more pressure on Marmol to do something (Give up a Bomb on a pitch right down the middle).

                    • hansman1982

                      Ok, then, prove us wrong using more than just:

                      “You nerdz are wrong because I played baseball and old school baseball says to do this!”

                    • Patrick W.

                      These numbers take into account every single inning and every single game situation that has occurred from 1993 – 2010.

                    • MichiganGoat

                      Oh you dirty cursed numbers, science, facts… we don’t need you WE HAVE BETTER MATH. We don’t need anything else than what our grand pappy and little league taught us about baseball. STATS BE DAMNED!

                    • Cubbie Blues

                      Goat, I was thinking more along the lines of.
                      [img]http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/fingers-in-ears.jpg[/img]

                    • RizzoCastro

                      I just did exactly that. Inning, who was up, with runners at 1st and 2nd no outs and trying to stay out of a double play. You can think and spout off any numbers you want. I don’t care. The correct play was called by Collins with the game on the line. Odds of Buck scoring from first on a hit were very slim and if Quintanilla had hit a ground ball that would have been two.

                    • RizzoCastro

                      Was the BUNT successful? The answer is yes. What happened then? Oh yes they hit a homer on the pressure that was put on Marmol even more so than if they would just had been a 1st and 2nd. So I guess the numbers were correct. The Mets played the game how it should be played. The Cubs should have never brought Marmol into the 9th if they wanted to win the game.

                    • RizzoCastro

                      Patrick W. you sir are a complete dick with your condensing words and attitude. And no those stats don’t take into account the inning and who’s at bat. Those are over all numbers. And why stop at 2010? what happened before 1993? Really?

                    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                      “Patrick W. you sir are a complete dick with your condensing words and attitude.”

                      I’d be really careful about saying this in one breath, and in another breath saying things like, “You people read so much into everything. Must all be lawyers and doctors. Yes it was the correct move to put the runners in scoring position. Man you people are really dumb …. Have any of you people played baseball? …. Do you people even watch the games?”

                      Unless, of course, you don’t know what condescending means, sweetheart.

                    • RizzoCastro

                      Ok Brett. I def. understand what it means. Jump on board with them. I couldn’t care less.

                    • Cubbie Blues

                      As stated above:

                      “The outcome does not show that it was the correct decision. The outcome only shows what happened. To come to the correct decision you need to look at data points which shows they had a greater chance of scoring the runs without bunting than with.”

                      Think of Schrodinger’s cat. It was both dead and alive. The result isn’t known until you look at the cat. The correct decision (depending on what your results to be) is to either give it cyanide or not.

                    • JB88

                      But, Brett, he doesn’t say “condescending,” he says ““Patrick W. you sir are a complete dick with your condensing words and attitude.”

                      Which I interpretted to mean he’s calling Patrick W. “Little Richard”, because I don’t know how someone could be a “complete dick” and be “condens[ed]” without also by definition being “Little Richard.”

                      CHUMP EDIT: Hit reply in the wrong spot …

                    • hansman1982

                      Just think, this blowup was started by me pointing out your logical fallicy.

                      Player A will fail 100% of the time.
                      Player B made player A’s job easier.
                      What Player B did was smart!

                    • RizzoCastro

                      Disagree that it wasn’t the correct play. All your numbers are different. Each of you above have different number to prove your points. I will stick with the small ball and believe my point is correct. I should not have called your comments dumb. Each person can have there own opinion. I can see you all think I’m wrong and that’s ok with me.

                    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                      There we go. Folks can have differing opinions – the discussion is what’s fun.

                    • Patrick W.

                      I prefer to think of myself as an incomplete dick, but I’m working on it.

                    • hansman1982

                      “Disagree that it wasn’t the correct play.”
                      Fine. Agree to disagree.

                      “All your numbers are different. Each of you above have different number to prove your points.”
                      Patrick is using the 1993-2010 run expectancy while mine was using 2013 data. Darth was using percentage of scoring 1 run. Three different answers should be expected.

                    • RizzoCastro

                      Thanks for clearing that up hansman1982.

                    • cubchymyst

                      Because I’m curious, I was looking at the players on first at the time of the bunt and the batter. They had Buck on first, so a slow running catcher. Over 50% of the balls in play by the next two hitters (the guy that bunted and the one that hit the homerun) are ground ball. They needed 2 runs and a double play kills their chances. Since I don’t have the numbers what are the % of a runner on 1st scoring with 0 outs versus a runner on 2nd with 1 out. Ignore the lead runner since him scoring doesn’t change the outcome of the game.

                    • jt

                      2013 NYM have a team BA of 0.224, lowest in the NL
                      2013 NYM have a team SLG of 0.367 2nd lowest in the NL.
                      Patrick W.’s RE post, though interesting, applies to an avg team over an unspecified range of years.
                      Collins’ decision had to be based upon the numbers above.
                      2013 Mets had/have a below avg chance of getting an XBhit. They also had/have a below avg chance of getting at least 2 singles within a 3 out frame.
                      I don’t know the odds for the above. But that is the condition that must be considered. The league avg. does not apply.

                    • hansman1982

                      The trend is still there, you should expect to get fewer runs after that sac bunt than before it.

                    • RizzoCastro

                      Thank you for those numbers jt. Those are the numbers I wanted all along. I think that helps show why they bunted.

                    • bbmoney

                      JT your analysis only considers one side of the equation. It doesn’t also recognize that the Mets still need 1 hit and have a below average chance (compared to the league) of getting 1 hit in two outs after the bunt. You can’t ignore that and use it to justify the bunt.

                      The overall numbers still apply.

                    • Cubbie Blues

                      You also have to then consider Marmol’s numbers as well.
                      2.03 HR/9
                      7.09 BB/9
                      6.08 ERA

                  • cubchymyst

                    If I look at fangraphs win probability, the bunt dropped the Mets chances of winning from 30.4% to 26.9%. It is a drop but it did removed the double play possibility when the next two batters are ground ball hitters. The manager took a risk by accepting the slight drop to remove the double play which would of really hurt their chances of winning. Of course this is all against Marmol who is so up and down you don’t know what your going to get from him.

            • Cubbie Blues

              Yeah, he should have put Russel in. Oh, wait, he has more blown saves than Marmol.

              • RizzoCastro

                Russell had already pitched the inning before and was taken out for Marmol. Do you people even watch the games?

  • Koyie Hill Sucks

    Not really, if anything more people have complained about Sveum relying on the same crappy pitchers (Marmol and Camp) over trying a younger pitcher.
    In fact I think most agree that if the cubs will suck they would rather see younger players get the chance to suck.

    • Koyie Hill Sucks

      Delete the comment above, was a reply to a post

  • DarthHater

    Brett:

    I find your prejudice against haters offensive.

    Sincerely yours,
    DarthHater

  • davidalanu

    Sveum, did, however, sign my son’s baseball last night at the game, and then just to prove how much he wanted to put on a show for him, got himself thrown out. So, as far as my son is concerned, he’s obviously awesome.

  • Ivy Walls

    Forget the particulars why there is ‘unhappiness’ regarding Sveum’s leadership of this purposely flawed transitional `$105M roster.

    The point is that heat is now being generated and no public relations statement is going to Humpty Dumpty back together again, Sveum is holding the spot for someone else. Is he a Riggleman or Elia?

    I say Sandberg…he seem to have an ability to get the most out of any roster

    • Cubbie Blues

      Ooh, ooh, let it be Elia. He had some good rants.

      Sandberg can’t seem to catch a break anywhere. I wonder why that is?

    • gocatsgo2003

      “I say Sandberg…he seem to have an ability to get the most out of any roster”

      Really? I understand that he’s had some success winning games in the minor leagues, but he’s a Hall of Fame player who has been managing since 2007 and hasn’t really gotten a sniff from any major league ballclubs. He definitely seems to have some managerial expertise, but the statement above seems a bit premature.

  • Chad
  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/653cc0c5f0eded621ab13b4f631de7da.png Cizzle

    How would you like to be calling strikes in a Hernandez-Navarro battery? You’re gonna get hit on practically every pitch.

    • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/653cc0c5f0eded621ab13b4f631de7da.png Cizzle

      er, Rodriguez.

    • Cubbie Blues

      I’d love to see that with C.B. Buckner behind the plate.

  • mudge

    Soriano has 5 errors and can’t get around on a fastball. It seems like he’s hitting the wall. Mirroring his comment about Marmol, “He used to be good.” The swan song was last year.

    • gocatsgo2003

      OK? So now we’re supposed to sit Soriano and Marmol?

      • mudge

        Release Marmol. Trade Sori ASAP for what you can get.

        • gocatsgo2003

          So then you’re stuck paying Marmol’s entire salary to what end? And you’re almost assuredly not going to get anything of value for Soriano (be it salary relief or viable prospects), so what’s the point there?

          • mudge

            To the end of not having him pitch. And the point there is to bring in someone who can get around on a fastball. Concentrate on: winning baseball games.

            • gocatsgo2003

              But it’s clear that isn’t the focus of the organization right now. If we were on the precipice of the playoffs, the sure; we aren’t, so the focus is on getting the most out of the assets you’ve got and setting ourselves up for sustained success in the future.

              • mudge

                So get something for Sori and let younger pitchers get bullpen experience.

                • gocatsgo2003

                  And then you get into all kinds of service time considerations, etc. The decision is not as simple as “cut him and trade him.”

                  • mudge

                    Thanks for explaining. But actually, it is that simple. Make a decision and act.

                    • gocatsgo2003

                      So now it’s “make your front office decisions about gut reactions to short-term events, long-term consequences be damned.” Got it.

                • mudge

                  Who are you quoting, here? Nothing short term about the decline of Marmol, and Soriano’s is both inevitable and increasingly apparent. Trade him for what you can get and you’ll get as much production out of (gasp!) Scott Hairston.

                  • gocatsgo2003

                    Not quoting anything, just using proper grammar. And, as I said before, you aren’t going to get anything of value for Marmol or Soriano in what is already decidedly a rebuilding season, so why would you cost yourself both their salary and team control of your younger players? To try to win 67 games instead of 65?

                    • mudge

                      You’ve already spent their salary. It’s not grammatical to put quotes around a statement unless it is a quote. & yes, there’s a value in winning not 67 games but showing improvement over last season. The team control thing is not so hard to work around. Not suggesting you bring up Jorge Soler.

                    • JB88

                      “It’s not grammatical to put quotes around a statement unless it is a quote.”

                      This is not a correct statement. It is proper grammar to use quotation marks to identify a thought that is not ones own.

                  • JB88

                    There is no point in trading Soriano at this point for another reason: Market demand. We are nearly 6 weeks from the trade deadline. While there are limited numbers of available trade options at this point, there is also far fewer teams willing to trade for another player right now as well.

                    You aren’t going to maximize the trade value of Soriano by trading him today, tomorrow, or even next week. The most value you will receive for him is going to be received in the hours before the trade deadline when there are multiple parties seeking to trade for his services.

                    • mudge

                      OK, wait for the injury then.

                  • mudge

                    Yes, I know. It’s what you do when you’re “being a condescending jerk.”

  • Dale Jr

    Yumm.. mr. Hoyer there is other mangers
    Out there!!. rick sutcliffe hire his ass up
    Thanks

    • JB88

      Dear god, no. Under no circumstances would I want Rick Sutcliffe anywhere near this team, ever.

      • Cubbie Blues

        You better not look around during Spring Training than. I believe he is with the team every year.

        • Cubbie Blues

          *then

        • JB88

          Since I typically close my eyes when actually watching the big league club play, it shouldn’t be hard to follow this advice …

  • Dustin S

    Rondon, Hernandez, Villanueva, Camp, and Parker were all available in that 9th. Parker would have just been the weakest alternative to Marmol, but certainly not the only option.

    I don’t think Sveum is a terrible manager generally, he’s actually fairly decent overall and light-years from Quade. But I would still say that Marmol decision was a particularly bad mistake, given Marmol’s performance over the past 3 years, especially in save situations, and his (now) 7 blown saves in 2013. The crux of the issue for me as a fan is this: If the goal is to just build trade value or massage egos, and be ambivalent about actually winning games in 2013, that significantly changes how I will watch the games.

    • Cubbie Blues

      Then I would immediately change the way you watch the games.

  • Steve

    Interesting comments, I still think Svuem has made questionable calls he said before Marmol would not be out in that position to close and he had the choice not to put him in and he did. Of course Jed is going to back up Svuem because he has to. Svuem has to go at the end of this year I hope as well as some players and the hitting coach.

  • jt

    How bad is the bull pen?
    Cubs 2013 ERA innings 1-3 = 2.82
    That is at least the first time through the order.
    Relief pitchers see hitters in the order no more than once and do not have to pace themselves for multiple innings use per game.
    Cubs 2013 ERA innings 7-9 = 4.53

  • http://vdcinc.biz 70’scub

    Dale is doing a good job of managing this roster? I would like to see the Cubs take a hard look at the current batting coach. Seems to me when your coach tells the whole league that you (the two 23 year olds) are taking the first pitch you are now 0-1. Second pitch is the pitchers pitch which means 0-2 or 1-2 counts. These guys will have a hard time hitting their weight by seasons end. Reality the Cubs suck when you suck opposing teams will open with strikes let Castro and Rizzo swing, mix it up with out telling the other team your strategy. Same way Marmol was coached lets tell the league that he is opening up with a fast ball.

  • StevenF

    Please forgive me if I’ve missed it, but nobody has commented on what should have been done. Russell should be closing when Gregg is unavailable, and to hell with the lefty on lefty argument.
    Additionally, Marmol should have been removed immediately after the 3rd baserunner in that inning. He obviously didn’t have it that day, and any change would have been preferable. I felt that way when Marmol came into the game. And NOW Sveuem will avoid Marmol in the 9th? Mostly, I like Sveum. My problem with most managers is that they are “a little slow”. Is it any coincidence that LaRussa has a bit more education?

    • King Jeff

      Do you mean the James Russell who is 0 for 4 in save opportunities this year, and has more blown saves than Marmol? Yeah, he should be the closer.

      • TWC

        Plus, Russell has a >150 point split in OPS that strongly favors him pitching against LH batters. His K/BB % for LHB is 6.57. Versus RHB it’s only 1.76.

      • Cubbie Blues

        Or, to put it another way. 12% of the time Russel has come into the game, he has blown a save. Or, every 8.5 appearances.

    • hansman1982

      “My problem with most managers is that they are “a little slow”.”

      Most managers don’t allow themselves to be swayed by small sample sizes of a game or two.

      • mudge

        & some managers get sentimental about veterans.

  • Cheryl

    Rightly or wrongly many people have the opinion that once Marmol comes in the team will lose. At this point I’d much rather see Sveum take a chance on someone like Parker rather than stay within the same old rut with Marmol. I wonder if it has ever occurred to Sveum that by doing what he did the other night he’s putting more pressure on Marmol, not less. As for the platoon system, I know it is used by many managers I just don’t happen to like what I’ve seen of the way its used with the cubs.

  • Rebuilding

    If we get Marmol up to 35 innings he will set the all-time record for worst WHIP of ALL-TIME. As in the history of baseball. All 112 years of the modern era and even back to 1876. That’s kind of cool, but I’d rather he not be used in close games. Call me crazy

  • http://mccarronlegal.com jmc

    Hoyer says fo didn’t provide significant pieces to succeed. Cubs are not reds or Cardinals. Duh. manager can’t go out and play. Casey Stengel use to fill out the card then take a snooze. Yankees would then win. oh wait they had great players. We don’t

    • jt

      Stengel was one of the first to work the bullpen.
      When criticized for taking Ford out early he stated that he didn’t want Whitey pitching the most innings he wanted him pitching the most important innings.
      When Houk took over Ford’s IP went up.
      Casey was very much hands on.

      • TWC

        “he stated that he didn’t want Whitey pitching the most innings”

        That’s racist.

        • hansman1982

          Meh, that was back when being racist was taught in schools.

          Wait, he didn’t want Whitey getting the most IP? DAMN HIM TO HELL!

  • http://mccarronlegal.com jmc

    Damn Yankees

  • http://mccarronlegal.com jmc

    My trite point is we do not have a great manager or great team the great teams win baseball games

    • cub2014

      bad managers loose games, good managers win games.
      I think talent gets you 90% of the results on the field.
      The rest is influenced by the managers game time
      decisions and yet its not that black and white. Chemistry
      can be generated by the manager or certain players and
      that confidence in your teammate picking you up if you
      fail can build on its self.

  • mudge

    Even lousy teams win some games. That’s why baseball is interesting. We’re talking a lot about the manager here, but this team has only one lefty in the bullpen, six outfielders and one back-up infielder. What is up with that?

  • StevenF

    I did not realize Russell had four blown saves, and the strikeout difference between Righties and Lefty’s. For that, I’ll tuck my tail between my legs.
    However, I stand strong on the “a little slow” issue. I grant you that small sample sizes should not be factored, but overall, most managers are slow to react.

  • Mike

    I guess it just takes Sveum a few months here and there to figure out if a particular player or situation isn’t working, do something differently, even if it’s obvious to everyone else first (Marmol in the 9th, Sappelt not hitting, having Hairston start only against lefties not starting Cody Ransom at SS occasionally for Castro…so Castro can see how SS should actually be played, playing small ball a bit more).

  • Cyranojoe

    “Sveum confirmed, by the way, that, if a save situation comes up and Kevin Gregg is unavailable, Carlos Marmol will no longer be used. He’s going to stick to lower-leverage, earlier innings.”

    Anybody else say AMEN to this?

    • willis

      Or say it’s just him blowing bullshit because he’s said it about a billion times the last two years? We’ve seen this song and dance before. We know how it plays out. You’ll see Marmol in a closing situation again, trust me.

      • mudge

        & Castro will get a day’s rest real soon.

  • Terry

    Jed keeps saying the teams rcord is on him and Theo because the talent isnt there. When are they planning on getting better players, this off season wait till the top talent in the minors are ready or what.I understand they are rebulding but this is getting ridiculus.

    • Cubbie Blues

      What FAs have been available that we weren’t in on?

    • Stinky Pete

      They’re just waiting for grand opening of the Super Duper Ballplayer Store. When that opens they will get much better players.

  • Terry

    Sorry afor the misspellings.

    • Cubbie Blues

      Irony of misspelling this was not lost my friend.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+