Enhanced Box Score: Marlins 7, Cubs 9 – September 4, 2013

That was close.

Not that salvaging one game in a three-game series against the worst team in the league is anything to write home about, but when Jeff Samardzija gave up a grand slam to put the Marlins ahead, this one felt quite over.

But, hooray, the Cubs came back, and all is right with the world. Kinda.

sept 4 box

Full box.

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

228 responses to “Enhanced Box Score: Marlins 7, Cubs 9 – September 4, 2013”

  1. cubchymyst

    Was the wind blowing out during the game? I’m assuming yes with the number of home runs but like some conformation.

  2. waittilthisyear

    lets get a count of heads on who thinks shark can still be an ace, (i know that “Ace” is a subjective term, but for the sake of this discussion it will be defined as “one of the top 15 starters in the league”)

    i say yes

    1. Cyranojoe

      Ace? Probably not. But at the top of the pile immediately after Ace? Yes. Maybe in the discussion for the bottom third of the Ace grouping, if you’re going as broad as 15? OK, sure.

      1. willis

        No. He can be good and very effective, but he doesn’t have the mind to be an ace. I think he’s a 3ish talent/ceiling.

        1. BlameHendry

          Agree with you. My vote is no. His ceiling is a number 3 in an average rotation. Stuff is there, brain and command is not and doesn’t look like it ever will be. I think he’ll always be that guy who throws an 8-inning shutout one game and then gives up 7 runs in 4 innings the next time out. He wont be consistently bad, but he wont be consistently good either. Just a wildly mixed bag.

          1. Sacko

            what would be an average rotation?

          2. Ian Afterbirth

            3rd in an average rotation? I’d say 3rd in a great rotation.
            I doubt he’ll ever be a true “ace” but he’ll be be able to perform like one for a month or so here and there and then be an average/inconsistent middle of the rotation type the rest of the time.

            He’s a great piece, but not what I’d like from my #1 starter.

          3. DocPeterWimsey

            That is basically saying that a pitcher’s ceiling is the 75th best starter in baseball. I think that he’s already quite a bit better than that.

      2. frank

        I’d have to agree with Cyranojoe–I’d say a good 2. If he can develop some consistency, I don’t think the bottom part of the top 15 is out of the question though.

        1. willis

          Potential? Sure. But he is his own worst enemy. If he can get out of his own way he could be so much better.

          1. Sacko

            they use to say that about a young Maddox.

    2. MightyBear

      I think he could be an ace. He has the stuff.

      1. miggy80

        I’m with mighty bear, Ace potential

    3. Pat

      An ace? Probably not. I don’t see him getting the consistency necessary. But that is not to say that he can’t be flat out dominant at times. Think of guys like Wood (Kerry) or Nolan Ryan. Neither was ever an ace, but they could give you several lights out performances over the course of a year.

      1. CubsFanSaxMan

        If Shark is the ace of the staff we are in trouble. He is a good #3 on playoff team.

        1. Sacko

          excellent thought, I hope we are so good he is a 3

      2. Bret Epic

        I think his stuff could translate to a really good #2, but mentally, I’m not sure he’ll be able to live up to that. His stats are pretty good along the board, with a relatively low BB rate and high K rate, but he has trouble with the mental game, and gives up a few more home runs than you would like an ace to. I see his “ceiling” around what I see Garza’s ceiling. They both don’t walk too many guys, have good pitches, strike out a good amount, they both tend to become easily affected by frustration, and they’re both somewhat prone to the home run ball. Garza’s career ERA is the same as Samardzija’s ERA last year. I see his peak as Garza’s 2011 season. 3.32 ERA, around 9 K’s per inning (though it might be a bit more with Samardzija), a healthier walk rate around 2.8, a lowered HR/9 rate of 0.6 and would hope for a WHIP under 1.25. These stats are Garza in his “best” year, which I would say is close to what I believe Samardzija is at his “ceiling,” though some statistics will vary, obviously. If he can get out of his own head a little bit, he could surpass those numbers, though I’m not sure I see it happening, especially if he’s on a team that isn’t winning.

      3. Hee Seop Chode

        wait, Nolan Ryan was never an ace? He had 7 no hitters, was an 8 time allstar, had 2 pitching titles, led the league in ERA twice, and was top 5 in pitching WAR on 5 occasions, and top 5 in Cy Young voting 6 times.

        Who do you define as an ace?

        1. Luke

          Yeah, if Nolan Ryan doesn’t qualify then I’m not sure anyone does. Maybe Sandy Koufax? Walter Johnson? Christy Matthewson?

          1. Pat

            A 112 career ERA plus doesn’t equal an ace to me.

          2. Rebuilding

            Nolan Ryan was incredibly inconsistent, especially when he was young. He was on several playoff teams and never pitched a Game #1 that I’m aware

            1. Feeney

              Umm….he pitched game 1 of the ALCS in 79 and game 1 of the NLDS in 1981. And I’ve only been looking into this for like 3 minutes. Plus starting a game 1 isn’t necessarily indicative of anything. Not every team gets a chance to set their rotation in advance of a series. Sometimes your ace was needed to get you into the playoffs. Or into the next round.

              1. Rebuilding

                My bad. Growing up in Houston I was a big Ryan fan. I couldn’t remember off the top of my head – should have looked it up

    4. RY

      only if he learns how to pitch and make adjustments.

  3. ssckelley

    I am trying to think of the last time the Cubs came back and won a game after giving up a grand slam.

    1. BlameHendry

      Yep. You’ll be thinking for a while.

      1. Sacko

        I think there was a game way back that I can remember that Goose Gossage and Andre Dawson were playing in.

  4. Cyranojoe

    I’m kinda surprised you didn’t highlight Koyie Hill raising his BA by going 1-4 today.

    1. UCF

      Hell, our two young core players would raise their batting average by going 1 for 4. Its great to know that they are in the same class as Mr. Hill.

      1. Hansman1982

        It’s great to know that the useless stat known as BA will never go away.

        1. Johnny Stacy

          If you think BA is a useless stat you know nothing about baseball. Sabermetrics isn’t everything, and to think so is just foolish.

          1. hansman1982

            I know a fair bit about baseball, thankyouverymuch.

          2. Cubbie Blues

            He only sounds like a fool so the people he is talking to can understand.

        2. jon

          Batting average for the most part is useless, but for someone like Castro it might be more helpful in evaluation. If you are hoping he will find more success by going back to his original ways, then a high BA is going to have to drive that success

          1. BABIP (MichCubFan)

            The thing that BA is most important for is as a baseline for OBP and SLG when you look at a triple slash line. You get an idea for on base ability and power when you see the gaps between BA and the other numbers.

            BA is obviously important, you just need to keep it in context like anything else.

          2. willis

            Exactly. For the most part, BA is a touch overrated, not useless. For someone like Castro though, who is a hitter, it’s a solid way to judge his success/effectiveness.

  5. Dr. Leroy Quackenbush

    Has Smardz hurt his long term contract negotiations with his performance this year? He clearly is not a 1, and one could argue he is a good 3. Has not been a stopper this year at all.

    1. MichiganGoat

      I’d agree that he hasn’t helped his stock but the Cubs still will want to extend him as much as they did before the season.

      1. Eternal Pessimist

        I don’t know if I agree about that. He has definitely hurt his stock and brand with some of these outings. He has been pitching in our system for a long time now and really is starting to look like this is who he is….a # 3 starter with # 1 stuff that he will never harness.

        If they wanted to extend him at 15 Mil per extra year they would extend him, maybe now they are thinking 12 mil per extra year they would extend him. He is still under team control and there is no reason the Cubs need to overpay to lock him up now as he is unwilling to give a team friendly deal anyway.

    2. chrisfchi

      I would think that if the offer they gave him earlier this year is still on the table, he would be highly considering taking it now. (that is if he is serious about staying a cub)

      1. Pat

        Actually, I think it makes it even more likely that he wants to get another season in before signing anything.

        1. Eternal Pessimist

          Yeah, his seems to believe he is much better than his results. He may be right, but hard to really trust him with all the experience we have with him.

          1. Pat

            I’m fine with it anyway. If I had my way, they would never extend a pitcher prior to the year before his free agency. There are just too many things that can go wrong. You end up taking on a ton of risk, for the possibility of a ten to fifteen discount over a long period of time.

    3. Funn Dave

      Definitely. Jeff bet on himself going into this season, and thus far it has not been a great gamble.

    4. 70'scub

      Ejax already has his job 105 pitches 5 innings!

  6. dying cubs fan's last request

    Getting sweep by the Marlins at home would have been ugly.

  7. Herp A. Derp

    I guess the offense didn’t hear the boobirds saying were no good this year!!! Cubs fan for 40 years (my whole life); your not a true fan if you say anything negative

    1. 1060Ivy

      Assuming the Cubs finish off the year at 67 – 95 – basically the Cubs continue winning / losing about the same rate for the remainder of the season – the last 4 Cub seasons will have generated the most Cub losses of any 4 season period going back to 1874.

      For the last 4 years under Ricketts ownership, the Cubs win % is 42% that’s the second worst win % of any subsequent 4 seasons in Cub history.

      I’ve been a Cubs fan for well over 40 years and a season ticket holder for over 10 years, what this organization has put out as a MLB product is an embarrassment to the city of Chicago, Cub fans and to Cubs history.

      1. willis

        Well said Ivy. This regime has been a dud thus far. And yesterday I was trying to be positive about some things, but skepticism is starting to come around in regards to their efforts at the big league level. Something has to give.

      2. DarthHater

        “what this organization has put out as a MLB product is an embarrassment to the city of Chicago, Cub fans and to Cubs history.”

        Yea, the current rebuilding effort is a lot more embarrassing than the Cubs’ proud history of 104 years without a World Series title.

        1. turn two

          I don’t think comments like this can be responded to with quips like this one. Too many people have begun to take any criticism on this site and come up with 1 liners and no evidence to support their own positions. I happen to believe in the front office but even so, points like iveys are becoming fair. We have thrown away a half a decade and to show for it, we have a crap load of lottery tickets. I happen to think it will work for us, but its not fair to disregard those who look at this and say, minor league lottery tickets arent enough. Seats are emptying, payroll is dying and we are banking on kids ranging in age from 16-19 to save it all.

          Again, i trust the plan and see waves of minor league talent, not just one or two guys and i like the plan.however, the blatant disregard for peoples opinions from some regulars on the site is getting tiresome.

          1. DarthHater

            I expressed the idea that I think it is silly to condemn an ongoing rebuilding effort by contrasting the W-L record during the rebuild with the proud history of a team that has not won in over a century. I find your blatant disregard for my opinion to be tiresome. I also find your blatant disregard for the fact that I made my point concisely to be laughable.

            1. turn two

              Your “point” was that a fan can’t expect anything from a team that hasnt won in a long time and that is what is laughable. I don’t care if we haven’t win in 1 year or 1000 years. If a fan doesn’t think that a team isnt doing enough to win win, then they can criticize it.

              1. DarthHater

                I never remotely said that a fan can’t expect anything from a team that hasn’t won in a long time. Nor did I say anything against thinking that the team isn’t doing enough to win. I did suggest that, after 104 straight years of losing, a little patience with the present rebuild might be in order- even if it is painful. So thanks for your kind thoughts, but please don’t try to tell me what my point was, Kreskin.

              2. Herp A. Derp

                You not a fan if you criticize, turn two. Did you just turn two lol?? Look it up in wester’s dictionary, a fan sticks thru and thru and supports his team. I don’t care abt money issues of the owners; I support them bc they own the cubs’s players and wrigley field (best stadium in the world. bar. none.) and we can win with a 70M salary (hello rays) or a 200M salary (hello dodgers). We won today didn’t we??? Journey of a million miles (162 games + playoffs) starts with a single step (beating team with some great young players and seeing our core built by this owners shine).

          2. Trueblue

            Well said turn two.

      3. Edwin

        Then stop being a season ticket holder. Or just get over it.

    2. RY

      not a true fan if you say anything negative, that’s bull, this isn’t Pleasantville!

  8. jmc

    dear oh dear. What will we talk about now that baseball is winding down in Tennessee Iowa Kane County.looks today fans at wrigley are finally getting a clue that theo is telling us the truth fo is not planning to put competitive major league team in Wrigley for years to come.don’t buy tickets

    1. Hansman1982

      Really? You’re basing this off the September roster of a team that is so far out of contention 12 other team planes would have to crash into each other in order for them to make the playoffs?

  9. Mush

    Gregg must be coming back next year. Why else would he still be FREAKING closing?

  10. Die hard

    A marlin almost had a shark snack

  11. mike

    Question. Will some serious fan estimate what our loss record would be without Mr Kevin Gregg?

    1. Edwin

      Maybe one more wins than what we have now. Maybe even less wins. Probably about the same.

      As a team, the Cubs have pitched about 1241 innings this season. Gregg makes up 51 of those innings, or about 4%. In those innings, he has an ERA of 3.17, while letting up 20 runs. Unless you’re replacing Gregg with Rivera, you’re not moving the needle much.

  12. BlameHendry

    With each and every start, Shark’s rejection of the Cubs team-friendly contract offer looks worse for him and better for us. I bet he’s really kicking himself now.

    1. turn two

      False, he will make a fortune

      1. Eternal Pessimist

        False…he will make less of a fortune than he would have…and still might get injured before he gets a chance at that big contract.

  13. Funn Dave

    Castro’s average is slowly creeping into the realm of near-acceptability….

    1. Bret Epic

      I can see an improvement in his game overall. He looks more confident overall, maybe even more focused.

    2. willis

      Hmmm, I wonder why? Sometimes a kid is just a good hitter. And those don’t just grow on trees. Thankfully his confidence and his average are creeping back up. Good for him, this organization needs it.

    3. Jason P

      Acceptable range for Castro has to at least be .270 with his limited OBP skills and fringe-average power.

  14. jmc

    Tom Ricketts told his daddy that the Cubs make money even when they lose. So the ricketts trust buys the Cubs in a highly leveraged deal. We are then told every dollar goes back onto the field only to learn that most of the money coming and is not going to the field services the debt. Theo tells Cub fans be patient maybe they will have an interesting major leagur club in a couple of years. lots of teenagers to watch in other states.geez, we don’t even get any chewing gum with these owners

    1. DarthHater

      In all fairness, I don’t think the Wrigley family ever gave away a free stick of gum, did they?

      1. TWC

        Well, yeah, actually, they did. That’s how their gum empire started! The Wrigley company was a baking powder company when they started giving away gum as a freebie. Before long, folks were buying the powder just for the gum.

        1. DarthHater

          Well, there you go. Boy am I glad I included that “did they?” at the end of my comment. :-P

          1. TWC

            Well, now you know. And knowing IS half the battle.

            1. miggy80

              G.I. Joe!!!!!!!!!

    2. Pat

      Actually, what he said was that the money would go back into the organization. Which appears to be true. There are plenty of things you could get on Ricketts about, but what he said doesn’t seem to be a lie.

  15. Blublud

    Hansman, I know you are into advanced metrics, but to say Batting Average is useless is a very ignorant statement. Batting Average is not everything, but it definitely not useless. In fact, batting average is one of the more important stats.

    I think “advance metrics” are starting to take the baseball out of baseball. Its getting to the point where owners might as well fire the entire FO, managers and hire a bunch of computers.

    1. jon

      Lol, ok Hawk

      1. Jason P

        Do you ever make a comment that isn’t meant to sarcastically ridicule someone else’s opinion?

        1. jon

          A statement like “just hire a bunch of computers” is worthy of ridicule and long has been used as an ad-hominem attack against the sabremetric movement

          1. Jason P

            I just looked on the pregame post and your comments ranged from correcting someones grammar to retorting your mental midget line about Samardzija to a sarcastic all-caps comment “HOW DARE THEY SIT BABE WATKINS IN FAVOR OF DONNIE MURPHY!” to an argument with a troll to 1 actual honest comment about the Cubs.

            “Lol, ok Hawk” shouldn’t by any means be enough to hurt anyone’s feelings, but it’s exactly 1-liners like “lol, ok Hawk” that ruin comment boards.

            And if “just hire a bunch of computers” isn’t ad-hominem. It’s Reductio ad absurdum.

        2. MichiganGoat

          Are we really at the point when bustin each others balls is now so bad that we have to protest and complain over hurt feelings? It was funny, Blu basically used Hawks TWTW argument. Sometimes it’s okay to have fun.

          1. Blublud

            MG, I not against advanced metrics, I just don’t like how guys who are for them think they are everything. Any anyone who think hustle and heart are not a part of baseball, should not be allowed to watch the sport.

            1. MichiganGoat

              That’s fine if you want to believe in hustle and heart but those words have nothing to do with BA.

          2. DarthHater

            Note to self: never get into a ball bustin match with a goat. :-p

            1. MichiganGoat

              Hoofs hurt buddy ;)

              1. DarthHater

                I was actually more worried about the horns. :-o

    2. Hansman1982

      “. In fact, batting average is one of the more important stats.”

      Umm, Batting Average is the poorest of triple slash stats in correlating with runs scored and is the poorest of the “talent” stats at correlating with itself year over year. Tell me why I should think a stat that doesn’t correlate very well to anything should be respected? BA is a lot like RBIs to me, neat but blah

      In terms of taking the baseball out of baseball, there was on e a time where BA, RBI, W-L had the same thing said about them. I love baseball more today than I ever have so I understand they aren’t you’re cup of tea but the “advanced” stats do a better job of describing a players talents, abilities and production than the archaic stats of BA and RBIs.

      1. Blublud

        RBI I agree with. RBI is a circumstantial (I think its the right word) stat. The hitter can’t control it. To say a players BA doesn’t effect how many runs a team scores is dumb. I guess if 2 guys with a 10% walk rate and a 20% SO rate, but one is hitting .340 and one is hitting .220, I assuming you think the guy hitting .340 is not going to help his team score more runs.

        1. MichiganGoat

          So why not use a better stat like OBP or SLG than keep looking at BA? Is it because you’ve just gotten use to it? You don’t even need BA when you look at OBP just use that.

          1. Blublud

            So since we can just use OBP, I guess walk rate doesn’t mean anything either, since it effects OBP. BA is very important because it is the main factor in OBP. There is nothing that contributes to OBP more then BA. Plus if 2 guys have the same OBP, give me the guy with the higher BA, as he’ll probably create more runs for his team. See, that alone proves its not useless. Like I said, not the most important, but definitely not useless.

            1. MichiganGoat

              So combine it with SLG and use OPS which gives you a much better picture than BA gives you and these perfect hypotheticals you keep trying to create aren’t real and OPS will always give you a better predictor than BA can provide.

            2. hansman1982

              That’s why wOBA is such a great stat. It combines everything that is great about BA, OBP AND SLG and properly weights everything a batter can do AND is correlates well with RS.

          2. jt

            SLG is nice but advanced guys refine it by use ISO. They take the BA out of it. Why don’t they take something out of out of BA? Because it is elemental (atomic), it ain’t a compilation of stuff.
            A high ISO is nice but if the BA is real low to begin with then maybe it doesn’t mean that much… see Scott Hairston.
            Adam Dunn vs Joey Votto through age 30…. are they the same offensive player?

        2. DarthHater

          Obviously, if you hold everything equal except BA, then the player with the higher BA is going to contribute more to his team. But I think the point is that, because all other stats aren’t equal, a player with a .220 BA may (if his OBP and iso power are high enough) actually create more runs for his team than are created by a player with a .340 BA. That doesn’t make BA meaningless, but because of its historical importance it often is given greater weight than is warranted by its actual contribution to the creation of runs.

        3. Luke

          Hans isn’t saying that BA has no effect on total scoring, he’s saying it has the lowest correlation of the triple slash stats with scoring.

          You can check this yourself. Pick any year in the modern era of baseball, load the stats for that year into your favorite spreadsheet program, look up how to run a correlation in that program, and check the correlation coefficient for BA, OBP, and SLG with runs scored. BA comes in last.

          I think there are a couple threads in the message boards where more step by step directions are provided on how to do exactly this.

          1. Blublud

            How is that. BA effects every stat. Slg, OBP, OPS, and every other stat. There is a reason that most guys who are at the top of the league in those stats are also at the top in BA.

            1. MichiganGoat

              Just do the math Blu and then come back and see if your preconceived notions still stand. Please just do the science.

            2. Luke

              Get set up to play with the numbers yourself and start experimenting.

              The best way to answer that question (How is that) is to pick a theory (because singles matter less than extra base hits but batting average treats them all the same?), and then dive in and see what the numbers say. Things will make a lot more sense once you start to work the numbers yourself than they do just from reading what a few of the rest of us type.

              LibreOffice and Baseball Reference will get you going, but to do the really interesting stuff (the stuff Doc talks about from time to time) you’ll probably want to move up to R or PSPP.

              1. chrisfchi

                I use BA for a simple stat, and maybe there’s an advance stat for it, I don’t know. To me BA tells me a basic percentage the hitter will reach a base safely after making contact with the ball and putting it into play safely. I know base running errors can fudge the stat and award the hitter for a base hit even thou they were out at the next base. In my opinion BA is just a good baseline to figure a hitters worth.

                1. MichiganGoat

                  Just use OPS if you want a simple stat, it’s much more predictive and gets rid of all the problems of BA. But unfortunately as long as BA is what the basic box score highlights it will still be looked at and discussed more and I hope that eventually changes.

                  1. chrisfchi

                    What I am looking for is how well a hitter can put the ball in play via contact and reach base safely. Adding OBP, which includes walks, doesn’t tell me how much of a percentage the hitter will reach base safely off contact. Best example is if the guy us hitting .385 and his OBP is .385, then that hitter has no patience at the plate and will only reach via contact. But if the guy hits .240 but has an OBP of .885 that hitter will look for a certain pitch and will either walk most the time or make some contact to get on base.

                    1. hansman1982

                      Frankly, when figuring how effective a guy is at getting on base, only look at OBP. If you want to know how well a guy puts the ball into play, look at SLG.

                      If you want to know how good a guy is at the plate in general (in reality how often they put the ball in play is peanuts vs. what they offer at the plate), look at OPS if you want something that is easy to find in a bunch of different places, that is if you hate Fangraphs so much you can’t go there.

                    2. bbmoney

                      Ops is ok, but I think it’s better to consider them separately. A point of each is worth different amounts, and frankly thy have different denominators so the math……. Well you know………

                    3. hansman1982

                      Ya, I used to be on that train but wOBA (which weights everything “correctly”) and OPS both correlate about the same with runs scored that I use them nearly interchangeably.

                  2. jt

                    again, I get what you are sayin’ and I agree.
                    But the BA does say something about the hitter and should not be just tossed out with the bathwater.
                    Are there better stats to use as a quick filter?
                    yeah, many. But are quick filters all that much fun and all that informative?
                    I just feel that guys like blublud can learn to read the whole package and maybe already do so.

                    1. hansman1982

                      If it says something about the hitter then it should correlate well with itself year over year, correct? Well, from 1955-2012, it was one of the WORST stats at doing so. It only beat out BABIP, triples+doubles rate and doubles rate.

                      What is really telling about that is that the two stats most directly related to generically putting the ball in play are two of the four WORST stats at correlating with themselves.

                      Since they don’t correlate with themselves very well, we can safely assume they don’t do a good job of measuring a hitters talent.

                2. MichiganGoat

                  Just to consider would you rather have a player that has a BA of .338 or .298? Or a player that has a OPS of 1.051 or .847? Yes they are both great numbers but which one is more impressive and predictive?

                  1. chrisfchi

                    By those numbers an OPS of 1.051 is the better overall batter. If I’m looking solely at hits that put the man on base safely, I will use BA.

                    1. bbmoney

                      Why would you look at that?

                    2. hansman1982

                      So a single is worth the same amount to you as a home run? Each put the man on base safely.

                    3. chrisfchi

                      Simply put if a hitter has the skill to manipulate his swing so a ball goes thru a gap, or can go over the fence then BA is there for that.

                    4. hansman1982

                      Ahhh, but 99% of the major league batters don’t have that skill.


                      This study (and similar ones like it have been conducted numerous times) debunks the idea that batters really can control where they ball lands as evidenced by items like BABIP, AVG, doubles rate, non-HR XBH rates don’t correlate very well as compared to raw power stats like HR rates and the contact/batting eye skill of K rate.

              2. jt

                I get what what you are saying. And I argee… but…
                Eddie Mathews was a life 0.374 OBP guy and Aaron was at 0.376.
                My eyeball look at their ISO is Mathews 0.238 and Aaron 0.250
                Aaron is a first row HOF’er and Mathews is probably in the 2nd row.
                I don’t believe that is because Aaron had almost 4000 more PA’s. Otherwise Mantle and Williams would also be in the 2nd row.
                Mathews took the BB more often and Aaron more often the hit. The BB is valuable; the hit more so. Eddie M a 0.276 Avg hitter and Hank a 0.305 lifer.
                Votto through age 30 has been better than Dunn was through age 30.

                1. hansman1982

                  You’re right, Votto was a better offensive player than Dunn and Votto beats Dunn in all of the triple slash categories AND wOBA.

                  The only thing Dunn beats Votto in is BB%. Dunn had a better batting eye than Votto but was hampered by his ability to make contact as evidenced by their K rates.

                  1. jt

                    Votto entered MLB at age 23 but really had his first full season age 24. Votto is finishing up his age 29 season. I previously limited Dunn’s stats to age 30. But to be fair it should be limited to age 29.
                    Add in Votto’s MiLB numbers ages 21, 22, 23. Dunn was already accumulating MLB numbers at those ages. I’m not asking that they be adjusted. I’m just asking that they be included. That brings Votto’s OBP down. It is probable still better but the age dependent difference will not be that great.
                    Do you prefer ISO or SLG? Because the difference between their SLG in that period is BA.

  16. cubfanincardinalland

    Kris Bryant doubles home two, CJ Edwards perfect thru 3 with 6 k’s. These boys ain’t bad.

    1. another JP

      Guys like Bryant, Edwards, Black, Encarnacion, & Blackburn are showing what they’re made of in these playoffs. All are definitely on their way to the next level in 2014. But I’m a bit disappointed with Underwood to this point… guy was a high risk, high reward pick and hasn’t done much to this point. Certainly not ready for prime time tonight.

  17. William

    I love Ryan Sweeney’s approach at the plate and hope we bring him back. He seems like a great bench option for us.

  18. Boccabella12

    Luke: do you know whether the advanced stats give any guidance on when to pull a starter? Dale let Shark pitch through trouble for a win three starts ago, and that worked, but leaving him in the last two starts to work through trouble went badly — the blow-up in the 6th against Philadelphia and the grand slam today. I lean towards yanking a starter who has thrown a lot of pitches at the first signs of trouble, like a quick walk or a couple baserunners. Dale seems to want to let the starter sink or swim, at least if it’s Shark. Is there any evidence either way in the numbers?

  19. hansman1982

    Ok, this is a question for the general audience:

    Who in the hell decided that we were going to base something off an arbitrary number? Seriously, why on earth are there AB’s?

    Why remove some PA for a batter, not really base that on any apparent scientific selection criteria, and then divide hits by that number?

    1. cub2014

      w/o AB average would be penalized for
      walks,hbp and sacrifices. Is that what
      you meant or was that sarcasm?

      1. hansman1982

        Ok, but why remove walks, hbp, sacrifices?

        It’s a serious question that honestly baffles me.

        Had they just set it up as H/PA, we would just have a different standard for what a good BA would be

        1. cub2014

          thats what obp is.

        2. Cubbie Blues

          Imagine what Carlos Pena’s BA would be doing it that way. Someone with a high BB% would get killed in that stat.

          1. hansman1982

            I see what you are saying but what is the point if we have to start removing things to make it seem more even.

            1. cub2014

              should be a stat for meaningless RBI’s. i remember
              sammy getting alot of those where we were way
              ahead or behind. you know clutch stats for RBI’s

              like tonight in boston

              1. hansman1982

                There is a stat for that, it’s called RBI. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I AM CLEVER!!!!

        3. chrisfchi

          That’s pretty much what I’m looking for. Let’s say I want to know how well the hitter is a run producer solely by him reaching base safely. Why not divide RBI with OPS?

          1. bbmoney

            Come again? RBI / OPS? What’s the logic?

            1. chrisfchi

              If I am correct(and if I’m not please explain) OPS basically is the stat used for every attempt the hitter has to reach base safely(hbp,bb,hit) and he happens to plate a run off of one of those(rbi) then wouldn’t dividing those give you a percentage of how well the hitter plates a run while reaching base safely?

              (this is why I don’t dive into advance stats)

              1. hansman1982

                “and he happens to plate a run off of one of those”

                There lies your answer. Obtaining an RBI is, mostly, pure chance. The batter has zero control over what happens in anything but their PA and I’d be hard pressed to find too many guys who are positively or negatively impacted by a RISP situation.

                Once the ball leaves the pitchers hand, training and skills take over.

                1. chrisfchi

                  “Once the ball leaves the pitchers hand, training and skills take over.”

                  Then the hitter should have the skill and training to know if he should swing a lil late or early to manipulate the direction of the balls flight, thus allowing him to hit thru gaps or holes in the defense. Raw power will determine the distance.

                  1. MichiganGoat

                    Yes and that’s where SLG becomes a good stat

                    1. miggy80

                      Dam Goat you and Hans still at it? Dam!

                  2. cub2014

                    a hitter can certainly manipulate the direction
                    at which he hits the ball. some better than others
                    who would question that?

                    1. hansman1982

                      I don’t argue that they can marginally control which general direction they can control their hit but to say a good hitter can control it more than LF/RF when they are really trying to is a stretch.

                      No hitter ever (sans Ted Williams, maybe, well, probably not) has been able to direct a screaming liner into the gap as opposed to at the defender. If so, someone would have had a batting average well over .500.

                2. Hawkeye

                  Kyle- first off let me say I despite of the fact that your sometime somewhat pretentious in your posts I do generally like them and feel there informative. Now in this particular instance I’m not interested in learning about your cited expression. I want to you to expand in how there is no such thing as clutch.

                  1. Kyle

                    I don’t have to. I just have to keep proving your arguments for why it exists to be fallacious.

                    You just committed the fallacy of a false burden of proof.

                    1. hansman1982

                      Boom, great article about “clutch”:


                      If you want statistical evidence:


                      Ok, now prove this wrong.

                  2. Hawkeye

                    Obviously you don’t have to do anything. There’s no court order here, you obviously feel very strongly that clutch does not exist. I simply asked some question in order to better understand why option are so convinced.

                    1. Kyle

                      Because people who understand science and logic have been looking for proof that it exists for years, and hundreds of such searches have found nothing.

                      We’ve looked where it should be, and it’s not there, so we can safely assume it doesn’t exist unless someone comes along with a *really* compelling reason to believe it does.

                      Not only that, but science has also taught us all sorts of interesting things about the human brain and *why* it wants to believe in things like clutchiness even when it doesn’t exist. Things like the fundamental attribution bias color our perception and make us want to believe in clutch.

                    2. hansman1982

                      To be fair, clutch does exist, for normal people. However, for baseball players (and the top .00001% of any field) it is such a flat curve so as to not exist.

                      To put it another way, a bowling ball creates an indentation in a bed compared to a regular marble. A marble and a pea do not create different indentations.

                    3. DocPeterWimsey

                      Here is what does it for me: if “clutch” is real, then there should be strong correlations between different types of “clutch” performances. After all, “pressure” is the common denominator. However, there isn’t. It is not just that BAwRiSP position does not predict itself in the future, it also does not predict BA or OBP in high leverage situations from the sme interval, at least for batters.

                    4. Eternal Pessimist

                      “We’ve looked where it should be, and it’s not there, so we can safely assume it doesn’t exist unless someone comes along with a *really* compelling reason to believe it does.”

                      I would agree that there is some significant data out there against “clutchiness”, but as with all science/studies the conclusion may suffer from the study set up. For instance, the definition of “clutch” situations must be taken into account.

                      What if we Donny Baseball continues his hot homer streak and wins us some games at the end of the year? Isn’t this a low pressure situation relative to fighting for a playoff spot? So what if Rizzo hits an 8th inning RBI double when the game is already in hand or out of reach.

                      This evidence helps, but is by no means definitive.

              2. MichiganGoat

                Okay I think you are making a mistake between OBP (on base percentage), SLG (slugging percentage), and OPS (adding both OBP and SLG together). So are you asking about on base percentage or OPS?

              3. bbmoney

                You are not correct. The stat you describe is on base percentage aka OBP. OPS = OBP + SLG.

                But putting in Rbis doesn’t add anything. You would penalize a guy for hitting 1st or 8th. Or penalizing a guy whose teammates suck and aren’t in scoring position for him. There’s nothing 1 guy can do to make sure guys in front of him get on base.

                1. chrisfchi

                  “OPS basically is the stat used for every attempt the hitter has to reach base safely(hbp,bb,hit)”

                  My point being is when determining how well the hitter plates a run and reaches safely (using a %) has to be determined by dividing OPS and RBI.

                  1. chrisfchi

                    Ok, got off my rear and did some math. I now see the flaw in my logic. Example .800 OPS divided by 100 RBI gives you a number of .008. So by that I’m told the hitter will score a run 1/8000 of the time. That’s some bad math.

                    1. MichiganGoat

                      Exactly BetterMath never results in good results.

                    2. MichiganGoat

                      And since you were talking about OBP not OPS the number would be even lower.

                    3. chrisfchi

                      Yeah got a lil off my original thought there. Damn you good whiskey!

                  2. MichiganGoat

                    No because an RBI is dependent of a previous batter being on base. So if the bases are empty and he hits a triple there is no RBI but say that same player scores when the next batter slaps a single and gets the RBI. So which batter has more value?

                    1. Hawkeye

                      “That’s not how knowledge works”. So Kyle you can statistically prove that there have been no players that perform better in “clutch” situations. Because even in Doc’s summary the other day (which was good), it was focused on a teams statistics not a individual player. Which does make more sense as the odds off gathering a entire group of players who perform slightly better under pressure is low. I am to believe that Babe ruth,with a career postseason .647 OBP in the postseason and Alex Rodriguez with a career .369 OBP in the postseason were equally affected by high pressure situations.

                    2. Kyle

                      Are you familiar with the phrase “post hoc ergo prompter hoc”?’

                      Because that’s the logical fallacy you just employed.

                  3. cub2014

                    what would be a good stat is RBI’s
                    produced compared to runners in
                    scoring position. You know clutch
                    RBI’s. We do have a stat for lead
                    taking and game winning RBI’s dont
                    here much about it though.

                    1. hansman1982

                      what is defined as clutch though? Doc pointed out that BA with RISP doesn’t correlate well with how a hitter does in close and late.

                      The reason you don’t hear much about those RBIs is because that would weight an extra-inning game-winning HR the same as a 1st inning sac fly that put the team ahead.

                      In traditional thinking, the former requires more clutch than the latter.

                    2. turn two

                      Anyone who doesn’t believe in clutch, explain for me the curious case of mark lemke.

                    3. bbmoney

                      I’d rather you explain to me why every statistical analysis of clutch at the mlb level shows its basically non-existent. Makes more sense to o that way.

                    4. bbmoney

                      To go* that way.

                    5. Hawkeye

                      This is a perfect example to me of how some can take the advanced too far. “Clutch” has been said on this board to be statistically proven non existent. But I think any rationale person would admit that certainly some people do better under pressure than others. So why would baseball be any different. Also I think Docs was more in regards to entire teams being “clutch”, I am too lazy to start looking players up but I can guarantee you some players numbers are better in w/risp or in tie games, etc. than others.

                    6. Kyle

                      “So why would baseball be any different.”

                      This is not how knowledge works. You can’t just look at the world and shrug and say “well, this makes sense to me, so no need to observe or test or do anything.”

                      There are any number of reasons why baseball might be different, and it’s even possible that your base assumption is wrong.

                    7. hansman1982

                      What’s so special about Mark Lemke?

                    8. miggy80

                      He was a Brave and his nick name was “Little Man Lemke”

                    9. hansman1982

                      Also, if clutch is a thing, why doesn’t Capt. Clutch (Derek Jeter) do better than career average in clutch situations?

                      If you average out the difference between his career OPS and his “clutch” (as defined by B-Ref and removing their >trailing 4 runs (only because it was such a negative)) OPS you find that he has performed AT career norms.

                      I have yet to encounter more than “well, some people just do better” arguments for clutch.

                    10. hansman1982

                      “He was a Brave and his nick name was “Little Man Lemke””


          2. hansman1982

            Because RBIs are driven by OPS and the OBP of the preceding batters. They really aren’t a stat that shows a skill that other stats can’t describe more effectively.

            To a casual fan, sure, look at RBIs. Generally, the good hitters will have a lot of them and the bad hitters will have few of them. However, you aren’t a casual fan (or else you wouldn’t be debating on a Cubs blog about all of this).

            1. chrisfchi

              I just want the truth!

              (maybe I can’t handle.the.truth :) )

              1. hansman1982

                Meh, you’re on the right path. Just keep reading about sabermetrics and why they are useful.

                1. Hawkeye

                  hansman1982– so your opinion on BA is its pretty much meaningless? I’m not trying to be a smart as here but what your opinion on Tony Gwynn and Ted Williams, etc. don’t you think a continuous high BA seems to be pretty telling of great hitters.

                  1. hansman1982

                    Ted Williams also has the 2nd highest career OPS+ and Tony Gwynn is really good at 132.

                    I just described both of them as great hitters AND put their performance into the context of the era they played in by using 1 number.

                    BA can’t do that.

                  2. Luke

                    Ted Williams had way more than just a high batting average. His career OBP of .482 and a career SLG of .634. That guy managed to walk at an unbelievable career pace of 20.6%. I’d argue his batting average is his least impressive stat, not his most impressive.

                    Tony Gwynn’s greatness, I’d argue is in his career strikeout rate more than his batting average. For his career his K rate was just 4.2%. His OBP and SLG weren’t super impressive, but 4.2% walk rate over 10,000 trips to the plate? That’s crazy.

                    1. jt

                      It could be argued that Gwynn had such a low K rate because he had such a good BA. That is to say perhaps he hit the ball into fair grounds early in the count.
                      Subtract 50 points off his BA and his OBP shrinks to a just useful OF’er.
                      But would you trade him for Eddie Yost who had a career OBP of 0.394 over 9175 PA’s?

                    2. hansman1982

                      Ahh, but statistical research shows us that K rates are much more of a skill than BA. Therefore:

                      It could be (more easily) argued that Gwynn had such a good BA because he had such a low K rate (and therefore) made contact on more pitches.

                    3. Rebuilding

                      Looking at Gwynn on Baseball Reference he sure had a strange aging curve. He was very good ages 24-27 and then he regressed to good, but unspectacular from ages 28-32 (averaged about a 790 OPS those years). Then all of a sudden at age 33 he just exploded through age 37 and really until he retired at 41. Given his physique no one ever really mentioned him in the steroid era or with amphetamines. But that is an odd leap to take in 1994 at age 34

                    4. Hawkeye

                      I understand that Ted Williams was much more than just batting average. My question is really more that it seems to me that more times then not good hitters have good averages. I read fangraphs as well, and understand its merit but also feel that some oversabermetric the hell out of things. There’s a ton of advanced metrics we can look at and the trendy thing now is to discount traditional stats. For example I read often read “he has an unsustainably high/low BABIP” as if that’s all luck. Now I can guarantee you that Miguel Cabreras BABIP is always going to be higher then Darwin Barney’s. Now we can argue the value of simply getting hits, but to me BA is still a pretty good indicator of a hitter.

                    5. miggy80

                      age 35 Tony Gwynn 535 AB 15 SO WoW!

                    6. hansman1982

                      See, you don’t really understand BABIP, then. One guy could have a .400 BABIP and it be completely unsustainable and “lucky”. A different guy could have a .400 BABIP and it be perfectly sustainable. It depends on what their normal BABIP is. From research we know that players tend to congregate around .300.

                      True, good hitters can have a high BA, they can also have a low BA or just an average BA. Carlos Pena is prime example #1 of this. Good hitter, terrible BA. He even went so far as to put up over 1.000 OPS in a season with an average just above average.

                      Would you rather have Player A with his .282 BA, Player B with his .289 BA or Player C with his .289 BA?

                      According to BA, all three of these guys are separated by a total of 7 base hits out of every 1000 PA (or 4.5 hits per 650 PA/season). Statisically the same, right?

                      Player A was 2007 Carlos Pena with his 1.037 OPS (I really wasn’t trying to make him the lowest BA, it’s just tough thinking of other guys to make my point)

                      Player B was 2009 Aramis Ramirez with his .905 OPS

                      Player C was 2013 Tony Campana with his .755 OPS

                      I am sure if I spent more than 3 minutes finding names I could find a ton of guys who posted a similar BA to 2007 Carlos Pena or 2009 Aramis Ramirez but posted TERRIBLE OPS figures.

                      BA =/= Runs Scored (the ultimate goal of an offense) OPS and wOBA do so much better of a job telling you how good a player is on offense it’s like asking a 1st grader to do college level math.

                    7. Hawkeye

                      No, I up understand BABIP fine. First off good hitter is a general term, which is open up to the beholder views of hitting. I realize a single isn’t as good as a double, etc. but I personally don’t think Carlos Pena was a ” good” hitter. I think he has been north of 180 strikeouts before. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good valuable, player as he took walks, had power, played good defense.

                    8. hansman1982

                      Well, I just debunked that BA can be used to tell you how good a player is and that is your response? That Pena (a player with a career 119 OPS +) wasn’t a “good” hitter?

                      I mean, he didn’t have good contact skills as evidenced by his high K rate, but the league has been 19 worse than him, on average, at the plate in the 2nd best stat at correlating with runs scored. He was a good hitter and if you give me a team with 8 Carlos Pena’s and you are going to have a damn good offense.

                    9. hansman1982

                      19 percent, btw.

            2. jt

              “They really aren’t a stat that shows a skill that other stats can’t describe more effectively.”
              This is true… very true.
              but are those stats as easy to reference and understand by the casual fan?
              It’s a 90 degree day
              it’s hot
              the humidity is 2%
              well hot but not so bad
              there is a 15 mph breeze
              there is also a lot of shade and the beer is cold
              Info goes from general to specific.
              Hey, we got brains… we can figure it out.

              1. jt

                “It could be (more easily) argued that Gwynn had such a good BA because he had such a low K rate (and therefore) made contact on more pitches.”
                I suppose; but the purpose is not to suppose.
                Stats such as his swing and miss rate and how often he batted with 2 strikes would tell a more complete tale if it were an important consideration.
                Where we conflict is your desire to find a single stat that defines a guy’s worth. I believe the story lies in the details that requires an artistic touch to bring to clarity.

                1. hansman1982

                  I agree with you, there isn’t a single stat that tells the whole story of a player. Each stat tells a portion of the story, some stats tell giant parts of the story with a lot of detail. Others give you a 5 second overview. Some just give you the names of the main characters.

                  If we want to discuss players’ value on a blog about baseball, it isn’t too much to ask for people to look at a singular stat that tells you the summary with detail over a stat that gives you one of the main character’s names.

                  1. jt

                    “If we want to discuss players’ value on a blog about baseball, it isn’t too much to ask for people to look at a singular stat that tells you the summary with detail over a stat that gives you one of the main character’s names.”
                    Yes, it is too much to ask. By definition you have multi variables acting independently that converge on a single result. Those variables can change in an infinite number of ways and still yield that result. Hell, there may not even be the slightest linear relations ship twixt any of the variables.
                    Then there is the possibility of a quantum change. What happens if Starlin keeps his ass over his feet and quits the lunge. He has been doing it the last week. Will he keep it up. If so is he a changed batter?
                    Find a single stat to describe the chances that Bard will contribute?
                    Yes, it is too much to ask.

        4. cub2014

          i think obp should include “reached on
          an error” to youre on base %. Errors arent
          totally random speed (skill) can create
          defensive errors

          1. hansman1982

            But the number of errors solely caused by speed are so incredibly low that you would be giving far too many guys credit for something they had no way of influencing.

            Do you think that Yadier Molina has ever reached base on an error caused by speed? (unless the opposing player was on speed, then there might be a couple)

            1. cub2014

              reached by error is random same as line drive
              outs and bloop singles. if the runner reaches base
              without an out recorded it should be included

              1. bbmoney

                It’s mostly random, but I’d argue not entirely. Speed on ground balls helps create some errors.

                1. cub2014

                  errors are not entirely random speed does create a certain % of those as I said earlier. My point is many stats in baseball are random. For OBP reached by error should be included, same as
                  a loop single or swinging bunt count.

                  1. cub2014

                    bloop single

    2. jt

      “Why remove some PA for a batter,”
      for the same reason HR’s are removed from BAbip.
      BA is looking at outcomes during a specific set of circumstances.
      How does temperature vary when volume is held constant and pressure is changed.
      The partials tell something about the gas that uncontrolled experimentation does not.
      BA is different than OBP. SLG is different than ISO. The K rate taken solo does not tell the same story as the K/BB rates.
      The chemist is looking for many types of energy in a gas. The stats guy is looking for various types of potential from a batters numbers.

    3. Hawkeye

      First thanks for the link. I will read it. Basically to me it come down to this to me. I’ve read other articles (not the one you linked, again thanks) that basically say there is no proof of “clutch”, then they go onto list marginal players who performed better than their particular norm. Then I wind up asking myself doesn’t this kind of mean Bill Spier (or whatever marginal player they reference) was good in high pressue situations. Now do i feel clutch obviously overused in sports in general, including baseball. Absolutely. But if I had to come up for a term that described Reggie Jackson’s World Series performances, I don’t think Clutch would be out of line. The guy had 10 Home Runs in in around 30 ABs. Also we’re trying to argue using Science a something that isn’t a specific. It’s kind of like saying “there’s no such thing as Awesome.” It’s simply a term, I can’t prove awesome exists because it means something different to everyone.

      1. hansman1982

        The Baseball Prosepctus link I gave you, I think you’ll like it. It says that clutch performances exist but not clutch performers.

        What advanced study of baseball stats has taught us, though, is that nearly anything is possible in a small sample size. In any given ~30 PA, a typical “good” player could go 30-30 with 30 HR or could get 30 Ks. In saying that clutch exists we would expect that “clutch” players would significantly raise their performance over the span of their career in “clutch” situations. Through study of past performances, this has not happened, therefore, it is so unlikely to happen as to be able to call it impossible (like saying that it is impossible that 2 stars would collide when galaxies merge (it’s not really possible, in case you are wondering due to the distances involved(sure it has probably happened a few times since the origin of the universe, but comeon))).

        Since we can safely say that we would expect a “clutch” player 1 out of 100,000+ times, we can safely say that clutch doesn’t exist for players that are capable of performing in MLB.

      2. Hawkeye

        One last thing here. I don’t feel that certain “clutch” examples are really clutch situations. As I really don’t feel that the average MLB really feels a great deal of additional pressure in a RISP situation during game 84 on a Tuesday afternoon. Im not even sure a game winning RBI opportunity in the 9th of a 162 game season really is enough to significantly effect stress levels. I do feel that during Game 7 of the World Series, pressure would be a pretty important variable for certain,if not all, players. Again it depends on the use of clutch.

  20. cub2014

    Black throws no hits last night and Edwards is no
    hitting through 5, clutch.

    1. willis

      Edwards 5 IP, 0H, 8K, 1BB…that’s a hell of a line. Kid has skills.

      1. willis

        And Kris Bryant hitting a cool .800 for the series…whoops, didn’t mean to mention BA. My bad.

        1. hansman1982

          HA! You a-hole…oops, we aren’t supposed to use naughty-no-no words around here since this place is turning into a trash heap.

          1. willis

            I wonder if we implemented (or Ace did) a no-cuss rule. How long could we all go before breaking it? And what would be the punishment. There should be a prize for whoever wins, like a BN shirt and a BN pint glass.

            I also wonder what ass hole out there thousands of years ago decided which words were “curse” words and unacceptable. Screw that dickbag.

            1. hansman1982

              Probably the same dickbag that decided smoking weed was worse than getting drunk.

            2. MichiganGoat

              South Park convered the origins of curse words ;)

        2. another JP

          Hitting more than .800 now… Bryant just singled and is 3-3 tonight. No-hitter for Daytona through 7 and looking to oust Dunedin

          1. willis

            Shhhhhhh….don’t say that. :)

            As for weed vs. drinking, yeah that guy was a jerk. I personally am ok with both being legal. And both being abused. And tacos…which is usually a consequence of both.

            1. MichiganGoat

              Or hamburgers ;)

              1. willis

                When I was at Butler it was LaBamba or Jimmy Johns, now in Memphis it’s finding a place that serves ribs all night. Or Dyers hamburgers, fried burgers. Not healthy.

            2. miggy80

              Wait, were talking about weed?

              Dam no-hitter broken up

  21. Dude

    Bryant hitting 883 in two playoff games

  22. Rebuilding

    Looks like Edwards and Searle are going to combine for a no-hitter

    1. willis

      That series is 2 of 3 right? If so Daytona just smoked them. Suck it Dunedin.

  23. miggy80

    I think Luke mentioned this before, but this Boise announcer is pretty dam good!

    1. miggy80

      anyone listing to the Boise game?

      1. miggy80

        while you guys are chatting about numbers that at this point of the night REALLY? why aren’t you listening to the Boise Hawks? I’m on the deck its 79 degrees the beer is cold and the Hawks are about to clinch the first round. Now this is how you enjoy baseball.

        1. miggy80

          Boise Hawks WIN! Good night folks the numbers will be there in the morning

  24. Jason P

    Reds drew under 24k tonight for a game against the Cardinals in a pennant race… Pretty weak. For all the heat Pirates fans catch for not supporting their team, I feel like Reds fans aren’t much better.

  25. Spencer

    Wow, 208 comments for beating the Marlins. I had to scroll so far down the page to avoid reading any them. Imagine how many there would be if the Cubs beat the Yankees or something crazy like that.

  26. arta

    most were not about beating the marlins,

  27. ssckelley

    Both Boise and Daytona swept their first round opponents, that is impressive.

  28. cub2014

    Clutch and choke and evrrything in between are real in sports and in every day life.
    Its real we all know it, we have all experienced it. Its primary born out of confidence
    Or a lack thereof.

    1. Rebuilding

      I think we would all agree that some people perform better under pressure than others. You see it every day in all jobs. But someone made a very good point the last time we talked about this – most, if not all, of the baseball players that can’t handle pressure have been weeded out long before they get to the MLB. If they can’t handle pressure then they wouldn’t have performed well when they were heavily scouted, when the minor league roving director came by, when Epstein was in the stands, or just every day when people sit and stare at you doing your job. Sitting behind our keyboard sometimes we forget that the the VERY few that made it have 30,000 people watching them do their job every day

      1. Rebuilding

        My point is that to be in the .000001 that makes it to the Show you had be clutch just to get there. There is no statistical evidence that in MLB there are players more consistently clutch than others – none

  29. ssckelley

    But big stat guys don’t like to talk about choke and clutch because it is damn near impossible to measure. With runners in scoring position and the game on the line who would you rather see come up to the plate, Carlos Pena or Yadier Molina?

    1. Hansman1982

      It’s impossible to measure because it doesn’t exist. Players considered “clutch” typically will perform at their career numbers in clutch situations or may perform well in one clutch stat but then not have that same level of production in a different clutch stat.

      Your choice doesn’t show clutch, it shows overall production level. Molina is a better hitter than Pena and therefore you always want him at the plate.

      1. Feeney

        Coming through in the ‘clutch’ is something that happens. But success in one ‘clutch’ situation doesn’t predict what will happen in the next ‘clutch’ situation. If it did Cody Ross would be the highest paid player in baseball after his run with the Giants a few years ago.

    2. Norm

      Molina. He’s a better hitter.

      Clutch exists. It’s just that it’s a point in time, an event…not a skill.

  30. ClevelandCubsFan

    Catching up on the comments from last night. MAN we can be like an unhappily married couple on here. When thing aren’t going well we just sit around and henpeck each other. Let’s hope there’s not too many series lost to next year’s “Marlins” in 2014. I don’t know if we’ll survive each other. :-)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.