Bucky Rules

Here's some fodder to think about when determining whether or not the Cubs are catchable. There's been a lot of discussion about the schedules to date of the two teams. Here's a little closer look -- and it is a big difference, IMO. The two teams have played h2h for six games. The Brewers are 4-2 in those games -- two game advantage Brewers. Among common opponents at home the Brewers are 10-5 while the Cubs are 13-2 -- three game advanatage Cubs. Common opponents on the road: Brewers 10-12, Cubs 9-11 -- slight advantage Brewers. Uncommon opponents at home -- Cubs have played MIL(2-4), PIT (5-1), COL(4-0), NYM(2-0), SD(3-1); Brewers have played SF(3-0), STL(4-2), PHI(1-1), FLA(1-2), MIN(1-2), TOR(2-0). Yes... the Cubs have an outstanding record in those games against teams not named the Brewers, but there is no comparison in the level of competition -- which for the most part the Cubs will still have to face - and vice versa. Uncommon road opponents -- Cubs have played PHI(1-2), SD(2-1), LAD(2-2), TOR(2-1), TB(0-2); Brewers have played CHI(4-2), NYM(2-1), FLA(0-3), BOS(0-3). Here again, the Brewers schedule has been tougher even if you consider Boston and TB a wash. I don't see any reason to believe that the Cubs will not come back down to a very approachable number of wins when you consider not just the number of home games vs road games, but also the level of competition in those games. They've played 28 games vs PIT, COL, WASH, SF and SD. We've played 13 (10 of them on the road). That will end at some point here.

My guess is that this is a bit harsh on Prince. We don't know the timing of the 60M offer. It could have come AFTER his comments about the salary offer for this season. He also didn't "sign" the contract that he's currently playing under. It's just part of the baseball rules - so to speak. He doesn't have to like it. But, if he wants to play MLB he has to live with it. And finally, I have a hunch this IRS trouble is somehow connected to his Dad, and not necessarily his mis-management of money -- other than the fact that at one time he trusted his father --- not an altogether bad trait, unless your father is a dink, like Cecil apparently is. I don't disagree with those that don't feel Prince should be priority #1. But, I just thought this post might've been a bit harsh on the lad.

So there are people here who question him giving Sheets the ball every fifth day? If you consider that a move or a decision, then I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. Why do I even waste my time on this board?

You know what, sheethead... I was wrong. I don't have all day to argue semantics with you. This is a complete waste of my time. You win. You're right. You're brilliant. I, like Ned, am an idiot. Have a nice day.

Shouldn't this have been in blue? No. It is just a flat-out misrepresentation to say that anyone here disagrees with every decision Ned makes. Again... I didn't say that anyone disagreed with every decision Ned makes. I said that there is a pre-disposed bias on every decision. In other words... every move the guy makes is viewed with a skewed eye, and the assumption is that it's going to be the wrong decision. There is no denying that. People are ready to pounce given any opportunity at all. Many decisions that would go largely unnoticed if other guys were making them get dissected, ripped apart, and re-examined again (just in case) simply because Ned makes them.

Tavarez pitched to five batters in the 12th (and walked one). Did he only throw nine pitches to those five batters?

Shouldn't this have been in blue?

Yes. One less undependable reliever is always a good thing. Torres, Shouse, CV, and Riske. Still not a stellar group, but it got a bit better. I'm still crossing my fingers that Gagne can come back and become dependable.

Other than the 12 inning game against the Twins he pitched mostly in blowouts. The only game that I recall that was close was the Houston game that McClung started. I thought the rest of his appearances were pretty much blowouts. I could be wrong on that, though.

I'm saying that it just doesn't matter. And to continue to discuss this decision by Yost is getting ridiculous. They're about equally as dreadful. Choosing one over the other is an effort in futility without having the benefit of hindsight. The fact that he chose to stick with Tavarez rather than bring in some other schmoe doesn't bother me in the least. And if not for a pre-disposed bias against all Yost decisions, it really shouldn't bother anyone as much as it appears to be bothering you. When we didn't score in the bottom of the 10th, we were - by definition - putting the game into the hands of someone who is (about equally) likely to lose it for us, no matter what his choice. And with every failure to score after that inning, the probability became that much greater NO MATTER WHO THE PITCHER WAS. You would've chosen DiFelice. Great. I've already pointed out that he came in and got torched, too. They all stink. Get over it. If you wish to continue this debate of semantics though, I can go all day.

Actually it is mathematically "possible". Certainly not probable, but possible. But, I actually said "about equally as dreadful". And for you to continue to harp on the fact that DiFelice was a far superior option, then I'll remain steadfast that your opinion is "just not the correct opinion".

Furthermore... you guys are killing me with this DiFelice stuff. The guy actually did appear in that game and got hammered by Cuddyer. What makes you think that he was going to do any better against Mauer and Morneau than he did against Cuddyer? DiFelice was very likely to have suffered a similar fate to Tavarez. He actually DID get in that game and got hit harder than anyone hit Tavarez. Yet, we're the ones that shouldn't be taken seriously.

This is the first time I saw this thread... pretty cool idea.

Well, it's good to see that we're dealing with someone with such an open mind. Let me get this straight... you need to be at the game to form a valid opinion. And whether you were at the game or not, if you believe that every option that Yost had for the 12th was about equally as dreadful, then you shouldn't be taken seriously. Got it. Thanks.

How he pitched last night is completely irrelevant - it's two days later and in a completely different situation. A) the game last night was a blow out, B) he had pitched two innings on Friday, so he was likely to be just as "gassed" as Tavarez who hadn't pitched in four days prior to the previous inning, C) DiFelice actually came in during that game and gave up a two run triple (that turned into a three run home-run on an error), D) DiFelice had given up 3 home runs in 8 IP prior to that point this season. You really liked your chances with him in there, huh? Yes... I acknowledge that Taverez was a bad option. But, there were no good ones. I have no problem trying to buy an extra inning, and save your next bad option in the bullpen for another inning or another day.

It's getting to the point where if he doesn't hit a 450' bomb every time up, I feel disappointment. The guy has been awesome.

If I'm Ned Yost, I'd be screaming for better options because none of those give me any confidence. Um, Tavarez shouldn't have been on the roster in the first place. I suppose that's Ned's fault, too. Tavarez has been in the league for 1000 years, and has had maybe two or three years where he wasn't the equivalent of throwing nitro-methane on the fire. Considering the state of the bullpen (in terms of personnel), I think Ned has done a very good job of handling it this season. Other than Torres and Shouse (and more recently CV), he's rolling the dice.

No, I don't think you're wrong. In fact, I even heard Melvin on a local talk show talking about the possibility of giving McClung a shot at the rotation a couple of weeks before it happened. I think he not only is the reason that McClung's on the roster, he's probably the reason that he is now in the rotation. Yost does get input -- probably in the same fashion that Ron Wolf gave Mike Holmgren input -- he'll never be forced to roster a guy that he truly doesn't want. Much beyond that, I think the roster is Melvin's responsibility.

The argument is circular. You're right about that. But, my point was that one side is aggressive, the other is defensive. The defensive argument is never necessary in the absence of the aggressor. You're also right that nobody will win -- so have a nice day. I'll try to do the same.

Don't most people stick with their job until they're fairly certain they're moving on to something that will be better. I know that I'm not going to quit a job unless I have something better lined up. I'm not sure that's the analogy the author was looking for.

Are you suggesting that even if there wasn't so much bashing of Yost, that Yost supporters would come on here in love-fest mode, talking about how everything he does is great? I don't think that would be happening at all. He would be largely ignored -- as he probably should be.

The "you" that I was referring to was people in general -- not "you" specifically. And my point is still valid -- even in your specific case. The more scrutiy you applied to Piniella, the more faults you found. The amount of change in the scrutiny you were applying vs what you are now applying is simply greater than what I had anticipated.

Where a guy hit previously is irrelevant to where he belongs in this team's lineup, this year. His career numbers indicated that he was probably our best option to hit in the two hole. If he had achieved his career numbers, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If you're going to argue that the reason he hasn't achieved his career norms is BECAUSE he was hitting in the two-hole, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

This is where I have an issue with the other side of the "Topic of Ned." Why is it so difficult to put him in that sentence as well as the others mentioned? Obviously he has helped with McClung's development to this point. Because if the team is performing poorly, it's the players' fault and not Ned's. That's what we've been told. If Ned's job is to get credit when things go well and not get blamed when they go poorly, that's the greatest job in the world. I would probably do it for free. I think the point was... if you're going to give Castro, Maddux, and Kendall credit for McClung, then you ought include Yost in that mix. Far too often, anything GOOD that happens is credited to everybody but Yost. Anything BAD that happens is Yost's fault. Trust me... if there were less bashing, there would be no need for the occasionally over-defensive post.

This actually illustrates an earlier point that I was trying to make. The more you scrutinize any manager - or any human being, for that matter - the more faults you are going to find.