Iowa Cubs 10 @ Tacoma Rainiers 3
Hey! Mike Olt hit a home run and walked 3 times! Clearly, his struggles are over. Darnell McDonald went 2-6 with a jack, as did Dave Sappelt. Player of the day (for this team), though, was Edgar Gonzalez. He was 5-6 with 3 home runs!
Yoanner Negrin had a nice semi-start, going 4 innings where he allowed 5 hits, a walk, and an earned run (2 runs total). He also fanned 7. Nick Struck got the win with an inning of relief. Marcus Hatley allowed a run in an inning; then, Marcos Mateo, Chang-Yong Lim, and Brian Schlitter each had a scoreless inning.
It's also important to note that Cael Brockmeyer was promoted from Boise to Iowa. It's just a roster juggling move, most likely, and he'll be sent back down in short order, but he did go 1-3 with a walk and 2 strikeouts.
Tennessee Smokies 10 @ Jacksonville Suns 0
Eric Jokisch pitched a no-hitter! It's the second in the Cubs' organization this year (Matt Loosen, also on the Smokies' rotation, pitching one in Daytona). He allowed 4 walks, and fanned 8. It took Jokisch 108 pitches, which isn't all that bad. The MiLB website isn't showing me his game logs, so I'm not a hundred percent sure how good he's been lately, but he was struggling in the middle of the season, and hopefully those struggles are now behind him.
Javier Baez went 4-6 with 2 doubles and 3 RBI (he also struck out once). He stole his 5th base, as well. Rubi Silva went 3-5 with a walk. Matt Szczur went 2-5 with a double and a walk. Rafael Lopez, Jonathan Mota, and Eric Jokisch each had a pair of hits, as well. That's right; Jokisch outhit the Suns 2 to 0. He also walked, because of course.
Chicago Cubs 8 @ Philadelphia Phillies 9
Lots of offense in this one. Nate Schierholtz continues to do good work, going 3-5 with a double and 2 RBI/Runs. Anthony Rizzo went deep, as did the lily-white Donnie Murphy (his home run was a 3-run blast). Welington Castillo went 3-4 with a walk, and I think at the end of the year people are going to be very pleasantly surprised at the year he's had. He's lost a great deal of his power, but the tradeoff was been fewer strikeouts (as the tradeoff usually is); though his BABIP is .360 and thus probably unsustainable, his career mark is .354 over 540 PA, indicating it'll likely be higher than normal. He has a .346 OBP and his defense has been much improved (a fair framer, great arm throwing runners out). The only hitless regular was Darwin Barney. Logan Watkins went 1-2 in pinch-hit duties.
Edwin Jackson got shelled, allowing 7 runs in 5 innings. Both Hector Rondon and Michael Bowden allowed runs; Rondon pitched 2 and Bowden pitched 1. I like Rondon's stuff, but at the end of the day he just doesn't get any results. He's better than Lendy Castillo, but given the makeup of our 40-man roster I have to think there's no way he's in organization next year unless no one claims him.
Kane County Cougars 6 @ Clinton LumberKings 2
Albert Almora is on the shelf for 7 days. He probably isn't going to leave Kane County this year. Gioskar Amaya had another 3-hit performance, and Oliver Zapata had 2 hits but one was a home run. Dan Vogelbach doubled, Jeimer Candelario singled and walked twice, and Reggie Golden homered in the 9 hole.
Tayler Scott went 5 innings and allowed 2 runs on 6 hits/3 walks. Could be better. Andrew McKirahan pitched 2 perfect frames, and Al Yevoli and Michael Hamann finished it up with scoreless frames of their own.
DSL Mets1 4 @ DSL Cubs
VSL Cubs 3 @ VSL Mariners 7
AZL Cubs 1 @ AZL Dodgers 2
Comments
Darnell McDonald is older than I am.
joshQuote Reply
He can go hang out with David Patton and Deep Goat
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
But I thought every Rule 5 pick turnz into Josh Hamilton=z!
JonKneeVQuote Reply
I’m hoping somebody can help me. I was talking with my cousin and he said that baseball was the one sport where the talent level is roughly the same over the past 100 years as compared to the other major American sports. I disagreed and we got into a debate but then we were curious as to why Ruth was so good compared to his peers. We started to wonder what kind of pitches they threw back in those days. Was it mostly fastballs? Did they have change-ups and breaking pitches like they do today? Fastball variations like cutters, splitters, sinkers etc? Did they throw upper 90s back then? Anybody know the history of pitching? I tried googleing but couldn’t find much here at work.
MuckerQuote Reply
Hey, even Josh Hamilton turned into Lendy Castillo, it just took a few years, (dying laughing)
sitrick2Quote Reply
@ Mucker:
I don’t know a lot about this, but I know Sutter invented the splitter and the Cutter is relatively new.
sitrick2Quote Reply
Mucker wrote:
Back in Ruth’s day, the fastest fastball on record was 43.2 mph.
They had to run the bases uphill in the snow.
They didn’t have fancy video to scout the other teams, so they had to use their imaginations.
Egg ShanQuote Reply
@ Egg Shan:
I was thinking those were the reasons. Thanks Mr. Egg.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
I know in similar arguments I usually reference the change in the player pool over the years. Meaning Ruth only played against the best white, American players in his day. Now it’s the best players in the world regardless of race, nationality, etc. The game is not played the same way it was 75 years ago, what with the big change in bullpen use, etc. I don’t know if that means the talent level has changed, but its a somewhat different game.
NateQuote Reply
@ Nate:
That’s basically my argument to him as well. And if pitchers back then threw 88 mph fastballs and couldn’t locate breaking pitches, then it’s easier to understand how some guys back then (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx) were able to dominate the way they did. But if pitchers threw hard and had really good breaking/offspeed pitches, then it’s amazing how good those guys actually were then. If that makes sense.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Why don’t you just look up the Pitch F/X data for Ruth’s at bats, on Fangraphs?
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
More seriously, wouldn’t that be awesome?
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Well, Barry Bonds was approximately as dominant as Ruth. Pitchers are bigger than they used to be and therefore probably throw harder. Sliders, curves and knuckleballs were all in use (spitballs were outlawed in 1920, but since when do players follow the rules?) but I don’t know what the proportions were–I highly doubt logs exist. There also were fewer relievers back then, and the short reliever who throws really fast didn’t exist (most starters finished their games as it took fewer pitches to do so back then). James and Neyer did a historical study of pitchers and pitching (which I haven’t read, but looks good): http://www.amazon.com/The-Neyer-James-Guide-Pitchers/dp/0743261585
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Bob Feller and Walter Johnson could hit 98-99, reportedly.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
They also threw a lot more pitches
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I knew that about Feller but I didn’t know that about Johnson. I wonder how they clocked Johnson back in the 20s.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I don’t know. There were fewer pitches per at-bat. Tango estimated that historically pitchers tended to average 100 per start (though it varied widely between starts) with the exception of the 1970’s when pitchers like Nolan Ryan kept pitching until their arms turned into jelly.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
The curveball has been around forever. There were also lots of pitches that were just not as standardized and well known. My guess is that pre- 1920s breaking balls were much better than they are today, given the baseballs that were used at the time.
There were a few big changes that led to the offensive explosion of the ’20s: juicing the ball, outlawing of the spitball/emery ball, much more ball replacement during games, ballparks got smaller, homers that left the park in fair territory but landed foul were counted… In addition, Bill James argues that prior to Babe Ruth, players didn’t try to hit homers. Instead they were taught that swinging for the fences was on the whole conterproductive.
GWQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
Great book.
dmick89Quote Reply
BEST BUNTER National League American League
1. Everth Cabrera, Padres 1. Brett Gardner, Yankees
2. Juan Pierre, Marlins 2 (tie). Elvis Andrus, Rangers
3. Tony Campana, Diamondbacks 2 (tie). Erick Aybar, Angels
(dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)
http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/mlb-2013-best-tools/
JonKneeVQuote Reply
I did read that back in the pre-Ruth days, players were more about speed than power. Lots of bunts, steals, etc. Ballparks were so big too that triples were more prominent than homers back then. Ruth came in and completely changed the way hitters hit.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Yes. For some players, if there was a man on first and no outs, a sac bunt was so automatic, the manager didn’t signal for it.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
some pitchers were grandfathered in to the new rules. the frequent in-game replacement of balls likely made a huge difference, though.
GWQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
I’d ask your friend to explain how the talent level has increased in everything else, but not baseball. That seems illogical to me. What makes baseball different from the other sports?
There is no doubt that the talent level has increased.
If your friend means that we don’t notice it in the stats, that is because pitching, defense and hitting have all gotten better.
Ruth, as RTR said, is comparable to Bonds. I have no doubt that if you could somehow put a 1920s Babe Ruth and a recent Barry Bonds on the same field at the same time that Bonds would be so significantly better that few people would even pay attention to Ruth. The difference in their talent levels would be enormous. I also have no doubt that you could do the same for many, many other players and they’d all be better than Ruth.
What makes Ruth and Bonds comparable is when you compare them to the era in which they played, which is the right way to do so. When you do, the two are equal.
dmick89Quote Reply
Stolen bases went down a lot after 1920; sacrifice hits remained high throughout the decade as managers were apparently slow to adopt.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
One thing I find fascinating about the live-ball era (approx. 1920-1940) is how high the scoring was despite (by modern standards) a low home run rate. The home run rate in the 1920’s was about 1/3 of what it is now, but run scoring is close to what it was in the “steroid era.” The main reason is the very low strikeout rate, which I think is good evidence of pitchers being less skilled than they are now.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
GW wrote:
Isn’t that true today?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I think his point was that in football and basketball, players are so much better today then they were back in the day. He seems to think that in baseball, players are just as good between the different eras. He thinks that Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, while not as dominant as they were, would still be very good in todays MLB. I think his argument is more that in baseball, the game hasn’t changed as much as in football and basketball.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
The past greats in other sports, given all the advantages that around today, would still be very good to great. I think talent level is completely different than whether or not the game itself has changed. As Bill James has said, baseball prior to the 1900s wouldn’t even be recognizable.
Is your friend a baseball fan?
dmick89Quote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
Egg ShanQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yeah, he’s a huge baseball fan. He’s not an advanced stat guy but he doesn’t downplay those stats either. I think he’s saying that if you take Ruth, Williams, etc out of their eras, with the same talent they had back then and put them in today’s MLB, they would still be very good. But if you take Red Grange, Jim Thorpe out of their eras, with the same talent they had in the 20s and 30s, and put them in today’s NFL, they wouldn’t even make a team. Same with basketball. I think he’s wrong, but it’s interesting to hear everybody’s opinion on that.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
yeah. they weren’t prior to 1920 or so
GWQuote Reply
Let me clarify, that I think he’s wrong about baseball. I’m of the mindset that in every sport ever created, players are hundreds of times better today than they were 80 years ago.
MuckerQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Eh, I’m skeptical. At the very least, there’s the past/present size differential (this applies to baseball as well as other sports). Walter Johnson, listed at 6-1 was considered very big for his day; now he’d be below average, at least in the height department. This might be worse in other sports where size is even more important (basketball, football).
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
At least from people I know that have made this argument to me (and to be fair, I’m friends with a lot of bros (dying laughing)), a lot of times when people make this argument to me, it isn’t so much about the talent level, its the evolution of the athlete, so to speak.
If you compare the physiques of NFL Payers even in the 70s to those of today, you can SEE how much bigger, faster and stronger the average player is. As the game became more physical, the players have exploded too. In the NBA, while players haven’t become so much more muscular than before, the players have obviously become much taller, more athletic.
Baseball though, to the average person that *I* talk to that makes this argument, doesn’t seem so. The fact that Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera can have noticeable guts, CC Sabathia…etc. And other guys can be so visibly out of shape and still dominate is usually where the argument boils down. The only sport where you have enough time to eat seeds or chew tobacco in between plays. If you look at it on the surface level, compared to other sports, thats usually where the argument has come from, in my opinion. That the sport is “soft”
AkabariQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I think that’s right. Bonds was challenged against better competition, so he had to be even better to do as well as he did.
joshQuote Reply
If you look at specific aspects of baseball, I think the players are just as good as they are today. Players’ hit tool, for one, defense and throwing probably too, though to a slightly lesser extent (not as fast).
BerseliusQuote Reply
Kevlin Hayden —> Out for season
AkabariQuote Reply
Mucker wrote:
I think he has a point. Basketball and football are more dependent on size/speed than baseball. Baseball is much more hand/eye coordination, at least on offense. I’m skeptical that hand/eye has improved as much as size/speed, even given the increased population.
I agree with RTR that pitcher size has changed a ton and older-generation pitchers would struggle to make a roster. Hitters have Newton’s third law working in their favor, though.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
It’s an interesting argument. And yes, he does have a point regarding basketball and football. But I think that players today, even players like Koyie Hill ((dying laughing)) would be much better if you put them in the 20s era. The great players (Bonds, Pujols, Cabrera, etc.) would destroy back in those days. I don’t think the players back then, would be as good in today’s game as the players today would be in the 20s era.
MuckerQuote Reply
GW wrote:
I think that may be why stikeouts have been increasing steadily over the history of the MLB. Pitchers have gotten bigger and stronger, but hitters haven’t gotten better at making contact (though they’ve improved at hitting the ball a long way). By 2100, expect every at-bat to end with either a strikeout or a home run.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
I’m not so sure about that, either. My guess is that the game was more heterogeneous back then, specifically in terms of the called strike zone. I think today’s greats are generally strike-zone specialists that wait for their pitch and swing very hard. Players back then were probably more adaptable in that respect.
GWQuote Reply
Akabari wrote:
He’s non-essential. I actually welcome the increased reps for Isaiah Frey.
MylesQuote Reply
@ GW:
Great point. I think players strike out more today then they used to back then and I’m curious what the reason for that is? Is it what you just said? Is it that pitchers are so much better at strking out hitters today? Probably a little of both?
MuckerQuote Reply
@ GW:
I don’t see how pitching can improve without hitting improving to match it. I would guess defense is also significantly better. There are tons of muscles at play in hitting. Bat speed is crucial to generating velocity and catching up to fast pitches.
joshQuote Reply
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Mucker wrote:
I don’t think anyone knows precisely, but yeah, i bet that both play a role.
GWQuote Reply
1920’s baseball must have been interesting: singles, doubles, and triples galore.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ josh:
well, there’s the fast twitch/slow twitch distinction, which is what eric walker et al have staked their “steroids don’t help” claim on. I think he’s probably wrong at the margins, but has a point in the larger picture.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
fast-twitch muscle improvement is still improvement. If Bonds is twice as quick off the blocks as Ruth, he’s going to (have a chance, at least to) be better player.
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
the argument is that there has been/is less potential for fast-twitch improvement.
also, this
GWQuote Reply
training regimes are better, there’s more money put into it, better weight training techniques, better understanding of physiology. CC and Fielder aside, most of these guys are finely honed athletes. Maybe that doesn’t translate directly into hitting ability, but it will translate into defense, running, and pitching, which in turn forces hitters to improve.
joshQuote Reply
I don’t really buy the forcing to improve argument. Hitters are bigger and stronger today, and therefore hit the ball harder. The hand-eye contact parts are likely harder to improve, so strikeouts have gone up (as pitching has improved).
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
By themselves, improved fielding and pitching would not “force” hitters to improve; rather, they would decrease the run environment. However, I think increased power, which relates to strength and athleticism, has counteracted any improvements on the defensive side.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ josh:
It also translate greatly into fatigue down the line. All of this understanding about nutrition/training…etc makes it a lot easier to play 162 games or close to it and still be in very good shape. Stuff that helps greatly that we take for granted like multivitamins and creatine. That has to help keep numbers consistent. Even stuff like reduced travel time which allows for more rest in between series. Less mental and physical fatigue.
AkabariQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
I think if you look at the game as a whole though, its hard to not accept forcing to improve at a macro level. People that could survive on the fringes as replacement or slightly below get pushed out as all aspects of the game improve. As the level of talent at the replacement level increases, the distribution of talent at the valuable level is going to be more concentrated and thus, better. So all aspects of the game would improve as the talent pool should be, well, more talented.
AkabariQuote Reply
Another thing: pitchers started getting the upper hand in the 1960’s, which climaxed in 1968. This lead to rule changes in the hitters’ favor (lowered pitching mound, reduced strike zone). The relative constancy of baseball numbers is somewhat of an externally-induced homeostasis; if numbers start to get too crazy, they change the rules to balance them out.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Note: ” externally-induced homeostasis” is easily the most pretentious thing I’ve ever written.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Just a head up to everyone. I’m doing some shit behind the scenes to improve security of the site. Some of it you will notice, most of you won’t, but I wanted to let you know that I’m creating a blacklist and it’s possible (not likely at all) that a normal user could be affected. If so, email me and it will be fixed.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Akabari:
Hitters are constantly in competition with other hitters (for their jobs). An improvement in pitching will cause their numbers to go down, but won’t change how good they are relative to other hitters.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I can’t get logged into the forums, would that have anything to do with it MB?
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Have you logged in to the new forums? Linked your accounts?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Never mind. I can’t login either. No button to do so. When did this happen?
dmick89Quote Reply
BerseliusQuote Reply
new psa/aside
http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/just-a-slight-weapons-malfunction-technical-difficulties-psa.html
BerseliusQuote Reply
For those interested:
http://flavorwire.com/408043/14-totally-creepy-breaking-bad-tattoos/view-all
http://flavorwire.com/408116/candy-meth-and-los-pollos-hermanos-the-best-breaking-bad-inspired-food/view-all
uncle daveQuote Reply
Well, today has sucked ass.
dmick89Quote Reply
I like Breaking Bad as much as the next guy, but who the hell wants a tattoo of Bryan Cranston on their body? That’s fucked.
dmick89Quote Reply
I was thinking of getting an Aztek tattoo.
uncle daveQuote Reply
utley, phillies close on 2/$20 extension
GWQuote Reply
The Cubs lineup is even worse than usual today.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
The authors here changed passwords today and I added a limit login plugin. I was the first dumbass who got locked out of the site. Unreal
dmick899Quote Reply
I thought for sure that person would be Berselius. (dying laughing)
dmick899Quote Reply
GWQuote Reply
also,
GWQuote Reply
If anyone is still around, there’s no login widget on the sidebar. You can login here: http://obstructedview.net/wp-login.php or just comment as is.
dmick89Quote Reply
Navarro got very badly hurt from play at the plate. Taken out on cartbulance.
It was sad, but couldn’t hold back my laugh when they couldn’t pick him up.
WaLiQuote Reply
Would you like to buy that thing that average people like to buy? CLICK HERE.
…
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
My new avatar is some goofy looking dude
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
Mine is a picture of my teddy bear.
dmick89Quote Reply
@shawn
link not working for me
GWQuote Reply
So this means Random is getting DFA’d tonight, right?
LundyQuote Reply
Ransom*
LundyQuote Reply
Wali 77 deserves a few thumbs ups even though we don’t have them.
dmick89Quote Reply
Donnie Fucking Murphy (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
Donnie Murphy —–> best Murphy brother?
GWQuote Reply
Chris Archer —-> hurt
GWQuote Reply
I saw a Murphy homer live and in person last night. Something I’ll tell my grandchildren about.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply