With Samardzija's lack of run support, ...

[Jntg4]

 

[chibears55]

I think 2323 major complaint is that he feels rizzo and Castro not doing enough whenever samardzija on the mound and their mainly responsible for him not winning to date. because he feels samardzija faces off against other teams top 2 starters, 2323 feels although Rizzo and Castro have decent numbers they aren't hitting against those pitchers to help samardzija win...

2323, im not sure what their numbers are when samardzija starts but im sure their not as bad as you think...
Yes is sad that they cant score more then 2 runs when he starts and that very odd that it would happen in 8 straight games.
But the reasoning is more because of the others in the lineup over those 2. I could be wrong, and if youd like to provide the numbers to show me I am that would be great.

Maybe they could just give samardzija an extra day off to shake things up there..


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[The Bandit]

Are we really blaming the only two decent hitters in the lineup for Sharks woes? Have you seen the rest of our lineup everyday? I don't even watch the games, and I know how bad they are and there isn't much more Rizzo or Castro can do.

sent from Jimmer range using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

That's great. But what's his slugging % in games that Shark pitches? That's the relevant issue. Stop talking around the edges of the issue at hand with a bunch of paper tiger stat lines.

Btw, earlier in this thread, someone said there was no talent in the lineup and you can't expect people to perform above there ability. The data you're throwing out there undermines the idea that Rizzo is being asked to over perform....that is, unless your willing to admit he has paper tiger numbers.

There's a lot of talking out of both sides if the mouth here.

I know I am going to regret trying to explain this but I'd like to believe people actually want to learn. Let's start with the first part about performance during Shark's starts. Do you really believe players have that kind of control to decide when they hit and when they don't? More importantly, if they could turn it on and off like that why wouldn't they always have it on? The difference between 25 HRs for Rizzo and 30-35 HRs is millions of dollars during his next contract negotiations. The fact of the matter is baseball is a game of averages. I'm not even convinced those two are hitting worse than normal during Shark's starts. I would give you those stats but as far as I'm aware no site keeps that sort split because it's totally irrelevant and I'm not going to work out the numbers myself. But even if they do struggle when Shark starts, what is their motivation to not play well? I mean the accusation is honestly absurd. Every year some pitcher gets no run support despite playing well. Do the white sox players hate chris sale because he got no run support last year?

As for the second part, how do teams score runs? Let's say you're talking about a 30 HR 100 RBI clean up hitter. 30 of those RBIs are from the HR batter itself. The other 70 RBIs come from OTHER players being on base. Some obviously come when that homer is hit but the point here is players need others to be on base when they hit or else the best case is 1 RBI on a HR and even with the best HR hitters you're looking at 1 in 20 ABs or whatever. So, how is Rizzo hitting with players on base? He's hitting .348/.483/.587 with men on base. Castro is hitting .273/.333/.418 with men on base. The problem is the team is hitting .227/.296/.352. That's despite Rizzo and Castro both being well above those marks which illustrates how bad the rest of the hitters have been.

I'll present you a typical situation for the cubs this year. Rizzo comes up with 2 out and no one and get a hit. Let's say Castro comes up and gets a single too. Then what? Runners on first and third probably or possibly first and second. Who drives them home? We're talking about a team hitting .227/.296/.352 remember? So, Rizzo hit goes for nothing because there was no one on for him to push around the bases and similarly Castro's hit counts for nothing. Teams that score runs have great on base. Last year the top 5 teams in on base were Boston, Detroit, St. Louis, the Angels and Tampa. Those teams were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th in runs scored. Why? Because scoring runs isn't just about 2 players. Scoring runs is largely about having players on base when hits occur. If you have shit OBP like the cubs do then a single in the outfield doesn't push a guy on first to third it instead just puts a guy on first. And since you have shit OBP the next hitter is unlikely to move that player to the next base because walks and hits are hard for this team to come by. That's why the cubs aren't scoring runs. It's not some selective boycott of Shark.

 

[2323]

I know I am going to regret trying to explain this but I'd like to believe people actually want to learn. Let's start with the first part about performance during Shark's starts. Do you really believe players have that kind of control to decide when they hit and when they don't? More importantly, if they could turn it on and off like that why wouldn't they always have it on? The difference between 25 HRs for Rizzo and 30-35 HRs is millions of dollars during his next contract negotiations. The fact of the matter is baseball is a game of averages. I'm not even convinced those two are hitting worse than normal during Shark's starts. I would give you those stats but as far as I'm aware no site keeps that sort split because it's totally irrelevant and I'm not going to work out the numbers myself. But even if they do struggle when Shark starts, what is their motivation to not play well? I mean the accusation is honestly absurd. Every year some pitcher gets no run support despite playing well. Do the white sox players hate chris sale because he got no run support last year?

As for the second part, how do teams score runs? Let's say you're talking about a 30 HR 100 RBI clean up hitter. 30 of those RBIs are from the HR batter itself. The other 70 RBIs come from OTHER players being on base. Some obviously come when that homer is hit but the point here is players need others to be on base when they hit or else the best case is 1 RBI on a HR and even with the best HR hitters you're looking at 1 in 20 ABs or whatever. So, how is Rizzo hitting with players on base? He's hitting .348/.483/.587 with men on base. Castro is hitting .273/.333/.418 with men on base. The problem is the team is hitting .227/.296/.352. That's despite Rizzo and Castro both being well above those marks which illustrates how bad the rest of the hitters have been.

I'll present you a typical situation for the cubs this year. Rizzo comes up with 2 out and no one and get a hit. Let's say Castro comes up and gets a single too. Then what? Runners on first and third probably or possibly first and second. Who drives them home? We're talking about a team hitting .227/.296/.352 remember? So, Rizzo hit goes for nothing because there was no one on for him to push around the bases and similarly Castro's hit counts for nothing. Teams that score runs have great on base. Last year the top 5 teams in on base were Boston, Detroit, St. Louis, the Angels and Tampa. Those teams were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th in runs scored. Why? Because scoring runs isn't just about 2 players. Scoring runs is largely about having players on base when hits occur. If you have shit OBP like the cubs do then a single in the outfield doesn't push a guy on first to third it instead just puts a guy on first. And since you have shit OBP the next hitter is unlikely to move that player to the next base because walks and hits are hard for this team to come by. That's why the cubs aren't scoring runs. It's not some selective boycott of Shark.

Good grief. Your excuse making is off the charts. You might be the biggest apologist out there.

Let me explain something to you--and it ties back to something I've mentioned before--Castro and Rizzo are middle of the line up guys now, but they've always hit proximate lay to one another. Your excuse making diatribe always seems to hinge on them hitting singles or merely getting on base. Once again, they're middle of the line up guys. A home run or double should not be beyond expectations for them. You're tailoring your expectations around their shortcomings--this is what makes you such ran absurd apologist.

Btw, I'll also point out that in the OP, others in the batting order were being called out. I wasn't calling out Castro and Rizzo only. But the conversation has gone in that direction because of the epic excuse making done on Rizzo's and Castro's behalf.

 

[beckdawg]

I wish I'd just posted this. One of these days I'll learn to stop humoring these people...

 

[2323]

I wish I'd just posted this. One of these days I'll learn to stop humoring these people...

Let's see. You've contradicted yourself. You've tried to build an argument on a sample size of 1 game, when this is 8 games and counting. And you've constructed stuff around hypotheticals.

All you've done is work around the edges at most--and that's being nice.

 

[Jntg4]

Let's see. You've contradicted yourself. You've tried to build an argument on a sample size of 1 game, when this is 8 games and counting. And you've constructed stuff around hypotheticals.

All you've done is work around the edges at most--and that's being nice.

Because an 8 game non-consecutive sample size is so much better.

 

[Jntg4]

...

 

[The Bandit]

...

I can't tell if he's trolling or being serious...

sent from Jimmer range using Tapatalk

 

[2323]

Because an 8 game non-consecutive sample size is so much better.

It is consecutive. And 8 starts is 25% of a pitchers season in a sport where they play 162 games. There's no nexxus with what you said. It's rather inane really.

 

[Jntg4]

It is consecutive. And 8 starts is 25% of a pitchers season in a sport where they play 162 games. There's no nexxus with what you said. It's rather inane really.

Oh, I wasn't aware that Castro and Rizzo only play once every five games to where Shark's starts would be consecutive games for them.

You have no argument... Castro wasn't professional enough to play under Sveum? Really? The kid wanted to suck to get the manager fired? Ya, ok... just ignore the fact that they were trying to completely reconstruct his swing and plate approach that entire time and the fact that Sveum was nothing special in the first place. Anyone who recognizes that is an apologist. An no, being allowed to go back to his previous approach had no affect at all and he is only playing better because he isn't trying to get a coach fired. How babied he is.

And somehow you interpret that they don't like Samardzija and so they don't play well for him intentionally? Or what kind of point are you trying to make? That they happen to produce less once every five days so the other four don't count for shit?

 

[Jntg4]

How did Fisch edit my post? Please tell me he isn't a mod now...

 

[2323]

Oh, I wasn't aware that Castro and Rizzo only play once every five games to where Shark's starts would be consecutive games for them.

You have no argument... Castro wasn't professional enough to play under Sveum? Really? The kid wanted to suck to get the manager fired? Ya, ok... just ignore the fact that they were trying to completely reconstruct his swing and plate approach that entire time and the fact that Sveum was nothing special in the first place. Anyone who recognizes that is an apologist. An no, being allowed to go back to his previous approach had no affect at all and he is only playing better because he isn't trying to get a coach fired. How babied he is.

And somehow you interpret that they don't like Samardzija and so they don't play well for him intentionally? Or what kind of point are you trying to make? That they happen to produce less once every five days so the other four don't count for shit?

Before you come at me with this kind of regurgitated crap, you need to get your own plane off the runway.

And one thing that should be made clear, I was criticizing Castro not defending Sveum. The truth is, there's nothing special about Renteria either. He was hired because he's most qualified to be a babysitter for petulant players, especially those who speak Spanish and weren't all that to begin with. But the reality is that the hiring of Renteria was an acknowledgment that Castro isn't enough of a pro to produce without hiring a babysitter as a manager.

 

[2323]

Are we really blaming the only two decent hitters in the lineup for Sharks woes? Have you seen the rest of our lineup everyday? I don't even watch the games, and I know how bad they are and there isn't much more Rizzo or Castro can do.

sent from Jimmer range using Tapatalk

Heaven forbid you have a person in your sig who is unworthy.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Winner. Dumbest Thread of 2014 So Far Award.

 

[Jntg4]

Before you come at me with this kind of regurgitated crap, you need to get your own plane off the runway.

And one thing that should be made clear, I was criticizing Castro not defending Sveum. The truth is, there's nothing special about Renteria either. He was hired because he's most qualified to be a babysitter for petulant players, especially those who speak Spanish and weren't all that to begin with. But the reality is that the hiring of Renteria was an acknowledgment that Castro isn't enough of a pro to produce without hiring a babysitter as a manager.

How do you figure that he isn't enough of a pro to produce for a different manager? They were restructuring his entire approach, there were going to be growing pains. Ultimately, it failed and they have let him go back to his old style... and THAT is the difference.

 

[The Bandit]

Heaven forbid you have a person in your sig who is unworthy.

My sig is like 4 years old, I'm to lazy to change it.

 

[The Bandit]

How did Fisch edit my post? Please tell me he isn't a mod now...

He edited mine as well... if he is the new mod and he's gonna edit posts I'm outta here.

 

[2323]

Winner. Dumbest Thread of 2014 So Far Award.

Most vacuous post of 2014 so far. This is actually worse than the inane posts and various ones that were contradictory and/or wrong.