Goatriders of the Apocalypse

Game Recap: Reds 3, Cubs 0

Reds 3, Cubs 0
After the first game of this series, Dusty Baker must have written Lou Piniella a strongly worded letter.  I can only imagine what it sounded like, but it was likely something such as this:

Dear Dude, as somebody who once managed the Cubs I can tell you that it's awfully tempting to change the way you manage to placate the fans who boo ya.  But I'm a winner, always have been.  I took my team to the World Series as recently as 2002, which is a lot more recent than you, dude.  And I'm telling you right now - walks don't win games.  You can have 10 walks in a game, dude, but if you have nobody hitting the ball you will lose.  So take it from me - get your guys to play more aggressively tomorrow.  Forget the walks.  Get them to swing the hot bats.  I know it will make our job tougher, but I love you dude.  I want to help.

Signed, Johnny B.

If that's similar to the letter that Lou received (but without words like "placate"), then he must have listened because the Cubs drew a big fat zero walks against the Reds last night.

They also only managed 6 hits, 5 of which came from the 1-3 batters (2 by Sori and D-Lee). 

Meanwhile Ted Lilly became the answer to a triva question last night.  Name the most recent pitcher to lose a game without allowing an earned run.  (I'm sure it happens fairly often, but Lilly went 7 strong, allowing 5 hits, 0 walks and 0 earned runs) but it can't really be argued that he deserved the loss.  After all, that unearned run was the eventual result of a Ted Lilly fielding error.

The bullpen - today being Angel Guzman and Kevin Gregg - gave up a couple of garbage runs that really meant nothing. 

Milton Bradley went 0 for 4 again.  Back in February and March a lot of us - myself included - were hoping aloud that he wouldn't have a bad start because Cub fans will turn on new players very quickly and Bradley is a volatile athlete.  And although starting the season with a.043 AVG is really, really something a player doesn't want to do (duh), one hot month will put him right back to where he should be. 

For now, he'll just be the poster child of my Small Sample Sizes argument.

Quick Links


Bradley struck out twice because he was being aggressive and chased balls out of the zone. Just an observation.

An observation implying that

An observation implying that Rob's and my take on Bradley being more aggressive is wrong.

But like I said then, and as I'll say now, the only thing I suggested is that Bradley think when he's at the plate and adjust his hitting strategy based on the situation.

When the situation is "the umpire is unfairly calling balls strikes and has a history with you," then you never, ever, ever take a pitch that's even remotely hittable. Even if only to foul the ball off and wait for an actual strike to hit.

My criticism of Bradley was that he stubbornly refused to do that. And that's what I think it was - he knew he was right, the ump was a douche, and he seemed to make a choice that he'd rather be right, angry, and ejected than be forced to change his approach because the umpire was a douche.

So tell me how it's wrong for me to say that in that situation, the better choice for the team is to hit defensively?

Chicago Tribune's Chicago's Best Blogs award