Cubs Acquire Juan Pierre

[fromthestretch]

It seems sometimes that many people who post on this board think the only way to get on base is to get a walk. I swear to God if a guy hit .150 but walked much many here would be telling us he was better than Lee or Ramirez.

 

No one has ever implied that, and it's ridiculous to even make that claim that anyone would say that.

 

Guys that draw walks tend to do so year after year. Even if their batting average is less than stellar one season, their OBP remains respectable due to the number of walks. That's why a guy like Wilkerson, despite seeing his batting average plummet below .250 last season due to injury, was able to keep his OBP over .350. On the other hand, Pierre hit 28 points higher, yet had an lower OBP by 25 points. The NUMBER ONE thing you need in a leadoff hitter is the ability to get on base. Pierre is certainly capable of getting on base 37% of the time, but he'll need to hit .320 to do it since he doesn't typically draw more than 45-50 walks in a season.

 

I'm not going to speak for everyone who was hoping for Wilkerson, but the reason I would prefer him is that he's a safer bet to post an OBP of .360 or higher next season than Pierre is. That doesn't mean Pierre won't have a great season, but his chances of having an OBP lower than .350 are greater than Wilkerson's.

 

Another reason to like Wilkerson is that he can play all three outfield positions and first base AND can hit for power. If/when Pie is ready, Wilkerson could slide to a corner outfield spot to allow Pie to play CF.

[WrigleyinEngland]

The biggest readon of all to take Wilkerson over pierre?? VALUE. We have given 3 prospects for a guy we may only have for a year? 1 year of slappy and then what?? back to the abyss........

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Please, show me the evidence that Pierre is better than Wilkerson.

 

Not taking the bait. I've made my statement. I'll quote numbers and then you'll tell me they don't mean anything and then you'll quote numbers and tell me why they prove Wilkerson is better. Blah blah blah blah. We went through this yesterday regarding Soriano and Walker when you misrepresented some numbers about their difference in OBP. Then we talked about it regarding Wilkerson and Pierre when you initially said Pierre was superior only in stolen bases and then admitted he had better numbers in other categories. It comes down to opinion, and my is as valuable as yours. And judging from your user name, maybe you don't have such a good history of evaluating players.

 

Or in other words, I know I can't compete in this debate so I forfeit. Thanks for playing anyway.

[brfahey]

 

Please, show me the evidence that Pierre is better than Wilkerson.

 

Not taking the bait. I've made my statement. I'll quote numbers and then you'll tell me they don't mean anything and then you'll quote numbers and tell me why they prove Wilkerson is better. Blah blah blah blah. We went through this yesterday regarding Soriano and Walker when you misrepresented some numbers about their difference in OBP. Then we talked about it regarding Wilkerson and Pierre when you initially said Pierre was superior only in stolen bases and then admitted he had better numbers in other categories. It comes down to opinion, and my is as valuable as yours. And judging from your user name, maybe you don't have such a good history of evaluating players.

 

Or in other words, I know I can't compete in this debate so I forfeit. Thanks for playing anyway.

 

In other words, read what I wrote and then go back in the thread to yesterday where I had the discussion I mentioned in my post. It comes down to people having different takes on players. And no one is right or wrong. But some people here don't seem to accept that and try to constantly prove their point by slectively quoting numbers. It's a waste of time.

 

Let's be honest some people here take a more metrical approach and see baseball that way. And they like players who appear valuable under that analysis and they admire GMs who think that way. Others have a more traditional approach. OK. But intolerance seems to rule the day. Hendry is skewered regularly here for good and bad reasons and for his more traditional approach. I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

 

Yes, you missed it.

[rocket]

Hendry is skewered regularly here for good and bad reasons and for his more traditional approach. I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

 

Two things.

 

1. You missed it. Beane and JP were criticized for those signings.

2. This is a Cubs board. Doesn't it make sense that more people will criticize Hendry's moves than an American League general manager's moves?

[brfahey]

Hendry is skewered regularly here for good and bad reasons and for his more traditional approach. I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

 

Two things.

 

1. You missed it. Beane and JP were criticized for those signings.

2. This is a Cubs board. Doesn't it make sense that more people will criticize Hendry's moves than an American League general manager's moves?

 

Maybe I did miss it like I said but I looked. It makes sense to criticize Hendry only he deserves it. It also makes sense under your theory to assume that he would applauded more than AL or other NL GMs on this board. Why does it have to be only criticism?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hendry is skewered regularly here for good and bad reasons and for his more traditional approach. I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

 

Two things.

 

1. You missed it. Beane and JP were criticized for those signings.

2. This is a Cubs board. Doesn't it make sense that more people will criticize Hendry's moves than an American League general manager's moves?

 

Maybe I did miss it like I said but I looked. It makes sense to criticize Hendry only he deserves it. It also makes sense under your theory to assume that he would applauded more than AL or other NL GMs on this board. Why does it have to be only criticism?

 

When people think Hendry makes a good move he gets praised a lot. Threads on the Howry/Pierre/Eyre moves don't make it to the lengths that they are if no one thinks Hendry did the right thing. Heck, there's a huge thread of praise over Macias being DFA'd, the Nomar trade thread was huge, etc.

[brfahey]

Hendry is skewered regularly here for good and bad reasons and for his more traditional approach. I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

 

Two things.

 

1. You missed it. Beane and JP were criticized for those signings.

2. This is a Cubs board. Doesn't it make sense that more people will criticize Hendry's moves than an American League general manager's moves?

 

Maybe I did miss it like I said but I looked. It makes sense to criticize Hendry only he deserves it. It also makes sense under your theory to assume that he would applauded more than AL or other NL GMs on this board. Why does it have to be only criticism?

 

When people think Hendry makes a good move he gets praised a lot. Threads on the Howry/Pierre/Eyre moves don't make it to the lengths that they are if no one thinks Hendry did the right thing. Heck, there's a huge thread of praise over Macias being DFA'd, the Nomar trade thread was huge, etc.

 

That's fair enough and true.. My comment was directed at the language at the post which stated only that we should expect more criticism of Hendry here but did not state anything about praise.

[CubinNY]

No one has ever implied that, and it's ridiculous to even make that claim that anyone would say that.

 

Guys that draw walks tend to do so year after year. Even if their batting average is less than stellar one season, their OBP remains respectable due to the number of walks. That's why a guy like Wilkerson, despite seeing his batting average plummet below .250 last season due to injury, was able to keep his OBP over .350. On the other hand, Pierre hit 28 points higher, yet had an lower OBP by 25 points. The NUMBER ONE thing you need in a leadoff hitter is the ability to get on base. Pierre is certainly capable of getting on base 37% of the time, but he'll need to hit .320 to do it since he doesn't typically draw more than 45-50 walks in a season.

 

I'm not going to speak for everyone who was hoping for Wilkerson, but the reason I would prefer him is that he's a safer bet to post an OBP of .360 or higher next season than Pierre is. That doesn't mean Pierre won't have a great season, but his chances of having an OBP lower than .350 are greater than Wilkerson's.

 

Another reason to like Wilkerson is that he can play all three outfield positions and first base AND can hit for power. If/when Pie is ready, Wilkerson could slide to a corner outfield spot to allow Pie to play CF.

 

You have my proxy in this matter as I am done with the discussion.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

In other words, read what I wrote and then go back in the thread to yesterday where I had the discussion I mentioned in my post. It comes down to people having different takes on players. And no one is right or wrong. But some people here don't seem to accept that and try to constantly prove their point by slectively quoting numbers. It's a waste of time.

 

Let's be honest some people here take a more metrical approach and see baseball that way. And they like players who appear valuable under that analysis and they admire GMs who think that way. Others have a more traditional approach. OK. But intolerance seems to rule the day. Hendry is skewered regularly here for good and bad reasons and for his more traditional approach. I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

 

 

How does intolerance rule? Has anyone ever told you that you could not post a traditional metric for players here?

 

While by sheer numbers of posters, you may be outnumbered...but that isn't intolerance. In fact, more than one poster has asked for your opinion or at least for you to clarify it or support it. That also isn't intolerant. Are we intolerant because we will disect your view? No. Are you not allowed to disect ours? Surely.

 

This is an exchange of ideas. Whether wittingly or not, when you bow out of a discussion, the message it sends is that your arguments could not stand up under scrutiny. Please share your ideas. Will they be attacked, likely. But you never know...someone might be convinced. If you don't share them, then by all means, don't be surprised when no one is. Surely don't try to claim some martrydom of intolerance. Intolerance would be telling you that your ideas aren't welcome here and that surely has never happened.

[SeldomSeen]

In other words, read what I wrote and then go back in the thread to yesterday where I had the discussion I mentioned in my post. It comes down to people having different takes on players. And no one is right or wrong. But some people here don't seem to accept that and try to constantly prove their point by slectively quoting numbers. It's a waste of time.

 

Let's be honest some people here take a more metrical approach and see baseball that way. And they like players who appear valuable under that analysis and they admire GMs who think that way. Others have a more traditional approach. OK. But intolerance seems to rule the day. Hendry is skewered regularly here for good and bad reasons and for his more traditional approach. I may have missed it but I didn't see too many of the sabermetrics guys criticize Beane for giving Loaiza $21 million or Ricciardi for giving a guy who was a closer for one year for a bad team almost $10 million a year for five years or for giving a .500 pitcher who got kicked off his team $11 million for five years. But Hendry gets ripped for giving Howry $4 million and for givng up too much for Pierre and maybe he did overpay. Let's be consistent. No one has the market cornered on baseball acumen.

 

 

How does intolerance rule? Has anyone ever told you that you could not post a traditional metric for players here?

 

While by sheer numbers of posters, you may be outnumbered...but that isn't intolerance. In fact, more than one poster has asked for your opinion or at least for you to clarify it or support it. That also isn't intolerant. Are we intolerant because we will disect your view? No. Are you not allowed to disect ours? Surely.

 

This is an exchange of ideas. Whether wittingly or not, when you bow out of a discussion, the message it sends is that your arguments could not stand up under scrutiny. Please share your ideas. Will they be attacked, likely. But you never know...someone might be convinced. If you don't share them, then by all means, don't be surprised when no one is. Surely don't try to claim some martrydom of intolerance. Intolerance would be telling you that your ideas aren't welcome here and that surely has never happened.

 

I don't think that it does at all, Vance. I think he knows he's kicking a dead horse, and that those numbers are not valued as highly by many posters here. He also pointed out that he has made these points elswhere.

 

While I think I'm pretty balanced when it comes to traditional metrics vs. the newer ones, I can see where an "old school" guy would feel that there is, indeed, a level of intolerance on this board. As soon as he made his post, there were at least 5 sarcastic responses (I stopped counting). If we are as progressive as we'd like to think we are, a level of open-mindedness should follow, imo. There's more than one way to skin a cat (or a possum/ armadillo as they'd say in your neck of the woods :wink: ).

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

I don't think that it does at all, Vance. I think he knows he's kicking a dead horse, and that those numbers are not valued as highly by many posters here. He also pointed out that he has made these points elswhere.

 

While I think I'm pretty balanced when it comes to traditional metrics vs. the newer ones, I can see where an "old school" guy would feel that there is, indeed, a level of intolerance on this board. As soon as he made his post, there were at least 5 sarcastic responses (I stopped counting). If we are as progressive as we'd like to think we are, a level of open-mindedness should follow, imo. There's more than one way to skin a cat (or a possum/ armadillo as they'd say in your neck of the woods :wink: ).

 

But did the sarcasm exist because in his initial response that he couldn't see how anyone would value Wilkerson over Pierre implied ignorance on the part of those who do value Wilkerson over Pierre. Sometimes if you want to have a discussion without rhetorical sarcasm, making statements that seem absolute or that imply ignorance on the other side isn't necessarily the best way. Statements like that often challenge people to come out with "barrells blazing" so to speak.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't think that it does at all, Vance. I think he knows he's kicking a dead horse, and that those numbers are not valued as highly by many posters here. He also pointed out that he has made these points elswhere.

 

Except he didn't make those points elsewhere. I asked him to, and he declined like he did in this thread.

[SeldomSeen]

:stick:

I'm just saying maybe the rhetoric and sarcasm aren't needed at all. If our arguments are sound, they really don't add anything. Other than that, I don't really know what else to say.

[brfahey]

I don't think that it does at all, Vance. I think he knows he's kicking a dead horse, and that those numbers are not valued as highly by many posters here. He also pointed out that he has made these points elswhere.

 

Except he didn't make those points elsewhere. I asked him to, and he declined like he did in this thread.

 

That's not accurate at all. See yesterday in this thread at about 4:55pm. If you want to criticize me try actually reading all of what I post. I've made points with you before and when I don't automatically succumb to your reasoning you have broken it off. I asked you a few months ago if the sabermetrically best teams win every year and you responded no because (and I am paraphrasing) anything can happen in a short series, which is true. I then stated that I was asking the question in the context of the regular season and I never received a reply. That's Ok. But don't tell me I am declining to make arguments. I am declining to spend precious time talking to people who have their minds made up in advance of discussing a point.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't think that it does at all, Vance. I think he knows he's kicking a dead horse, and that those numbers are not valued as highly by many posters here. He also pointed out that he has made these points elswhere.

 

Except he didn't make those points elsewhere. I asked him to, and he declined like he did in this thread.

 

That's not accurate at all. See yesterday in this thread at about 4:55pm. If you want to criticize me try actually reading all of what I post. I've made points with you before and when I don't automatically succumb to your reasoning you have broken it off. I asked you a few months ago if the sabermetrically best teams win every year and you responded no because (and I am paraphrasing) anything can happen in a short series, which is true. I then stated that I was asking the question in the context of the regular season and I never received a reply. That's Ok. But don't tell me I am declining to make arguments. I am declining to spend precious time talking to people who have their minds made up in advance of discussing a point.

 

There's nothing there that says anything about Pierre being better than Wilkerson. I showed you the case for Wilkerson over Pierre, then you compared Wilkerson to Burnitz. Here's the exact post:

 

I wasn't issuing a challenge, just trying to determine if your statement was factually correct, which it apparently was not by your own admission. So W is better than Pierre because he has better OBP, SLG, HR and BB numbers. Burnitz has better HR and SLG numbers and only slightly worse OBP number than W. Is Burnitz better than W. I don't know. What do you think? And remember, a walk is only as good as a single, not all hits.

 

I replied afterwards with the case for Wilkerson over Burnitz, and that was the end of that particular tangent.

 

As far as whatever discussion happened a couple months ago, the best built teams don't win because 162 games isn't long enough to overcome whatever fortune/misfortune may occur. That doesn't mean that it's an incorrect way to do it if it doesn't always work, it just gives you the best odds.

[brfahey]

I don't think that it does at all, Vance. I think he knows he's kicking a dead horse, and that those numbers are not valued as highly by many posters here. He also pointed out that he has made these points elswhere.

 

Except he didn't make those points elsewhere. I asked him to, and he declined like he did in this thread.

 

That's not accurate at all. See yesterday in this thread at about 4:55pm. If you want to criticize me try actually reading all of what I post. I've made points with you before and when I don't automatically succumb to your reasoning you have broken it off. I asked you a few months ago if the sabermetrically best teams win every year and you responded no because (and I am paraphrasing) anything can happen in a short series, which is true. I then stated that I was asking the question in the context of the regular season and I never received a reply. That's Ok. But don't tell me I am declining to make arguments. I am declining to spend precious time talking to people who have their minds made up in advance of discussing a point.

 

There's nothing there that says anything about Pierre being better than Wilkerson. I showed you the case for Wilkerson over Pierre, then you compared Wilkerson to Burnitz. Here's the exact post:

 

I wasn't issuing a challenge, just trying to determine if your statement was factually correct, which it apparently was not by your own admission. So W is better than Pierre because he has better OBP, SLG, HR and BB numbers. Burnitz has better HR and SLG numbers and only slightly worse OBP number than W. Is Burnitz better than W. I don't know. What do you think? And remember, a walk is only as good as a single, not all hits.

 

I replied afterwards with the case for Wilkerson over Burnitz, and that was the end of that particular tangent.

 

As far as whatever discussion happened a couple months ago, the best built teams don't win because 162 games isn't long enough to overcome whatever fortune/misfortune may occur. That doesn't mean that it's an incorrect way to do it if it doesn't always work, it just gives you the best odds.

 

Thanks for your answer.