Thursday Bruce article.....

[CubinNY]

I think what really hurts the Cubs in trades is that they don't have the proverbial 3rd starter on this team. They have two #1's, a possible 1 in Wood that is hurt and 3 #5's.

 

Although I don't think he has a lot of trade value with a big contract and NTC, but to say that Maddux is a 5th starter is a bit of a stretch. I looked at 3 different stats for last year to get a feel for where Maddux would fit on other staffs.

 

Using ERA, he ranked 61st overall among qualifying pitchers. He would have been the 3rd or better starter on 17 teams. He wouldn't even have made # 5 for the Cards, but he would have been the 3rd best for Atlanta, and #2 for the Yankees and Red Sox (of course the Yankees only had 2 qualifying pitchers!!). He would have been the staff ace for 5 teams.

 

Since we put so much emphasis on OBP for hitters around here, I also looked at OBA. There, he ranked 35th overall with a .308. (tied with new White Sox J. Vazquez). On only one team would he have been the 5th starter, that being your WS champs. He would have been 3rd or better on 25 teams.

 

And finally, on innings pitched, he ranked 13th overall. The only rate stats that were worse than ERA related to the long ball, but even there only 11 teams had 3 or more pitchers with a better HR/IP.

 

It's clear he would have been at least a #3 on over half the teams last year. I think that qualifies him as a legit #3 pitcher.

 

I hope I can remember this post when people criticize Maddux. The only thing terrible about him is his contract, and I can hardly falut him for taking the money the Cubs offered.

[fromthestretch]

Sorry! I was, indeed, unfair to Rich Hill.

That said, how can anybody use the fact that Podsednik plays left field and that the Sox had excellent pitching try to negate the fact that Juan Pierre is tremendous at the top of the order and can be a sparkplug for our entire offense?

 

Can he spark the offense? Yes. At the same time, there's a chance he could repeat his 2005 numbers. Regardless of your distate for stats, I'd think you'd have to agree that a .326 OBP at the top of the order is pathetic. And it's not like 2005 was his first bad year; he also struggled in 2002. If Pierre can keep his OBP over .350, preferably over .370, then you probably won't hear anyone complaining. His speed is worth absolutely nothing if he's not getting on base to use it.

 

As far as statistical analysis goes, many people here will use the numbers from the back of his baseball card to try to say that Todd Walker is the second coming of Rod Carew. Watch him play. His range is limited. He can't turn the double play. His hitting is not what I would call timely.

 

Wow.

 

Count me on the side that actually would like for Walker to be pencilled in as the Cubs' starting second baseman in 2006 and as someone who actually values statistical analysis. However, I would never compare Walker to Rod Carew, and I guarantee no one else on here would either. It's absurd to even claim that people would do that.

 

Statistical analysis needs to be tempered and adjusted through the activity of actually watching the players play the game on the field.

Statistics do lie.

 

Are stats lying to me when they tell me that Juan Pierre had a horrible OBP last year?

 

Stats tell you exactly what happened. While I don't think you can rely solely on stats, to throw them out the window is foolish. There's a lot to be said for actually watching someone play the game. However, stats are a hell of a lot more important than you are claiming.

 

Anyone who pulls out Patterson's stats from his 1-1/2 good years and tries to use that information to posit that a 2006 rebound is likely, is only fooling himself. Watch Patterson. He doesn't have a clue. It makes no difference what the old stats say. They are merely memories.

 

Combine the fact that he has had some, albeit limited, success at the major league level with the fact that he's only 25, and there is a decent chance he could rebound and put up OK numbers. There's also a chance he could repeat his 2005 numbers. Playing him everyday certainly is a gamble at this stage.

 

Corey is a "tools" guy. He's fast, athletic, and has some power. His prospect status was largely due to his athletic ability rather than his stats. People saw with their eyes what he was capable of. His minor league stats showed that his plate discipline wasn't ideal. He struggled at the higher levels, while still retaining his prospect status due to people's perception of his physical ability. You appear to be a person that doesn't care for statistical analysis, rather relying on your own eyes to tell you how good/bad a player is, and you don't think Patterson has any future. Define irony.

[Magnetic Curses]

That said, how can anybody use the fact that Podsednik plays left field and that the Sox had excellent pitching try to negate the fact that Juan Pierre is tremendous at the top of the order and can be a sparkplug for our entire offense?

 

the only evidence i'd use to argue against pierre being a sparkplug next season is that he had a .326 OBP in 2005 and has never been very efficient on the basepaths.

[Magnetic Curses]

I think that saying that Hill and Pie being untouchable is brilliant. If he can get more for Hill than what a one-pitch, once-around-the-league, too-old prospect is worth by saying he is untouchable, then God bless him.

By the way, I think that calling Pierre, "Slappy" is derrogatory and unfair. Watch him play. Was Podsednik's game in the newspaper what made the Sox get going last year or was it his game on the field. There are way too many people on this board with their heads all screwed up with arcane statisics. Try spending a little time watching a few game and get your head out of the Baseball Abstract.

 

you're kidding, right?

 

there are 162 games in a ML season, correct? if you watch the team play everyday and assume that you can learn everything you need to know, you're naive. if you watched the marlins play 162 games in 2004 and watched them play 162 games in 2005, without having any access to statistics, you wouldn't know the difference between pierre 04 and pierre 05.

 

the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is like 1 hit a week, how in the bloody heck can you see that by ignoring stats?

 

trusting only in outdated conventional wisdom is foolish. the world is not flat, nor is the earth the center of the universe, and put your torch and pitchfork down.

 

 

"Do you know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? That's 25 hits...25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points...ok. There's 6 months in a season. That's about 25 weeks, that means if you get just one extra flair a week, just one. A gork, you get a ground ball, you get a ground ball with eyes! You get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week and you're in Yankee Stadium."

 

sorry, i was off just a bit. crash is right.

[Magnetic Curses]

Statistics do lie.

 

not nearly as much as your eyes do.

[CubinNY]

Statistics do lie.

 

not nearly as much as your eyes do.

 

"Who are you going to beleive, me or your lieing eyes?"

 

-RIP, Richard Pryor

[UMFan83]

ill say it again. hello 85 wins.

 

85? We won 79 last year and lost Nomar and Burnitz, and gained Pierre, Howry and Eyre. Sounds like a wash to me (improvement in bullpen negates loss of power and having to play Corey everyday)

[ManCrushOnNomar]

The longshot proposal could definitely be Abreu. Hendry could easily have thrown a deal on the table and told Philly it was waiting for them when they realize they aren't going to get any front line starter for him from anyone else.

[SteveSarley]

Any consideration to the possibility that Corey is out of potetntial and that it just took a season-and-a-half for the league to catch up with him? The pitchers figured him out and he has not been able to adjust. Maybe he'd just a flash in the pan that flashed a little longer than most. That's also a reason why Murton concerns me.

[Banedon]

Any consideration to the possibility that Corey is out of potetntial and that it just took a season-and-a-half for the league to catch up with him? The pitchers figured him out and he has not been able to adjust. Maybe he'd just a flash in the pan that flashed a little longer than most. That's also a reason why Murton concerns me.

 

With that theory what minor leaguer wouldn't concern you? And why use Corey as the definitive example? Why not think of Albert Pujols when you see Matt Murton and pencil him in for MVP? Ok, that's going a bit far but my point is that you shouldn't be concerned about Murton just because Corey has struggled.

[SteveSarley]

I like Murton because of his plate discipline, among other good qualities. I think that gives him a better chance at consitency and improvement than a lot of other splashy rookies. It will be tough to try to pitch around him or exploit a weakness because he has a swing that looks like it doesn't have holes in it.

I always worry about relying on rookies being given starting jobs. I also worry about relying on proven veterans who are on the decline, only hoping that a "change of scenery" will turn their careers around again.

And, please, don't tell me about Atlanta going to the playoffs with rookies or how Carl Everett turned around with the White Sox. Everyone can name exceptions.

[CuseCubFan69]

I like Murton because of his plate discipline, among other good qualities. I think that gives him a better chance at consitency and improvement than a lot of other splashy rookies. It will be tough to try to pitch around him or exploit a weakness because he has a swing that looks like it doesn't have holes in it.

I always worry about relying on rookies being given starting jobs. I also worry about relying on proven veterans who are on the decline, only hoping that a "change of scenery" will turn their careers around again.

And, please, don't tell me about Atlanta going to the playoffs with rookies or how Carl Everett turned around with the White Sox. Everyone can name exceptions.

 

I think Atlanta has made it with rookies year after year and not just last year. I also can't blame Murton for being the best corner OF the Cubs have right now, that's Hendrys fault. I am for playing the best players that can help this team win and after Baker rode the Holla train to the ground last year while Murton was hitting 350 I don't feel that Baker does put the best team in there.

 

It's up to Hendry to evaluate the best players and to bring the best team he can to Chicago and that's his scouts main job, to find the players out there that will have a good year or be good players while in Chicago. If the scouts find out player X was slightly hurt and that is why he struggled or find a flaw that could help that player become successful then that is what they are paid to do.

[NewUserName]

steve, the funny thing about you saying get your head out of the Baseball Abstract and start watching games is one of the reasons Bill James quit writing the Abstract is because people were starting to rely more on statistical data then watching games.

[CubfaninCA]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

[goonys evil twin]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

 

Where we going?

[fromthestretch]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

 

Where we going?

 

Hopefully for some ice cream. I'm in the mood for ice cream.

[YearofDaCubs]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

 

Where we going?

 

Hopefully for some ice cream. I'm in the mood for ice cream.

Rocky Road?

[Magnetic Curses]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

 

Where we going?

 

Hopefully for some ice cream. I'm in the mood for ice cream.

Rocky Road?

 

rocky cherry.

[moorecg]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

 

Where we going?

 

Not sure...but we seem to be in a handbasket?

[YearofDaCubs]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

 

Where we going?

 

Not sure...but we seem to be in a handbasket?

I thought we were in a gallon of ice cream? Oh well.

[Andy]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

 

Where we going?

He's referring to how Dusty has dismissed any thought of John Mabry starting anywhere for the Cubs in 2006.

 

And yes, that's actually true.

[Banedon]

Rocky Road?

 

Sloth????

[abuck1220]

. . . many people here will use the numbers from the back of his baseball card to try to say that Todd Walker is the second coming of Rod Carew. Watch him play. His range is limited. He can't turn the double play. His hitting is not what I would call timely.

 

Todd Walker with men on base, 2005: 311/350/451

 

While not Manny Ramirezian, that's pretty timely.

 

quit looking up stats...that's cheating! you should only judge players based on what they seem to do when you watch them.

[NCCubFan]

rocky cherry.

I wonder what happened to him. He only pitched in three games for West Tenn in 2005. Maybe he was injured.

[soapy]

“Last Wednesday in Dallas was a terrific day for the Cubs,” Hendry gushed. “Our two biggest needs in the winter were obviously adding quality people in the bullpen in front of (closer) Ryan Dempster and addressing the largest deficiency we had in the leadoff spot.”

 

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it.

 

Here... we.... go... again....

 

Where we going?

He's referring to how Dusty has dismissed any thought of John Mabry starting anywhere for the Cubs in 2006.

 

And yes, that's actually true.

 

It's also true that our starting RF is Corey Patterson. But hey, we filled our two biggest needs according to Hendry.

 

Yeah, I know it's only December. It bothers me anyway.