Uh-Oh: Cubs offer for Jones confirmed

[CubfaninCA]

Our team OBP last year was 324. What should our goal be? 330-335?

 

.335-.340 or higher in my book

 

For what it's worth, the league average last year was .330. Just replacing Neifi in the lineup with Pierre puts us at league average. Where we go after that, depends mostly on who Hendry acquires to play right field.

 

Replacing Corey w/ Pierre @ .326 has to jump the team obp a few points correct?? Corey was worse than Neifi right??

[Sweet Swinging Billy]

I know everyone is down on Jacque Jones, and I like everyone else wish that Hendry would explore other options...but I read something interesting in Carrie Muskat's Mailbag article on the Cubs website. I didn't know that Jones was injured most of last year. Were some of you aware of this?

 

"Jones, 30, hit .249 with 23 homers and 73 RBIs, struck out 120 times, and stole 13 bases. He did battle a strained oblique muscle in the second half of the season".

 

http://cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051217&content_id=1283534&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

[BigbadB]

I know everyone is down on Jacque Jones, and I like everyone else wish that Hendry would explore other options...but I read something interesting in Carrie Muskat's Mailbag article on the Cubs website. I didn't know that Jones was injured most of last year. Were some of you aware of this?

 

"Jones, 30, hit .249 with 23 homers and 73 RBIs, struck out 120 times, and stole 13 bases. He did battle a strained oblique muscle in the second half of the season".

 

http://cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051217&content_id=1283534&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

 

Was he hurt in 2004? His numbers in 2004 are basically identical or worse than his 2005 season.

[YearofDaCubs]

I know everyone is down on Jacque Jones, and I like everyone else wish that Hendry would explore other options...but I read something interesting in Carrie Muskat's Mailbag article on the Cubs website. I didn't know that Jones was injured most of last year. Were some of you aware of this?

 

"Jones, 30, hit .249 with 23 homers and 73 RBIs, struck out 120 times, and stole 13 bases. He did battle a strained oblique muscle in the second half of the season".

 

http://cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051217&content_id=1283534&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

That's another excuse to make fans think he's a good option. Kinda like the BS Hendry came up with for Burnitz.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Hendry's going to get ripped apart regardless of what he does.

 

Not true. You and I have butted heads all offseason, so while you are under the impression I am all gloom and doom while I'm under the impression you believe Hendry can do no wrong, there is a middle point most likely for both of us.

 

....I said right after the offseason ended to give me a line up with .350+ OBP throughout and this team will win more games than it loses.

 

so would any team, but that's simply not realistic. name five teams that had 8 .350 OBP regulars in the history of baseball. the 2004 RedSox only had seven, and that includes having the DH instead of a pitcher.

 

 

Here's an interesting observation. The team shown only had four players with OBP's over .350, but they did score 944 runs, and had a team OBP of .367, even with the pitcher batting in the 9 spot. This offense is right up there in the same stratosphere as the vaunted 1927 Yankees. (who also had 2 starters with OBP's under .350).

 

POS Player              G    AB    R    H  2B  3B  HR  RBI   BB   SO HBP  SH   SB   AVG   OBP   SLG 
 C Spud Davis        106   329   41  103  16   1  14   65   17   20   1  10    1  .313  .349  .495
1B Don Hurst         119   391   78  128  19   3  17   78   46   22   2  12    6  .327  .401  .522
2B Fresco Thompson   122   478   77  135  34   4   4   46   35   29   0  16    7  .282  .331  .395 
3B Pinky Whitney     149   606   87  207  41   5   8  117   40   41   1  15    3  .342  .383  .465 
SS Tommy Thevenow    156   573   57  164  21   1   0   78   23   26   2  26    1  .286  .316  .326 
LF Lefty O'Doul      140   528  122  202  37   7  22   97   63   21   5  10    3  .383  .453  .604 
CF Denny Sothern      90   347   66   97  26   1   5   36   22   37   2  10    6  .280  .326  .403 
RF Chuck Klein       156   648  158  250  59   8  40  170   54   50   4  13    4  .386  .436  .687 

UT Bernie Friberg    105   331   62  113  21   1   4   42   47   35   1   8    1  .341  .425  .447 
1B Monk Sherlock      92   299   51   97  18   2   0   38   27   28   0   9    0  .324  .380  .398 
OF Fred Brickell      53   240   33   59  12   6   0   17   13   21   2   2    1  .246  .290  .346
 C Tony Rensa         54   172   31   49  11   2   3   31   10   18   1   2    0  .285  .328  .424 
 C Harry McCurdy      80   148   23   49   6   2   1   25   15   12   0   3    0  .331  .393  .419 
OF Tripp Sigman       52   100   15   27   4   1   4    6    6    9   2   1    1  .270  .324  .450 
OF Cy Williams        21    17    1    8   2   0   0    2    4    3   0   0    0  .471  .571  .588 
 C Jim Spotts          3     2    1    0   0   0   0    0    0    1   0   0    0  .000  .000  .000

   Total            1875  5667  944 1783 345  44 126  884  450  459  23 148   34  .315  .367  .458 

 

Unfortunately, this 1930 Phillies team, unlike the '27 Yankees, didn't quite make it to the World Series. In fact, they finished dead last at 52-102, 40 games behind the Cardinals. You know the answer, no pitching.

 

I'm not suggesting that the CUBS' offense, as it stands today, is good enough. The fact is, it is pretty weak. While I have hopes that Hendry will acquire somebody good for right field and maybe Shortstop, the fact remains, IMO, that this team will go as far as it's pitching takes them. There are just too many questions on the pitching staff for me to feel confidant of them right now.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Fred Hornkohl

[YearofDaCubs]

Hendry's going to get ripped apart regardless of what he does.

 

Not true. You and I have butted heads all offseason, so while you are under the impression I am all gloom and doom while I'm under the impression you believe Hendry can do no wrong, there is a middle point most likely for both of us.

 

....I said right after the offseason ended to give me a line up with .350+ OBP throughout and this team will win more games than it loses.

 

so would any team, but that's simply not realistic. name five teams that had 8 .350 OBP regulars in the history of baseball. the 2004 RedSox only had seven, and that includes having the DH instead of a pitcher.

 

 

Here's an interesting observation. The team shown only had four players with OBP's over .350, but they did score 944 runs, and had a team OBP of .367, even with the pitcher batting in the 9 spot. This offense is right up there in the same stratosphere as the vaunted 1927 Yankees. (who also had 2 starters with OBP's under .350).

 

POS Player              G    AB    R    H  2B  3B  HR  RBI   BB   SO HBP  SH   SB   AVG   OBP   SLG 
 C Spud Davis        106   329   41  103  16   1  14   65   17   20   1  10    1  .313  .349  .495  
1B Don Hurst         119   391   78  128  19   3  17   78   46   22   2  12    6  .327  .401  .522 
2B Fresco Thompson   122   478   77  135  34   4   4   46   35   29   0  16    7  .282  .331  .395 
3B Pinky Whitney     149   606   87  207  41   5   8  117   40   41   1  15    3  .342  .383  .465 
SS Tommy Thevenow    156   573   57  164  21   1   0   78   23   26   2  26    1  .286  .316  .326 
LF Lefty O'Doul      140   528  122  202  37   7  22   97   63   21   5  10    3  .383  .453  .604 
CF Denny Sothern      90   347   66   97  26   1   5   36   22   37   2  10    6  .280  .326  .403 
RF Chuck Klein       156   648  158  250  59   8  40  170   54   50   4  13    4  .386  .436  .687 

UT Bernie Friberg    105   331   62  113  21   1   4   42   47   35   1   8    1  .341  .425  .447 
1B Monk Sherlock      92   299   51   97  18   2   0   38   27   28   0   9    0  .324  .380  .398 
OF Fred Brickell      53   240   33   59  12   6   0   17   13   21   2   2    1  .246  .290  .346
 C Tony Rensa         54   172   31   49  11   2   3   31   10   18   1   2    0  .285  .328  .424 
 C Harry McCurdy      80   148   23   49   6   2   1   25   15   12   0   3    0  .331  .393  .419 
OF Tripp Sigman       52   100   15   27   4   1   4    6    6    9   2   1    1  .270  .324  .450 
OF Cy Williams        21    17    1    8   2   0   0    2    4    3   0   0    0  .471  .571  .588 
 C Jim Spotts          3     2    1    0   0   0   0    0    0    1   0   0    0  .000  .000  .000

   Total            1875  5667  944 1783 345  44 126  884  450  459  23 148   34  .315  .367  .458 

 

Unfortunately, this 1930 Phillies team, unlike the '27 Yankees, didn't quite make it to the World Series. In fact, they finished dead last at 52-102, 40 games behind the Cardinals. You know the answer, no pitching.

 

I'm not suggesting that the CUBS' offense, as it stands today, is good enough. The fact is, it is pretty weak. While I have hopes that Hendry will acquire somebody good for right field and maybe Shortstop, the fact remains, IMO, that this team will go as far as it's pitching takes them. There are just too many questions on the pitching staff for me to feel confidant of them right now.

You mean the pitching staff that has an injury prone pitcher in Wood and a pitcher in Maddux who will regress? Prior and Z go down and so does our season but we won't have the offense to compensate. That's the problem. How much can we really rely on our pitching considering the injury history of some of our pitchers? That's reaching. Reaching is what we did last year and obviously it didn't work out so well. I agree we should nto rely on the pitching.

Edited December 20, 2005 by YearofDaCubs

[Magnetic Curses]

Maybe the official number of sacrifices is the same, but that doesn't mean they (the Cubs) were anything CLOSE to the Cardinals fundamentally speaking. Again, things such as first to thirds (they do this a LOT), situational hitting (moving runners over), SBs (in key situations), and overal base path awareness gives them a HUGE advantage over the opposition.

 

this is voodoo baseball, here. the facts simply do not support your reasoning so you start making stuff up.

 

there's no way that you can know either way by watching a team during 162 games. like i've said before, the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is a 1 hit every 2 weeks. there is no possible way that you can tell the difference without cold hard statistics.

 

baseball is an invisible game of numbers. i find it fascinating, many others do not.

 

the cardinals won because their pitching was great and their OBP was very good. the cubs were terrible because their pitching was average and their OBP was absolutely terrible. a few runs here or there over the course of a season mean little.

 

furthermore, if you play too much small ball, you are rarely in one-run situations anyway, so what's the point? teams that get on base and have solid pitching win baseball games. teams that routinely waste outs and takes unnecessary gambles on the basepaths generally lose. and again, history...and stats bear this out.

 

While I'm on this subject I'd like to clarify a misperception many (not specifically) have. Just because 2 teams have about the same number of runs, the same number of hits, the same number of _____ (what have you) doesn't make them equal (and I'm not necessarily comparing the Cubs or Cards). There are times when these things are more importnat than others, namely close games. Tell me, how many times do the good "small ball" teams seem to eke out runs (situational hitting, bunts, sacrifices, SBs, etc.) in 1 run/ tied games? A hell of a lot more than the Cubs do. Point is those one to 2 runs every now and again ARE HUGE. Instead of having your "keep it close" BP guy in the game you have your closer. Instead losing the game you win. You multiply this out over the course of the season and I'm fairly confident it gives the good teams 6-7 (sometimes more sometimes less) wins. In contrast, it probably costs the inept teams at leat 3-4. What would you classify this team as??? I'd say inept. And I'd also say I'm 2,000,0000 and 10 percent confident in saying the lack of the above cost this team at LEAT a handfull of wins. It wouldn't have been enough to make this team contenders but they certainly would have been better.

 

the problem with this idealogy is that it tries to attach a transcendental quality to a game of statistics. and baseball is, more than any other sport that's ever existed, a game of statistics.

 

playing small ball may win a few games per year, i'll give you that. but it will LOSE you just as many games per year, erasing any supposed advantage it gives. playing consistent baseball over the course of a year, trusting in good players to hit, get on base, and create runs by their talent alone is the best recipe for success. bad ballclubs may have to take a ton of gambles, but good ballclubs don't. good ballclubs don't give outs away or do things that erase their advanatge as a team.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Am I the only one that noticed Patterson has a higher projected OPS than Pierre(.716 to .710)? That 52/74 SB ratio isn't very exciting either. Of course, I don't put a whole lot of stock into these projections, but it's interesting to point out.

[jjgman21]

 

You are correct. I cherry picked last year's OBP. Honestly, it will likely be better, if for no other reason he's in his contract year. I don't know why it dipped to .326, but it makes me nervous whatever the reason. If Neifi Perez is batting 2nd, I won't be happy. For whatever reason, I'm not a real big fan of Pierre.

 

As far as the .350+ OBP thing, it might be something rare, but it was an achievable goal nonetheless if Hendry really wanted to put emphasis on improving the offense. We already had Walker, Lee, Ramirez, Barrett. If they signed Giles, they wouldn't have needed .350+ from all the positions. But, trading for Bradley and Wilkerson while signing Furcal (unrealistic now, but the potential was there at the time) with Murton putting up close to .350+ gives you 8 guys with the potential to provide .350+.

 

thank you for that rather civilized reply. I'm not a big fan of Pierre either and wish we had done better. but he is what he is, and that is a guy who generally scores a 100 runs out of the leadoff hole, in large part due to his usually high OBP.

 

the thing is, using the zips projections posted above, all we need is a .350 OPB out of rightfield and you'll have 7 regulars with OBPs over .345ish, with Cedeno as the only one below. that's real close to what you wished for. thus, I don't see a need for an "impact bat" or a "difference maker" (whatever those terms mean). we just need a solid OF that can put up .350 OBP / .800ish OPS, and we have the team everyone seems to have wanted, Dusty proofing arguments aside.

[CubfaninCA]

I know everyone is down on Jacque Jones, and I like everyone else wish that Hendry would explore other options...but I read something interesting in Carrie Muskat's Mailbag article on the Cubs website. I didn't know that Jones was injured most of last year. Were some of you aware of this?

 

"Jones, 30, hit .249 with 23 homers and 73 RBIs, struck out 120 times, and stole 13 bases. He did battle a strained oblique muscle in the second half of the season".

 

http://cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051217&content_id=1283534&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

 

Was he hurt in 2004? His numbers in 2004 are basically identical or worse than his 2005 season.

 

His father died in 2004. Can see how a guy can lose focus and all.

[YearofDaCubs]

I know everyone is down on Jacque Jones, and I like everyone else wish that Hendry would explore other options...but I read something interesting in Carrie Muskat's Mailbag article on the Cubs website. I didn't know that Jones was injured most of last year. Were some of you aware of this?

 

"Jones, 30, hit .249 with 23 homers and 73 RBIs, struck out 120 times, and stole 13 bases. He did battle a strained oblique muscle in the second half of the season".

 

http://cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051217&content_id=1283534&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

 

Was he hurt in 2004? His numbers in 2004 are basically identical or worse than his 2005 season.

 

His father died in 2004. Can see how a guy can lose focus and all.

Ok so he didn't do good in 2004 because his father died. He wan't good in 2005 because he had astrained oblique so then what will be the excuse in 2006?

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

I'm not suggesting that the CUBS' offense, as it stands today, is good enough. The fact is, it is pretty weak. While I have hopes that Hendry will acquire somebody good for right field and maybe Shortstop, the fact remains, IMO, that this team will go as far as it's pitching takes them. There are just too many questions on the pitching staff for me to feel confidant of them right now.

 

You mean the pitching staff that has an injury prone pitcher in Wood and a pitcher in Maddux who will regress? Prior and Z go down and so does our season but we won't have the offense to compensate. That's the problem. How much can we really rely on our pitching considering the injury history of some of our pitchers? That's reaching. Reaching is what we did last year and obviously it didn't work out so well. I agree we should nto rely on the pitching.

 

Just what did you think I was saying there ?

[ManCrushOnNomar]

Ok so he didn't do good in 2004 because his father died. He wan't good in 2005 because he had astrained oblique so then what will be the excuse in 2006?

He plays for the Cubs? Edited December 20, 2005 by ManCrushOnNomar

[jjgman21]

 

playing small ball may win a few games per year, i'll give you that. but it will LOSE you just as many games per year, erasing any supposed advantage it gives. playing consistent baseball over the course of a year, trusting in good players to hit, get on base, and create runs by their talent alone is the best recipe for success. bad ballclubs may have to take a ton of gambles, but good ballclubs don't. good ballclubs don't give outs away or do things that erase their advanatge as a team.

 

I agree, but I don't think anyone is advocating the Cubs become a small ball team. you are right about the recipe for success, but a team that can scratch out a run here and there will win alot of tough games over teams that cannot.

 

that being said, all is lost in terms of the advantage of playing small ball as our manager wouldn't have the slightest idea when it is a good time to play small ball and when it is a good time to wait for the three run dinger.

[YearofDaCubs]

 

I'm not suggesting that the CUBS' offense, as it stands today, is good enough. The fact is, it is pretty weak. While I have hopes that Hendry will acquire somebody good for right field and maybe Shortstop, the fact remains, IMO, that this team will go as far as it's pitching takes them. There are just too many questions on the pitching staff for me to feel confidant of them right now.

 

You mean the pitching staff that has an injury prone pitcher in Wood and a pitcher in Maddux who will regress? Prior and Z go down and so does our season but we won't have the offense to compensate. That's the problem. How much can we really rely on our pitching considering the injury history of some of our pitchers? That's reaching. Reaching is what we did last year and obviously it didn't work out so well. I agree we should nto rely on the pitching.

 

Just what did you think I was saying there ?

And that's why I said I agree with you.

[Magnetic Curses]

This is why I get frustrated (again not you just in general) when so many people get "tunnel vision" when it comes to OBP. There are so many things that can make a player better that stats don't quantify to where its idiotic to judge players solely on these stats (which is why I usually try not to comment on players I haven't see play). Things such as defense, awareness, baseball acumen, and fundamental hitting are such an imortant part of the game. OBP is EXTREMELY important too, its just not the only thing. Fact is this team was SOOOO BAADDD at so many things that every one contributed to its demise. If we can improve, not solve, all of these things this team will be pretty good. And I may also be in the minority in saying it may not take a whole lot. Young, seemingly fundamental palyers like Cedeno, Pierre, and Murton seem like a start, but they're definately not the finish. Then again we won't really know until June or July...if even then.

 

OBP isn't just extremely important. it's the most important stat in the game.

 

there is no stat that is more directly related to the scoring of runs than the one that reflects the failure to make an out. a team gets 27 outs in a game-giving them away is like moving your back pieces in a game of checkers.

[jjgman21]

I remember looking up Jones stats last year when his name was being floated about as a possible acquisition. I noticed he was having a solid OBP year, based mostly on a great walk rate. I though maybe he'd figured it out. then the second half happened:

 

pre all star BB/AB

37/290

 

post all star BB/AB

14/233

 

wha? I mean...did he...wha? it really doesn't make sense. why stop taking free bases?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I remember looking up Jones stats last year when his name was being floated about as a possible acquisition. I noticed he was having a solid OBP year, based mostly on a great walk rate. I though maybe he'd figured it out. then the second half happened:

 

pre all star BB/AB

37/290

 

post all star BB/AB

14/233

 

wha? I mean...did he...wha? it really doesn't make sense. why stop taking free bases?

 

I remember that too, and remember advocating him a bit for CF at the end of the year without checking to see how he finished the year. Whoops.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

playing small ball may win a few games per year, i'll give you that. but it will LOSE you just as many games per year, erasing any supposed advantage it gives. playing consistent baseball over the course of a year, trusting in good players to hit, get on base, and create runs by their talent alone is the best recipe for success. bad ballclubs may have to take a ton of gambles, but good ballclubs don't. good ballclubs don't give outs away or do things that erase their advanatge as a team.

 

I agree, but I don't think anyone is advocating the Cubs become a small ball team. you are right about the recipe for success, but a team that can scratch out a run here and there will win alot of tough games over teams that cannot.

 

that being said, all is lost in terms of the advantage of playing small ball as our manager wouldn't have the slightest idea when it is a good time to play small ball and when it is a good time to wait for the three run dinger.

 

i'm saying small ball is ineffective. and probably only useful over the course of a small sample size, like in the playoffs, when gambles either pay off big or lose big.

 

playing it over the course of a 162-game season only hurts a good team. a team is more successful if their hitters are allowed to behave normally in a RISP situation.

 

you will never see Jim Edmonds, Albert Pujols, or Scott Rolen EVER intentionally try to hit a ball the other way unless that's where the ball is pitched....ever.never ever.

[BigbadB]

the thing is, using the zips projections posted above, all we need is a .350 OPB out of rightfield and you'll have 7 regulars with OBPs over .345ish, with Cedeno as the only one below. that's real close to what you wished for. thus, I don't see a need for an "impact bat" or a "difference maker" (whatever those terms mean). we just need a solid OF that can put up .350 OBP / .800ish OPS, and we have the team everyone seems to have wanted, Dusty proofing arguments aside.

 

Will Cedeno be a regular. Zips projections also show Neifi Perez with 450 at bats. If that's the case, we're down to 6 guys with OBP's at .345+. If the right fielder is Jacque Jones, we're down to 5.

 

The line up I would have liked to have seen (assuming that Giles was unattainable and using career OBP's) is:

 

Bradley-.350

Wilkerson- .365

Lee-.363

Ramirez-.358 (using last year's since it's likely a closer projection)

Walker-.348

Murton-.350 (assuming a lower one for him, but still respectable)

Barrett-.340 (using something closer to last year as a closer projection)

Cedeno-.330

 

Furcal as a replacement at SS-.348

Cliff Floyd platooning with Wilkerson and Murton-.361

 

Could be regression from any of the players listed above. Could be progression (see Derrek Lee's 2005) from the numbers listed. But, it's a solid line up that was most certainly attainable, except maybe Furcal and the ridiculous contract LA gave him.

 

Using the 8 players in that line up, the Cubs still have enough money left over to sign Millwood, which bulks up the pitching staff and likely replaces Jerome Williams, who was probably involved in the Wilkerson deal.

 

That line up isn't that far off from what we have now, honestly. Pierre could match that OBP next year, though he does give up quite a bit in SLG. Finding someone to provide what Wilkerson could in RF will be the tricky part. Of course, Wilkerson is still available in trade, but what will it take to get him?

[CubfaninCA]

I know everyone is down on Jacque Jones, and I like everyone else wish that Hendry would explore other options...but I read something interesting in Carrie Muskat's Mailbag article on the Cubs website. I didn't know that Jones was injured most of last year. Were some of you aware of this?

 

"Jones, 30, hit .249 with 23 homers and 73 RBIs, struck out 120 times, and stole 13 bases. He did battle a strained oblique muscle in the second half of the season".

 

http://cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051217&content_id=1283534&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

 

Was he hurt in 2004? His numbers in 2004 are basically identical or worse than his 2005 season.

 

His father died in 2004. Can see how a guy can lose focus and all.

Ok so he didn't do good in 2004 because his father died. He wan't good in 2005 because he had astrained oblique so then what will be the excuse in 2006?

 

Lets wait and see... If someone's close to a family member, which it appears Jones was, I can see how it can affect one's performance. It's nothing to scoff at or refer to as an excuse.

 

EDIT: Lets just put all the facts on the table before declaring this guy garbage.

[jjgman21]

 

playing small ball may win a few games per year, i'll give you that. but it will LOSE you just as many games per year, erasing any supposed advantage it gives. playing consistent baseball over the course of a year, trusting in good players to hit, get on base, and create runs by their talent alone is the best recipe for success. bad ballclubs may have to take a ton of gambles, but good ballclubs don't. good ballclubs don't give outs away or do things that erase their advanatge as a team.

 

I agree, but I don't think anyone is advocating the Cubs become a small ball team. you are right about the recipe for success, but a team that can scratch out a run here and there will win alot of tough games over teams that cannot.

 

that being said, all is lost in terms of the advantage of playing small ball as our manager wouldn't have the slightest idea when it is a good time to play small ball and when it is a good time to wait for the three run dinger.

 

i'm saying small ball is ineffective. and probably only useful over the course of a small sample size, like in the playoffs, when gambles either pay off big or lose big.

 

playing it over the course of a 162-game season only hurts a good team. a team is more successful if their hitters are allowed to behave normally in a RISP situation.

 

you will never see Jim Edmonds, Albert Pujols, or Scott Rolen EVER intentionally try to hit a ball the other way unless that's where the ball is pitched....ever.never ever.

 

all I'm saying is that a team that can selectively play small ball will have an advantage over a team that can't. if Roy Oswalt is on and hasn't given up a flyball all game, with Lidge looming, small ball can mean the difference in having a chance and having no chance. but I would never condone trying to scratch in a run before the sixth or seventh in that situation, and I would never ask my power hitters to bunt.

 

the bolded part is not true whatsoever. maybe with Edmonds and Rolen, but I have seen Pujols inside out a pitch to get a runner home many many times.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

playing small ball may win a few games per year, i'll give you that. but it will LOSE you just as many games per year, erasing any supposed advantage it gives. playing consistent baseball over the course of a year, trusting in good players to hit, get on base, and create runs by their talent alone is the best recipe for success. bad ballclubs may have to take a ton of gambles, but good ballclubs don't. good ballclubs don't give outs away or do things that erase their advanatge as a team.

 

I agree, but I don't think anyone is advocating the Cubs become a small ball team. you are right about the recipe for success, but a team that can scratch out a run here and there will win alot of tough games over teams that cannot.

 

that being said, all is lost in terms of the advantage of playing small ball as our manager wouldn't have the slightest idea when it is a good time to play small ball and when it is a good time to wait for the three run dinger.

 

i'm saying small ball is ineffective. and probably only useful over the course of a small sample size, like in the playoffs, when gambles either pay off big or lose big.

 

playing it over the course of a 162-game season only hurts a good team. a team is more successful if their hitters are allowed to behave normally in a RISP situation.

 

you will never see Jim Edmonds, Albert Pujols, or Scott Rolen EVER intentionally try to hit a ball the other way unless that's where the ball is pitched....ever.never ever.

 

all I'm saying is that a team that can selectively play small ball will have an advantage over a team that can't. if Roy Oswalt is on and hasn't given up a flyball all game, with Lidge looming, small ball can mean the difference in having a chance and having no chance. but I would never condone trying to scratch in a run before the sixth or seventh in that situation, and I would never ask my power hitters to bunt.

 

the bolded part is not true whatsoever. maybe with Edmonds and Rolen, but I have seen Pujols inside out a pitch to get a runner home many many times.

 

all it takes in one mistake to a hitter that can punish them.

 

and i've never seen pujols intentionally hit a ball more softly than he absolutely could. and why would he be inside outing a pitch to get a runner home? generally players try to inside out pitches to move runners over, and i've never seen pujols do that. but what you just said makes no sense.

[BigbadB]

Lets wait and see... If someone's close to a family member, which it appears Jones was, I can see how it can affect one's performance. It's nothing to scoff at or refer to as an excuse.

 

EDIT: Lets just put all the facts on the table before declaring this guy garbage.

 

Even his best year was below average for a corner outfielder. If it was 1 year and we had Tejada at SS or Abreu in the other corner, I'd be fine with Jones for that 1 year. Though, I'd definitely prefer Murton over Jones.

[Magnetic Curses]

Lets wait and see... If someone's close to a family member, which it appears Jones was, I can see how it can affect one's performance. It's nothing to scoff at or refer to as an excuse.

 

EDIT: Lets just put all the facts on the table before declaring this guy garbage.

 

Even his best year was below average for a corner outfielder. If it was 1 year and we had Tejada at SS or Abreu in the other corner, I'd be fine with Jones for that 1 year. Though, I'd definitely prefer Murton over Jones.

 

he hasn't ever been a good player. the only thing that would save him is if he hit .300 with last year's IsoD.