jacque's prediction

[back2backjax]

"i'll hit 20-25 homers, somewhere around .300 and drive in 80-90 runs"

 

i'm skeptical, but i think if we got that out of him and no MAJOR injuries occur (i.e. lee, ramirez, pierre, prior, z), the NL central is a realistic goal.

[Guest]

Those are probably reasonable goals aside from the .300 BA. In order to achieve that he'll need a BABIP of .340 or so. The good news is that he managed to do that up until 2003. The bad news is that such numbers are way, way above the league average of .280 where he's been the last couple of years.

 

Jones' swing doesn't seem conducive to him getting his BABIP up over .330 again. Scouts seem to think he has a line-drive swing, but the fact remains that he has hit far fewer line drives over the past few years than the typical big-league regular. (Jones hits line drives about 14-15% of the time, whereas average for MLB regluars is almost 19%.) I'm inclined to think that it's his first few years in the league that were the flukes, not his recent history.

 

My prediction for Jones' typical season in a Cubs uniform: .260/.320/.460. In other words, pretty sad production from a corner outfielder.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Anonymous

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Are we back in last offseason? Hendry signs mediocre right fielder, then justifies signing with a frightening misuse of statistical analysis. New right fielder then promises production that he will likely not reach.

[goonys evil twin]

If he hits behind Lee and Ramirez, he would have to be completely incompetent not to get 80 RBI. 80-90 RBI don't tell you a darn thing. Too bad all the conventional wisdom types can't see that. His RBI total depends on where he bats and what his teammates do. 90 RBI out of the 5 spot would have put you 19th in all of baseball, 80 would have been 28th. An above average lineup has to be getting 95 RBI there, and a good one is going to be over 100.

 

For the record, Jones has only 2 seasons with an RBI total over 80. I'm guessing if Dusty plays him every day, or close to every day, he'll luck into 80 with Lee and Ramirez in front of him. But that's hardly an accomplishment.

[goonys evil twin]

Are we back in last offseason? Hendry signs mediocre right fielder, then justifies signing with a frightening misuse of statistical analysis. New right fielder then promises production that he will likely not reach.

 

The funny thing is that Hendry and other Jones supporters seem to think that people who don't like the signing are basing it entirely off of his 2005 season, when in fact, most are looking at his entire career to theorize why he's such a bad option for the Cubs.

[RockTheIvy]

As has been said, Burnitz promised us 30 homers. He didn't deliver. I'm used to lies coming out of RF on the northside.

[Cubzfan64]

I wish players would just go out there and DO what needs to be done to help the team win rather than run around predicting what they're gonna do.

 

That said, I'm glad Jones didn't stress the desire to hit 50 HR's or something ridiculous but rather to improve on his average. Of course that's before he actually stands at the plate and sees the relatively short powerallys and has those days where the wind blows out.

 

I've often wondered how many guys have screwed up their swings by coming to Wrigley field and expecting every pop fly to the outfield to carry to the nets, when in reality, the wind blows in there an awful lot too.

[BigbadB]

Not that I'm overly excited about supporting Jacque Jones in any capacity, but nearly half of his at bats over his career have come as a lead off hitter. Therefore, his RBI totals aren't as bad as they appear.

 

He's had 357 career at bats as a #5 hitter, and he has 52 RBI's.

 

As a #6 hitter, he's basically on the same pace with 93 RBI's in 692 at bats over his career.

 

It appears as though he has the potential to be a 100 RBI guy in the 5 or 6 spot if he can hit somewhere around .300. I'd much rather see him hitting 5th or 6th than 2nd.

[goonys evil twin]

I wish players would just go out there and DO what needs to be done to help the team win rather than run around predicting what they're gonna do.

 

I don't have a problem with players predicting what they are going to do in the season. I want the guy to be confident in his ability. And he's at a press conference introducing him to the local media, and the fans. It's inevitable that the discussion of what his numbers will look like will come up.

 

I do have a problem with a GM who says stuff like "he's going to give us a .300, 25 HR, 90 RBI season. First off, that insinuates that you base your offseason moves on what kind of AVG/HR/RBI line the guy will give you and exposes your potential ignorance of the more telling numbers. And secondly, it usually never comes true, and therefore acts as a sort of built in excuse for when the team loses.

 

What happens if that players hits .260/18/76, and the team fails? Well, you can talk about how you and your scouts were expecting more out of player X and he failed to live up to expectations, when in fact, your expectations were out of whack. You have to build teams expecting average numbers out of your guys, not career highs.

[Magnetic Curses]

hendry doesn't look at the last line on his bubble-gum card, though.

 

jeez, how much more low brow can hendry get? every time he opens his mouth something ignorant comes out. i can't believe this guy is talking contract extension.

 

time and time again hendry has refused to look at statistics, and time and time again it has cost him. he's a stubborn man who doesn't learn from mistakes and refuses to see better ways of approaching his problems.

 

that's why he's done a crappy job. his steatements regarding jones cause me to believe that he honestly doesn't care about OBP or any other important stat, and he's prepared to ride his little philosophy out until the end.

[goonys evil twin]

It appears as though he has the potential to be a 100 RBI guy in the 5 or 6 spot if he can hit somewhere around .300. I'd much rather see him hitting 5th or 6th than 2nd.

 

 

 

Saying guys are "potential 100 RBI guys" makes it sound like driving in an RBI is some sort of skill he's working on. Anybody who doesn't suck that hits 4th or 5th for a full season on a decent team should be able to flirt with 100 RBI. It's not any sort of accomplishment to drive in 90 from the 5 hole if you're playing all, or the vast majority of the season. Jones could have a bad year and still drive in 80+ from the 5 hole, and hurt the team due to their relative underperformance against the league.

[goonys evil twin]

time and time again hendry has refused to look at statistics, and time and time again it has cost him. he's a stubborn man who doesn't learn from mistakes and refuses to see better ways of approaching his problems.

 

The problem is he does look at statistics, but they are the wrong ones.

 

He lumps all stat heads together when he dismisses numbers the way he does, whether it's somebody who has studied the game and numbers, put forth a solid unbiased analysis of the data or a guy who says "he only hit .250 with 60 RBI last year, he stinks."

[BigbadB]

It appears as though he has the potential to be a 100 RBI guy in the 5 or 6 spot if he can hit somewhere around .300. I'd much rather see him hitting 5th or 6th than 2nd.

 

 

 

Saying guys are "potential 100 RBI guys" makes it sound like driving in an RBI is some sort of skill he's working on. Anybody who doesn't suck that hits 4th or 5th for a full season on a decent team should be able to flirt with 100 RBI. It's not any sort of accomplishment to drive in 90 from the 5 hole if you're playing all, or the vast majority of the season. Jones could have a bad year and still drive in 80+ from the 5 hole, and hurt the team due to their relative underperformance against the league.

 

I don't disagree with you. My main point was that his low seasonal RBI totals appear to be low moreso because of where he hit in the line up, which was lead off nearly half of his time in the bigs.

 

A #5 hitter on a Cubs team should have well over 100 RBI's if they are hitting behind Lee and his .400+ OBP and Ramirez's .360+ OBP. That's a lot of RBI opportunities. Burnitz had 87 with a .258 AVG.

[Magnetic Curses]

time and time again hendry has refused to look at statistics, and time and time again it has cost him. he's a stubborn man who doesn't learn from mistakes and refuses to see better ways of approaching his problems.

 

The problem is he does look at statistics, but they are the wrong ones.

 

He lumps all stat heads together when he dismisses numbers the way he does, whether it's somebody who has studied the game and numbers, put forth a solid unbiased analysis of the data or a guy who says "he only hit .250 with 60 RBI last year, he stinks."

 

i agree with you. but i think that he acquires guys and then scrambles to find useless statistics to validate his actions and appease disappointed fans, such as the confusing burnitz statistic.

[goonys evil twin]

i agree with you. but i think that he acquires guys and then scrambles to find useless statistics to validate his actions and appease disappointed fans, such as the confusing burnitz statistic.

 

This could be true. Maybe that is Wasserstrom's job, to find the obscure stats that make a guy look good. He was a PR guy before moving into the data department, or whatever the heck it is.

 

But I also think he looks at a guy's stats when thinking about signing him, but does so in a very subjective and not very meaningful manner. For instance, I think when looking for a guy to fill RF, he had his scouts draw up reports for every available veteran RF (except Giles since he was obviously unavailable), then he looked at a list and said, "You know, Jones hit .300 in 2002 and 2003, he's had over 80 RBI a few times, the scouts like his swing, he can catch the ball and run a little, I can afford him. He's my guy." Hendry looks at stats with a glass full, not half full or empty, kind of attitude. If a veteran has done something good in the past, then he's capable of repeating that now, so he's signable. He completely ignores trends, refuses to believe that guys peak around 26/27/28, and never looks past the most basic numbers.

[Cubzfan64]

I wish players would just go out there and DO what needs to be done to help the team win rather than run around predicting what they're gonna do.

 

I don't have a problem with players predicting what they are going to do in the season. I want the guy to be confident in his ability. And he's at a press conference introducing him to the local media, and the fans. It's inevitable that the discussion of what his numbers will look like will come up.

 

I do have a problem with a GM who says stuff like "he's going to give us a .300, 25 HR, 90 RBI season. First off, that insinuates that you base your offseason moves on what kind of AVG/HR/RBI line the guy will give you and exposes your potential ignorance of the more telling numbers. And secondly, it usually never comes true, and therefore acts as a sort of built in excuse for when the team loses.

 

What happens if that players hits .260/18/76, and the team fails? Well, you can talk about how you and your scouts were expecting more out of player X and he failed to live up to expectations, when in fact, your expectations were out of whack. You have to build teams expecting average numbers out of your guys, not career highs.

 

I understand your line of reasoning about players predicting, but as I've gotten older I've found that I care less and less about individual performances and statistics from Cub players - I just want each and every one to do whatever it takes in every situation to help the team win the game. That means making contact on hit and runs, hitting to the opposite field, taking an extra base when given it, hitting sacrifice flies when needed, driving the ball, being consistent on defense etc...

 

It's the team performance and record that makes all the difference to me these days and I expect every player to focus on that goal rather than any individual expectations.

[Magnetic Curses]

i agree with you. but i think that he acquires guys and then scrambles to find useless statistics to validate his actions and appease disappointed fans, such as the confusing burnitz statistic.

 

This could be true. Maybe that is Wasserstrom's job, to find the obscure stats that make a guy look good. He was a PR guy before moving into the data department, or whatever the heck it is.

 

But I also think he looks at a guy's stats when thinking about signing him, but does so in a very subjective and not very meaningful manner. For instance, I think when looking for a guy to fill RF, he had his scouts draw up reports for every available veteran RF (except Giles since he was obviously unavailable), then he looked at a list and said, "You know, Jones hit .300 in 2002 and 2003, he's had over 80 RBI a few times, the scouts like his swing, he can catch the ball and run a little, I can afford him. He's my guy." Hendry looks at stats with a glass full, not half full or empty, kind of attitude. If a veteran has done something good in the past, then he's capable of repeating that now, so he's signable. He completely ignores trends, refuses to believe that guys peak around 26/27/28, and never looks past the most basic numbers.

 

oh man, that's so like past cub gms.

[Magnetic Curses]

I understand your line of reasoning about players predicting, but as I've gotten older I've found that I care less and less about individual performances and statistics from Cub players - I just want each and every one to do whatever it takes in every situation to help the team win the game. That means making contact on hit and runs, hitting to the opposite field, taking an extra base when given it, hitting sacrifice flies when needed, driving the ball, being consistent on defense etc...

 

the best thing that a player can do to help the team win is get on base, which means displaying patience at the plate. all that other stuff is cliche. if the team improved it's OBP, it would improve it's runs scored, and we wouldn't notice if player X bunted or made contact on a hit and run--because it would be moot.

 

as much as people like to deny it, baseball is a sport of collective individual statistics. there is no team flow like in football or basketball.

 

if player x gets on base and hits the ball hard, he will contribute to the team without ever laying down a bunt or hitting a sac fly.

[goonys evil twin]

I just want each and every one to do whatever it takes in every situation to help the team win the game.

 

As baseball fans we have to stay cognizant of the fact that nobody does whatever it takes in every situation. Failure is part of the game, and an acceptable part of the game. What matters is the rate at which failure, and therefore success, occurs, and that is measure via stats. And when you have enough of the good stats, your team will win enough games. One guy with ungodly numbers teamed with a bunch of shmoes doesn't work. An entire team of guys with favorable numbers in comparison to their counterparts on other teams will have success.

[Magnetic Curses]

the top 3 teams in the NL in runs scored are the same top 3 in OBP, and the top 2 in walks are the same top 2 in runs scored.

 

anyone think that walks have anything to do with runs scored?

 

the cubs were first in the NL in hitting, yet 9th in runs scored and dead last in walks. could their lack of patience have anything to do with it?

[Cubzfan64]

I just want each and every one to do whatever it takes in every situation to help the team win the game.

 

As baseball fans we have to stay cognizant of the fact that nobody does whatever it takes in every situation. Failure is part of the game, and an acceptable part of the game. What matters is the rate at which failure, and therefore success, occurs, and that is measure via stats. And when you have enough of the good stats, your team will win enough games. One guy with ungodly numbers teamed with a bunch of shmoes doesn't work. An entire team of guys with favorable numbers in comparison to their counterparts on other teams will have success.

 

I agree with everything you said except for the part of "nobody doing whatever it takes to win in every situation" - I fully accept failure which in baseball happens at least 7 out of every 10 times for most guys. What I don't accept is having runners at 3rd with less than 2 outs and seeing the batter swing wildly at the first 2 balls in the dirt and/or 2 feet high with an uppercut which could only result in a popup to the infield if any contact was even made.

 

Baseball is a game of constant adjustment like any competitive professional sport - you see it in good football and basketball teams that adjust to their competition in order to win. Good baseball teams play the same way - just because you're a power hitter doesn't mean you go up swinging for a home run every at bat - just because you're an aggressive batter doesn't mean you swing at everything when the pitcher obviously can't find the strikezone.

 

The game may well be a collection of individual statistics combined together, but players have the capability to bring the odds of success more in their favor by their approach to the game and from the last 2 seasons or so, I've seen too little of that from Cub teams.

[Cubzfan64]

I understand your line of reasoning about players predicting, but as I've gotten older I've found that I care less and less about individual performances and statistics from Cub players - I just want each and every one to do whatever it takes in every situation to help the team win the game. That means making contact on hit and runs, hitting to the opposite field, taking an extra base when given it, hitting sacrifice flies when needed, driving the ball, being consistent on defense etc...

 

the best thing that a player can do to help the team win is get on base, which means displaying patience at the plate. all that other stuff is cliche. if the team improved it's OBP, it would improve it's runs scored, and we wouldn't notice if player X bunted or made contact on a hit and run--because it would be moot.

 

as much as people like to deny it, baseball is a sport of collective individual statistics. there is no team flow like in football or basketball.

 

if player x gets on base and hits the ball hard, he will contribute to the team without ever laying down a bunt or hitting a sac fly.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the highlighted point above (while I DO agree with you wholeheartedly on the being patient at the plate stance when it's warranted). While I absolutely agree that OBP is the #1 statistic that each ballplayer can work on improving in order to better the record of the overall team, other factors still come into play. Wouldn't you agree that since many players offensively fail 7 out of 10 times at getting on base, one should do things like hit behind a runner and cut down on your swing simply to make contact when the situation is called for? That way, if you succeed in getting on base great, but if you don't, you still have increased the possibility that your out has done SOMETHING to increase the odds that the next guy will be able to get the run in?

 

And so far all we've mentioned has revolved around offense - what about hitting cut off men, covering a base etc... all those little things that individuals do can become significant in the outcome of the game.

 

Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I say I expect every guy out there to do whatever it takes to help the team win.

[goonys evil twin]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the highlighted point above (while I DO agree with you wholeheartedly on the being patient at the plate stance when it's warranted). While I absolutely agree that OBP is the #1 statistic that each ballplayer can work on improving in order to better the record of the overall team, other factors still come into play. Wouldn't you agree that since many players offensively fail 7 out of 10 times at getting on base, one should do things like hit behind a runner and cut down on your swing simply to make contact when the situation is called for? That way, if you succeed in getting on base great, but if you don't, you still have increased the possibility that your out has done SOMETHING to increase the odds that the next guy will be able to get the run in?

 

Whether or not a guy should do something is meaningless. What they should do is maximize their production. Those "little things" fail most of the time as well. But if a guy is a .290/.320/.410 hitter who bunts a lot and keeps the ks down, he'll get a lot of undo praise, while a guy who is .275/.380/.500 with a lot of ks and no sac bunts will get undo criticism, under your scenario. For most guys, it will negatively affect their game if they purposefully try and ground to the right side, or simpley make contract, on a regular basis. If a .290/.390/.550 hitter with 120 Ks decides he's not going to strike out as much, and he's going to hit it to the right side more often and he's going to just look for contact, it would be easily for him to turn into a .280/.330/.425 hitter with 45 Ks. A lot of guys who manage to simply "make contact" do it by swinging meakly at just about anything the pitcher throws, so, while he doesn't strike out, he does ground out or pop out far too often. And since he's swinging weaker more often, he's not hitting those doubles and homers that are so important.

 

All that stuff sounds great, but it rarely leads to anything meaningful (most big sacrifice teams are really bad offenses that have no other choice - which are typically led by old school managers who refuse to acknowledge new schools of thought). I'd love for all of my hitters to have fantastic bat control and bunting skills. But what I'd love even more is for all my hitters to have above average production or greater for their position and for my team to be a great hitting team in the avg/obp/slg sense of hitting. If it's either or, I'm taking production every time. If it's a combination of the two, I'm leaning heavily on production. If all things are equal, or close to equal, I'll take the guy with the superior "little things", but that is usually not a choice you have the option of taking.

[Cubzfan64]

But if a guy is a .290/.320/.410 hitter who bunts a lot and keeps the ks down, he'll get a lot of undo praise, while a guy who is .275/.380/.500 with a lot of ks and no sac bunts will get undo criticism, under your scenario.

 

We're getting off the topic of the thread so I'll just post this last time here. You're way oversimplifying and overgeneralizing my comments and I honestly don't know why since we agree on alot more than you seem to think. I could just as easily oversimplify what you're saying and claim that we should field an offense of all guys who swing for the fence on every pitch because they're all trying to maximixe their production, but I won't because I know that's not what you're trying to say - give me the same benefit of the doubt (actually isn't that the type of offensive approach we've taken for the last 2 years?)

 

If player #1 above somehow scored 100 runs and or was a major factor throughout the year in moving runners into scoring position allowing the guy behind him to have a huge year thus leading to more W's then yes, he deserves credit. Player #2 above would of course deserve credit "under my scenario" because his production would inevitably result in more W's.

 

There was a game last season where David Ortiz of Boston stepped to the plate with a runner at 3B. The infield shifted as they normaly do against him leaving nobody on the left side of the infield. Ortiz laid down an average to below average bunt to the left side, beat it out for a hit and drove in the run cause there was nobody over there to field it.

 

For whatever reason - maybe he didn't feel comfortable swinging against that pitcher, maybe his arm was sore, maybe he just had an idea that they needed that run and he felt his best chance to drive it in would be to bunt to the left side - whatever it was, he did it and it helped them win a game. That's the kind of adjusting, thinking and effort I want to see from the ballplayers on my team.

[goonys evil twin]

But if a guy is a .290/.320/.410 hitter who bunts a lot and keeps the ks down, he'll get a lot of undo praise, while a guy who is .275/.380/.500 with a lot of ks and no sac bunts will get undo criticism, under your scenario.

 

We're getting off the topic of the thread so I'll just post this last time here. You're way oversimplifying and overgeneralizing my comments and I honestly don't know why since we agree on alot more than you seem to think. I could just as easily oversimplify what you're saying and claim that we should field an offense of all guys who swing for the fence on every pitch because they're all trying to maximixe their production,

 

No you couldn't, because I never said swinging for the fences was a good thing. You did say that just trying to make contact, bunting, moving guys over and hitting the other way were all good things. I don't believe they are all that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

When teams go out of their way to find guys who do those things, they sacrifice real production, ie, your Chicago Cubs.

 

I think all those things you listed are overrated ideals held up by conventional wisdom as ultra-important simply because they harken back to the overly romanticized good ole days when men was men and real hitters didn't accept walks. Now, I'm not accusing you of having this attitude, I'm just saying that the general acceptance of these "little things" as being so important comes from the very same type of thinking that says AVG/HR/RBI is far more important than AVG/OBP/SLG and that all this new fangled stats stuff is garbage. Having the ability to bunt is great, but doing it more than extremely rarely isn't. Being willing and able to hit behind the runner is fine and dandy, but it's not nearly as important as being able to drive that runner in yourself with a hard hit of your own. Simply making contact is an achievement for the average man, but it carries next to no value in major league baseball unless you make solid contact.