Notes from Cubs.com articles...

[jmajew]

First off this has been an incredibly interesting debate. This got me to thinking of the White Sox deal for Jim Thome. If the Sox would have had a choice of trading Aaron Rowand or Scott Podsednik which one would you have chosen.

avg/obp/slg/sb/cs

Rowand 270/329/407/16/5

Podsednik 290/351/359/59/23

 

To me this question will really sum up how valuable speed really is. Rowand is by far the superior defender but Podsednik had the higher OBP and AVG.

 

My personal opinion is that Rowand was more valuable to the White Sox team last year. That entire team was built around defense and he is one of the top 4 defensive CF in the game with Jones, Hunter, and Cameron. I think it is easier to replace a speedy player than it is to replace a great defensive centerfielder. This is probably one of the reasons a lot of teams overlook speed, imo.

[stitchface]

Hey Transmogrified Tiger, could you please not just respond in one-word posts? Clearly you want to say something, and it justs seems inane to respond to posts with 'why'. Thanks.

 

I want to know why he thinks speed is so valuable. He's said that we need a speed guy, never explained why, then said that speed is underrated. I know what I think and I want to know why he has such convictions.

 

This subject gets me fired up. I agree with the other dude, speed is undervalued now days. I've read this argument so many times on this board. Tim put up some cool stuff back when Beltran was a FA in a thread we were discussing speed, I'll see if I can't find it.

 

Everything around here gets argued to the extreme. I'm not saying that speed is how you win a World Series, but so many stat heads around here discount it as a non factor - at least that's how I feel they portray it. I've got 16 years experience on the ball diamond, and when I hear someone talk as speed being something not important, I seriously wonder if some of these folks have ever played baseball.

 

I've seen speed:

break a pitchers concentration on the mound...

it increases defensive range...

decrease hitting into double plays...

put pressure on defenses causing errors...

 

I could probably go on, there are so many variables, it's almost imposible to assign definite value to speed.

 

Here's a question, who'd you rather have on 1B if Lee hits a line drive to the gap, Barrett or Pierre? and then why?

 

I put speed in with fundamentals - hitting the cutoff man, laying down a bunt, smart baserunning, and on and on and on. These are basic fundamentals you are taught in little league. Speed is a tool, a great tool, but tools and fundamentals will never be the biggest part of the pie on win shares.

 

OBP is such a wonderful stat! OBP, pitching, defense, and power are essential. A good team can survive without speed, but not OBP. Here's the thing though, if you have a solid team built around OBP, tools and fundamentals will only make that team better. I have no idea how many wins it may play a part in, using all the different variables. Even if it were just a game or two, that could be the game or two that cost us a trip to the playoffs.

 

That's why I value speed. I wouldn't sacrifice OBP for speed, but if I can get OBP with speed, I take it. If I can get OBP, power, and speed in a player, I get excited.

 

I really enjoy reading your posts TT, they are usually pretty solid and right on. I don't know that I've read your opinion on this before though.

 

 

all these things speed does can be measured in other statistics - except range which is difficult to measure accurately.

[Magnetic Curses]

I really enjoy reading your posts TT, they are usually pretty solid and right on. I don't know that I've read your opinion on this before though.

 

So you think the Cubs need "another speed guy" to pair with Pierre as well?

 

Speed is overrated. Speed is completely worthless without other, more important aspects of the game in your repertoire. Speed is way down the list of necessary ingredients to be a good baseball player. Being an average runner is not a setback in the least. There are a ton of crappy ballplayer's whose speed has hypnotized baseball people into keeping them in the game long past their expiration dates.

 

Speed is nice to have, and all else being equal you'd have to take the faster guy. But all else usually isn't equal, and often times dramatically outweighs the difference speed will make.

 

I think CCF put it quite nicely. Now you respond and tell me why these are not GOOD things. .

 

break a pitchers concentration on the mound...

it increases defensive range... (getting to more balls for outs instead of hits)

decrease hitting into double plays...

put pressure on defenses causing errors...

 

1. breaking a pitcher's concentration on the mound? did you see my reply? these guys have seen enough baserunners to be okay pitching with fast guys on base.

 

2. minimally. even then, i've seen just as many people hit the ball up the middle on a hit-and-run as i have hit into a hole vacated by an infielder. there's no proof that it helps.

 

3. juan pierre takes off from first with no outs, gets caught stealing. next guy grounds out. same thing as a double play.

 

4. see #1. if you can't field your position with runners on, you have no business playing infield in the big leagues.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I really enjoy reading your posts TT, they are usually pretty solid and right on. I don't know that I've read your opinion on this before though.

 

So you think the Cubs need "another speed guy" to pair with Pierre as well?

 

Speed is overrated. Speed is completely worthless without other, more important aspects of the game in your repertoire. Speed is way down the list of necessary ingredients to be a good baseball player. Being an average runner is not a setback in the least. There are a ton of crappy ballplayer's whose speed has hypnotized baseball people into keeping them in the game long past their expiration dates.

 

Speed is nice to have, and all else being equal you'd have to take the faster guy. But all else usually isn't equal, and often times dramatically outweighs the difference speed will make.

 

I think CCF put it quite nicely. Now you respond and tell me why these are not GOOD things. .

 

break a pitchers concentration on the mound...

it increases defensive range... (getting to more balls for outs instead of hits)

decrease hitting into double plays...

put pressure on defenses causing errors...

 

They are not BAD things by any means, they are just not nearly as important as other factors. No one is saying speed is bad, or the things you can do (well) with speed are bad. No one at all.

[katway]

It would be great if Hairston could get back on track. When he was with the O's, he was playing very well on offense and defense. His defense had the papers discussing his potential for a gold glove if he would only stop trying to make spectacular plays and settle for less spectacular results from time to time. In other words, Hairston's defense was only falty in the sense that he tried to do too much sometimes. He always was above average at covering ground and gloving the ball. It's the decision making that would get him into trouble. Hopefully, he has matured and can be a much better defensive second baseman than we've had in recent years.

[EricG]

CarolinaCubFan I cannot agree more. Who ever said Speed is a non factor is out of their mind, along with the fact fundamentals are not important. Are you kidding me? If you cannot field the ball, get a bunt down, hit the cut-off man, and get that runner in on 3rd base you are not goign to be succesful. I think people have been watching a poor fundamentaly sound Cubs team way too long to realize what speed and being able to master the fundamentals can get you.

 

i'll take a team full of guys with no speed, poor defensive ability, who don't sacrifice, but who get on base between .375-.425 over a bunch of guys who are great "fundamentally" in every area, but can't get on base to save their lives. we'll see who scores more runs.

 

speed means nothing if you can't use it, or use it poorly.

 

the point is that speed is way down on the list when building a baseball team. you want good starting pitching first, OBP second, SLG third, and relief pitching 4th. give me a team that does all of that well and you can have your gutsy little speedy guys who always hit the cutoff man.

 

you'll get crushed.

You'll have a hard time getting people out with a bunch of statues to play defense. OBP means little if the guy is left on base. You need a balance so if something isn't working that day you have other options. First step is to get on base, once someone is on base a hit moves the runner along, a hit to the OF has a better chance of moving a runner from first to third and the chance is even better if that guy running the bases is fast. Anyway the answer is balance. A 400 lb guy who can draw a walk isn't going to be playing in the majors.

[goonys evil twin]

OBP means little if the guy is left on base.

 

If you have great team OBP guys won't be left on base too often, they'll score plenty.

[goonys evil twin]

So you think the Cubs need "another speed guy" to pair with Pierre as well?

 

 

Did I say that? I also consider D. Lee a "speed guy"

 

No you didn't say that, but you responded to a series of posts that began with somebody talking about wanting another speed guy, and somebody else questioning why. And you appeared to be taking the "speed guy" side of the argument. I for one hate all the talk of getting more speed, because like a lot of things with the Cubs, in the narrow minded pursuit of a particular tool, the big picture of production is ignored. When you go gonzo for speed you end up overpaying for mediocre players like Pierre. When you spend all offseason looking for a specific spot in the order, like leadoff, you ignore the overal lack of production on the team. Pierre is a better option for leadoff than Patterson, but looking at overall production the Cubs went from 16th in the NL in OPS at CF to the guy who provided FLA with the 15th highest OPS in the NL from CF. Overall production was ignored for isolated tools. Dusty wanted speed, and that's been his excuse for playing guys like Perez and Macias, they were faster than the other guys on the team. Jones is faster than Burnitz, but he's not any better, and he doesn't help this team get any better.

 

The Cubs didn't lose last year because of a lack of speed. They lost because the pitching was down and OBP remained down, with both sides suffering from a severe lack of respect for the walk (pitchers gave up too many, hitters took too few). This goes back to an organization philosophy that ignores the value of the walk, by constantly acquiring and promoting pitchers who share a trait of wildness, and stressing the need for hitters to swing early and often while also acquiring and playing players with a history of poor patience at the plate.

[Illini Iceman]

It would be great if Hairston could get back on track. When he was with the O's, he was playing very well on offense and defense. His defense had the papers discussing his potential for a gold glove if he would only stop trying to make spectacular plays and settle for less spectacular results from time to time. In other words, Hairston's defense was only falty in the sense that he tried to do too much sometimes. He always was above average at covering ground and gloving the ball. It's the decision making that would get him into trouble. Hopefully, he has matured and can be a much better defensive second baseman than we've had in recent years.

 

I can remember a least a few times last year he threw wildly to first on rather routine plays. It almost seems like when he is just going after a ball on instinct he is fine but when he has time to think about it his defense is more shaky.

[BigbadB]

This is a great thread to fade back to 2002 when one of the great Cub lead off hitters of our era made his presence known.

 

Mark Bellhorn in 212 lead off at bats in 2002:

 

48 runs scored

.274/.389/.542/.931

36 walks

4 HBP

27 XBH's

2 stolen bases in 4 attempts

 

:cheers:

[Balsa]

Wow. His OBP isn't that bad.

[CarolinaCubFan]

Hey Transmogrified Tiger, could you please not just respond in one-word posts? Clearly you want to say something, and it justs seems inane to respond to posts with 'why'. Thanks.

 

I want to know why he thinks speed is so valuable. He's said that we need a speed guy, never explained why, then said that speed is underrated. I know what I think and I want to know why he has such convictions.

 

This subject gets me fired up. I agree with the other dude, speed is undervalued now days. I've read this argument so many times on this board. Tim put up some cool stuff back when Beltran was a FA in a thread we were discussing speed, I'll see if I can't find it.

 

 

 

Everything around here gets argued to the extreme. I'm not saying that speed is how you win a World Series, but so many stat heads around here discount it as a non factor - at least that's how I feel they portray it. I've got 16 years experience on the ball diamond, and when I hear someone talk as speed being something not important, I seriously wonder if some of these folks have ever played baseball.

 

I've seen speed:

break a pitchers concentration on the mound...

it increases defensive range...

decrease hitting into double plays...

put pressure on defenses causing errors...

 

I could probably go on, there are so many variables, it's almost imposible to assign definite value to speed.

 

Here's a question, who'd you rather have on 1B if Lee hits a line drive to the gap, Barrett or Pierre? and then why?

 

I put speed in with fundamentals - hitting the cutoff man, laying down a bunt, smart baserunning, and on and on and on. These are basic fundamentals you are taught in little league. Speed is a tool, a great tool, but tools and fundamentals will never be the biggest part of the pie on win shares.

 

OBP is such a wonderful stat! OBP, pitching, defense, and power are essential. A good team can survive without speed, but not OBP. Here's the thing though, if you have a solid team built around OBP, tools and fundamentals will only make that team better. I have no idea how many wins it may play a part in, using all the different variables. Even if it were just a game or two, that could be the game or two that cost us a trip to the playoffs.

 

That's why I value speed. I wouldn't sacrifice OBP for speed, but if I can get OBP with speed, I take it. If I can get OBP, power, and speed in a player, I get excited.

 

I really enjoy reading your posts TT, they are usually pretty solid and right on. I don't know that I've read your opinion on this before though.

 

this is a good post. but no one's saying that speed doesn't have any value. it's nice to have a team that can run. however, i will take a team of derrek lees before i take a team of juan pierres. if i had to choose, it wouldn't even be a decision.

 

as far as beltran goes, beltran's not just fast, he's smart. he's a much smarter and more effective basestealer than pierre. although he slipped last year a bit, he still stole 42 bases in 45 attempts in 04 and 41 in 45 attempts in 03, that's an incredibly valuable asset. pierre is nowhere near beltran in terms of baserunning. pierre's faster, but beltran's better.

 

speed without intelligence probably hurts the team more than not.

 

i don't buy the idea that baserunners bother big league pitchers all that much. by the time they reach the majors, they've seen their share of speedy guys on the basepaths and have often developed ways of dealing with them. as far as juan pierre goes, he often makes the pitcher's job easier by taking off prematurely and getting thrown out.

 

as far as bunting goes, there's no evidence at all that it creates any more runs than a team would score anyway.

 

major league baseball is an entirely different beast than high school baseball, college baseball, and even minor league or semi-pro ball. major league baseball is played over 162 games. and to counter your questioning of whether some of us who've never played organized ball above high school really know what we're talking about, i'd argue that people too close to the game often get inundated with subjective BS to have any other kind of perspective on the game. billy beane has done a great job relying on statistical analysis and has been successful hiring folks who've never played the game before. sometimes that's what you need--someone to come around and say: "that's a funny way to do that", or "wait, there's no possible way that the earth could be the center of the universe". a lot of folks close to the game can't think any other way--it's positive to have a different perspective.

 

and only a stat can tell you that 1 hit a week is the difference between .250 and .300

 

Sulley, you're still going too extreme. I agree with you guys that speed alone is not the answer, but I still argue that speed and fundamentals hold enough value that it should be part of who Hendry scouts. Mention speed, and Pierre's name gets thrown about. He's got speed, but I also consider D. Lee, Abreu, Vlad, and Arod as speed guys. They all have above average speed for their posistion. These guys all have high OBP's, power, and.....tools and fundamentals. Along with the OBP and power, they also have Gold Gloves, speed, and a good grasp of the fundamentals. I can't agree with you more that speed used unwisely could be counterproductive, but if you have good fundamentals, you won't be using that speed unwisely.

 

Sulley, come on man. How many times have you been watching our beloved Cubs and cussed the TV out because a pitcher like Farnsworth is goofing with a runner on first, and can't throw a strike. I've seen a lot of big innings get started this way. A pesky baserunner may have no effect on Roger Clemens, but this league isn't full of pitchers like Roger Clemens. A young, short reliever in a high pressure situation is a good time to see how speed can effect a pitcher.

 

Bunting is hard to argue, but it is a fundamental of the game. I'd always heard laying down a bunt can help you snap out of a slump. I've had success with that, no where near 100%, but enough that I believe it's more than just myth. Bunting is a valuable tool when used in the right situations. Thing is, we don't get to see it used in the right situations on a regular basis unless we are watching teams like the Cardinals. I envy how the Cardinals always seem to execute all the fundamentals.

 

I can't agree with you more on your last paragraph. I'm not trying to Dusty Bash, but Baker is a prime example. I'm not gonna join in on the Bean butt kissing, but he plays a big part in "new" baseball. I support the logic behind statistical analysis, but I get the impression from so many posts, that "moneyballers" want to forget about the basics. Old baseball survived depression, scandal, wars, and lockout. It's an amazing game. Like I said, I'm in favor of new baseball, but I will be a big fan of the first team that builds an old school baseball team, with a perfect mix of players based on statistical analysis - Cubs or not.

 

It is positive to have a different perspective, but it's also positive to improve on what works.

 

Good post Sulley, I enjoy the conversation.

[Magnetic Curses]

CarolinaCubFan I cannot agree more. Who ever said Speed is a non factor is out of their mind, along with the fact fundamentals are not important. Are you kidding me? If you cannot field the ball, get a bunt down, hit the cut-off man, and get that runner in on 3rd base you are not goign to be succesful. I think people have been watching a poor fundamentaly sound Cubs team way too long to realize what speed and being able to master the fundamentals can get you.

 

i'll take a team full of guys with no speed, poor defensive ability, who don't sacrifice, but who get on base between .375-.425 over a bunch of guys who are great "fundamentally" in every area, but can't get on base to save their lives. we'll see who scores more runs.

 

speed means nothing if you can't use it, or use it poorly.

 

the point is that speed is way down on the list when building a baseball team. you want good starting pitching first, OBP second, SLG third, and relief pitching 4th. give me a team that does all of that well and you can have your gutsy little speedy guys who always hit the cutoff man.

 

you'll get crushed.

You'll have a hard time getting people out with a bunch of statues to play defense. OBP means little if the guy is left on base. You need a balance so if something isn't working that day you have other options. First step is to get on base, once someone is on base a hit moves the runner along, a hit to the OF has a better chance of moving a runner from first to third and the chance is even better if that guy running the bases is fast. Anyway the answer is balance. A 400 lb guy who can draw a walk isn't going to be playing in the majors.

 

If you have a team full of guys who can get on base, chances are they'll be more effective getting that runner home than all the bunters in the world. it's also likely they're capable of creating more than just one run in any given inning. while you're pesky lil' buddies are busy squeezing that run in, my guys will simply come up next inning and score 3-4 runs because they're good at what really matters in the game.

 

will my guys have bad games? yes. will they go 162-0? of course not. again, marathon, not sprint. you can't win them all. i'd be more than happy accepting those 62 defeats when my team is bringing home 100 victories.

 

i think this is the point, and it's undeniable: speed is a nice peripheral asset, perhaps it's even underrated, but it's not as important as OBP or SLG.

 

a 200 pound guy who's fast and can't get on base or hit for power is called "me", and i'm not exactly tearing up the league right now, while there are plenty of much bigger, slower guys than me who have jobs hitting the ball.

[wastra]

Offense is about not making outs. period.

 

All else beign equal, if, over the course of a season, you send your guys to the plate thousands of times, and make significantly fewer outs per PA than your opponents, you'll likely outscore them.

 

I think that's pretty logical.

 

Hence, OBP directly relates to not making outs.

Next is slugging, because it determines whether or not you're jsut dumping a single to right every inning or actually hitting it hard.

 

 

 

OBVIOUSLY, if given the choice between two otherwise identical players, a manager/scout/person would take the one with better speed and better fundamentals. But things are never equal in baseball, so we take into account the most vital offensive statistics FIRST, then look to the others if we need a dealbreaker.

[Magnetic Curses]

Sulley, you're still going too extreme. I agree with you guys that speed alone is not the answer, but I still argue that speed and fundamentals hold enough value that it should be part of who Hendry scouts. Mention speed, and Pierre's name gets thrown about. He's got speed, but I also consider D. Lee, Abreu, Vlad, and Arod as speed guys. They all have above average speed for their posistion. These guys all have high OBP's, power, and.....tools and fundamentals. Along with the OBP and power, they also have Gold Gloves, speed, and a good grasp of the fundamentals. I can't agree with you more that speed used unwisely could be counterproductive, but if you have good fundamentals, you won't be using that speed unwisely.

 

i want hendry scouting players who are able to get on base first and foremost. would i like them to be able to score from 2nd on a single? yes. is it absolutely necessary to have speed when you have an OBP of .400 and an SLG of .550? no. if i have to deceide between derrek lee and a slower guy like albert pujols, i'll take pujols every time because he's a better hitter.

 

Sulley, come on man. How many times have you been watching our beloved Cubs and cussed the TV out because a pitcher like Farnsworth is goofing with a runner on first, and can't throw a strike. I've seen a lot of big innings get started this way. A pesky baserunner may have no effect on Roger Clemens, but this league isn't full of pitchers like Roger Clemens. A young, short reliever in a high pressure situation is a good time to see how speed can effect a pitcher.

 

we'll just have to agree to disagree here. even a young short reliever has pitched in enough games to be able to deal with a baserunner. even if there is a difference, it's not significant enough to worry about in the long run.

 

Bunting is hard to argue, but it is a fundamental of the game. I'd always heard laying down a bunt can help you snap out of a slump. I've had success with that, no where near 100%, but enough that I believe it's more than just myth. Bunting is a valuable tool when used in the right situations. Thing is, we don't get to see it used in the right situations on a regular basis unless we are watching teams like the Cardinals. I envy how the Cardinals always seem to execute all the fundamentals.

 

the cardinals had 112 sacrifices during the regular season, we had 106. that's a .04 difference in sacrifices per game--and it's a difference that is completely invisible to the naked eye. the cardinal had the exact same BA as the cubs, roughly the same amount of sacrifices yet scored 100 more runs. those runs were created by plate discipline, pure and simple, they took about 120 more walks than we did.

 

Old baseball survived depression, scandal, wars, and lockout. It's an amazing game. Like I said, I'm in favor of new baseball, but I will be a big fan of the first team that builds an old school baseball team, with a perfect mix of players based on statistical analysis - Cubs or not.

 

beane and his brethren aren't trying to make a "new" game. they're simply trying to exploit statistical trends. the idea that new baseball is any different from old baseball is faulty. the 27 yankees had collins (.407), gehrig (.474), lazzeri (.383), combs(.414), ruth (.486), and meusel (.393). the team OBP was .381.

 

they stole some bases but they weren't very good at it. were the 27 yankees a "new" style team? no, they simply had what was needed to score a ton of runs= OBP and SLG.

 

no team is "new" style of team, because there is no division between new and old school. there are only teams that score a lot of runs and teams that don't.

[goonys evil twin]

Like I said, I'm in favor of new baseball, but I will be a big fan of the first team that builds an old school baseball team, with a perfect mix of players based on statistical analysis - Cubs or not.

 

What the heck does that even mean? It's just a bunch of cliches. "Old baseball", whatever that is, certainly wouldn't have anything to do with statistical analysis, let alone the perfect mix of statistical analysis.

[stitchface]

All else beign equal, if, over the course of a season, you send your guys to the plate thousands of times, and make significantly fewer outs per PA than your opponents, you'll likely outscore them.

 

Its not just likely - mathematically you will score more runs.

[TheDude]

The posts that talk about a "team full of X's versus a team full of Y's" are supported in a fantasy world.

 

Why does the speed argument always have to considered in extremes? The key is balance. I want OBP, speed, and fundamentals, and they do not have to be mutually exclusive to team building. That's why there are 13-14 non-pitcher roster spots.

 

The Cubs have enough speed and power. Neither is the problem. So the argument about playing Walker or Hairston at 2B in any given situation should be more rooted in opposing pitching splits and Cubs pitcher needs than in true value of a speed/power argument. With Zambrano on the mound, I might want Perez starting over both those guys at 2B.

 

Anyway, what truly surprises me about this topic is: given all the Dusty Baker hate on these boards, and the constant drumming of fans claiming Baker is looking for an excuse to play anybody (Grissom/Mabry namely) over Matt Murton, where are these same folks applauding DB for very high praise of Matt Murton?

 

That was wayyyy too long for one sentence. :)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The posts that talk about a "team full of X's versus a team full of Y's" are supported in a fantasy world.

 

Why does the speed argument always have to considered in extremes? The key is balance. I want OBP, speed, and fundamentals, and they do not have to be mutually exclusive to team building. That's why there are 13-14 non-pitcher roster spots.

 

The Cubs have enough speed and power. Neither is the problem. So the argument about playing Walker or Hairston at 2B in any given situation should be more rooted in opposing pitching splits and Cubs pitcher needs than in true value of a speed/power argument. With Zambrano on the mound, I might want Perez starting over both those guys at 2B.

 

Anyway, what truly surprises me about this topic is: given all the Dusty Baker hate on these boards, and the constant drumming of fans claiming Baker is looking for an excuse to play anybody (Grissom/Mabry namely) over Matt Murton, where are these same folks applauding DB for very high praise of Matt Murton?

 

That was wayyyy too long for one sentence. :)

 

Admittedly I haven't seen much of Dusty's remarks in a while, but I read in another thread that he characterized Murton's year last year as "lucky".

[TheDude]

Admittedly I haven't seen much of Dusty's remarks in a while, but I read in another thread that he characterized Murton's year last year as "lucky".

 

Don't recall any quotes like that. Regardless, DB's comments in the article are high praise, more than any other rookie I can recall under his managerialship.

 

From those comments, and JH's previous praise, it seems pretty clear to me that LF is Murton's job to lose, which is very comforting considering where we were last year with Dubois. The proof will be in the playing time pudding though.

 

Still, as a fan, you have to be excited to see if Murton can become a solid big leaguer for Chicago.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Admittedly I haven't seen much of Dusty's remarks in a while, but I read in another thread that he characterized Murton's year last year as "lucky".

 

Don't recall any quotes like that. Regardless, DB's comments in the article are high praise, more than any other rookie I can recall under his managerialship.

 

From those comments, and JH's previous praise, it seems pretty clear to me that LF is Murton's job to lose, which is very comforting considering where we were last year with Dubois. The proof will be in the playing time pudding though.

 

Still, as a fan, you have to be excited to see if Murton can become a solid big leaguer for Chicago.

 

Didn't Hendry talk up Dubois as a ROY candidate last offseason?

 

And yes, I'm excited and interested to see what Murton does in full time action.