Gary Hughes Possible Candidate for Reds GM

[Fred Hornkohl]

Right before it happened I was telling my now-wife how terrible Neifi was, and how much I couldn't stand him, and how he was absolutely going to weakly ground out to short.

 

Then I was speechless. She was laughing.

 

I thought it was how Baker used him that you couldn't stand. :wink:

 

The heat of the moment does not help one's sense of proper perspective. :D

 

One last, funny story about it, though. My now-wife thought his name was pronounced Knifey, and thus he became her favorite player. She was very dissapointed it was actually Neigh-fee, and promptly went back to complaining about the fact I spend so much time watching the Cubs and talking about them on NSBB.

 

Here's hoping that we both get a life someday !! :wink:

 

Fred, if it hasn't happened by now, I don't think there's much hope for us. :)

 

[sigh]

[Balsa]

The Cubs are 13-248 on days when Fred sighes! Go Cubs!

[imb]

San Jose , that is one of my biggest pet peaves, Newer is always sexier than known. That is a universal human bias ( as much as there can be one) The real problem lies in the historically riduculous ability of the cub brass noe Dusty to develoup postional talent . 1991 how bad is that and Doug Glanville to beat .Thank God Hendry , fleeced the Marlins and the Pirates . God Bless Coach L

 

Are you typing with your face? Im just seriously wondering what the hell is going on.

[SanJoseCubsFan]

If he does type with his face does it make the point less valid? The Cubs have not a legit positional player since Grace. Dusty has only been here 3 years.

 

 

San Jose , that is one of my biggest pet peaves, Newer is always sexier than known. That is a universal human bias ( as much as there can be one) The real problem lies in the historically riduculous ability of the cub brass noe Dusty to develoup postional talent . 1991 how bad is that and Doug Glanville to beat .Thank God Hendry , fleeced the Marlins and the Pirates . God Bless Coach L

 

Are you typing with your face? Im just seriously wondering what the hell is going on.

[Guest]

I posted on another tread that the Cubs offense, OPS wise, was as good or better than most world series teams. They did not score allot of runs and some of that is OBS and some of that may have been bad luck.

I'd say a good deal of it was bad luck. Using my run estimator of choice (XR) the Cubs should have scored 767 runs last year, a full 64 runs more than what they ended up scoring. Had their actual total been more in line with their expected total, they likely would have won 85-86 games; not quite playoff-worthy, but still not a bad team.

 

What was the reason for the discrepancy? Some of it might have been due to the unusual "shape" of their offensive output; lots of batting average and pretty good SLG, but a thoroughly unimpressive OBP. A lot of it probably has to do with the Cubs' inability to get timely hitting last year. I don't have the numbers right now, but I believe the Cubs rated among the worst in the league in hitting with RISP and less than two outs. The good news is that situational hitting stats show almost no year-to-year consistency so the 2006 Cubs will almost certainly be better in this regard. In short, if Hendry had kept the exact same 2005 team for 2006 and it each player's performance held steady, I'd guess that we'd score 750-760 runs next year.

 

Does this mean Hendry should be content with minimal offensive improvement this offseason? Nope. While those 50-60 free runs are nice, regression to the mean will probably eat up a good portion of them. If Lee falls just halfway back to his career averages in 2006, that's loss of about 25 runs. If he falls completely back to his pre-2005 rates we're 50 runs in the hole. A similar disclaimer can be made about Neifi if he gets any appreciable playing time. Meanwhile, the improvements made to the offense have been minimal. Jones is unlikely to be provide anything more than what Burnitz gave us last year. I have high hopes that Murton and Cedeno will have fine MLB careers, but it's unfair to expect them to provide the huge offensive boost the team is looking for. About the only significant improvement made to the offense this season was the acquisition of Pierre. (And that's mostly just because CF was unbelievably atrocious last season, not because Pierre is a huge threat on offense.)

 

Yes, the Cubs were unlucky last season, and we probably will get several dozen "free" runs just because that luck is likely to change. Unfortunately regression also looks to eat away some of those gains while few actual improvements have been made to the offense. If the Cubs are to contend next season, it will all hinge on our pitching. If Wood and/or Miller can come back fully healthy then the Cubs should be poised to make a decent run at the playoffs. If our staff continues to have a few health problems, however, we're looking at another season of .500-ish baseball.

[UK1679666180]

If he does type with his face does it make the point less valid? The Cubs have not a legit positional player since Grace. Dusty has only been here 3 years.

 

Sure, the Cubs have had issues regarding scouting, drafting, and development of position player.

 

That doesn't excuse Baker's flaws and how they have impacted the Cubs during his 1st 3 years.

 

Of course, every manager has flaws and how they would impact the Cubs are still to be determined.

 

Also, I don't feel that Baker's #1 flaw has been a veteran bias, but Murton should've been the regular right after the Lawton trade to the Yanks as well as Cedeno starting the majority of the time at SS.

 

His main problems have been line-up composition and managing the usage pattern of pitchers. Managers take some responsibility when the health of the pitchers fail them as does the PC as well as runs being cost by who is hitting in front of and behind of who.

[stitchface]

I posted on another tread that the Cubs offense, OPS wise, was as good or better than most world series teams. They did not score allot of runs and some of that is OBS and some of that may have been bad luck.

I'd say a good deal of it was bad luck. Using my run estimator of choice (XR) the Cubs should have scored 767 runs last year, a full 64 runs more than what they ended up scoring. Had their actual total been more in line with their expected total, they likely would have won 85-86 games; not quite playoff-worthy, but still not a bad team.

 

What was the reason for the discrepancy? Some of it might have been due to the unusual "shape" of their offensive output; lots of batting average and pretty good SLG, but a thoroughly unimpressive OBP. A lot of it probably has to do with the Cubs' inability to get timely hitting last year. I don't have the numbers right now, but I believe the Cubs rated among the worst in the league in hitting with RISP and less than two outs. The good news is that situational hitting stats show almost no year-to-year consistency so the 2006 Cubs will almost certainly be better in this regard. In short, if Hendry had kept the exact same 2005 team for 2006 and it each player's performance held steady, I'd guess that we'd score 750-760 runs next year.

 

Does this mean Hendry should be content with minimal offensive improvement this offseason? Nope. While those 50-60 free runs are nice, regression to the mean will probably eat up a good portion of them. If Lee falls just halfway back to his career averages in 2006, that's loss of about 25 runs. If he falls completely back to his pre-2005 rates we're 50 runs in the hole. A similar disclaimer can be made about Neifi if he gets any appreciable playing time. Meanwhile, the improvements made to the offense have been minimal. Jones is unlikely to be provide anything more than what Burnitz gave us last year. I have high hopes that Murton and Cedeno will have fine MLB careers, but it's unfair to expect them to provide the huge offensive boost the team is looking for. About the only significant improvement made to the offense this season was the acquisition of Pierre. (And that's mostly just because CF was unbelievably atrocious last season, not because Pierre is a huge threat on offense.)

 

Yes, the Cubs were unlucky last season, and we probably will get several dozen "free" runs just because that luck is likely to change. Unfortunately regression also looks to eat away some of those gains while few actual improvements have been made to the offense. If the Cubs are to contend next season, it will all hinge on our pitching. If Wood and/or Miller can come back fully healthy then the Cubs should be poised to make a decent run at the playoffs. If our staff continues to have a few health problems, however, we're looking at another season of .500-ish baseball.

 

is that 85 wins based on a revised pythagenport or just based off of 79 wins plus however many runs?

[Ram1380]

Also, I don't feel that Baker's #1 flaw has been a veteran bias, but Murton should've been the regular right after the Lawton trade to the Yanks as well as Cedeno starting the majority of the time at SS.

 

His main problems have been line-up composition and managing the usage pattern of pitchers. Managers take some responsibility when the health of the pitchers fail them as does the PC as well as runs being cost by who is hitting in front of and behind of who.

 

 

Agreed. The young player angle just happened to be what was brought up. The list of things that make Baker a horrible manager is plenty long indeed.

[SanJoseCubsFan]

A rookie will always assume the lion is try to eat him. An experienced person may think he has a thorn in his toe or something more dangerious is behind him than a lion. Experience and perspective is important. This is the same reason CEOs are not 20 years old. At the very worst if the vet. thought the lion was hungry he could just trip the rookie and let him get eaten even if the rookie was faster

javascript:emoticon(':)')

Smile

 

Ram1380

 

I am sorry if I came off harsh, I just wish someone could give me some evidence Dusty played some vet over an even decent prospect after all of the dust settled not when they were prospects. Maybe at the time they seemed like good prospects but most of these guys ended up role players at best. (Murton/Cedeno are the closest and they are both starting this year so I don't think they were stunted much)

 

I like to use this analogy in this case.

 

If a lion is chasing me and you, I don't have to be fast, I just have to be faster than you.

 

The same thing goes with the vet v. the rookie. How the player performed after he left the Cubs or in the next year is completly irrelavent. If "the Horn" put up better numbers he should have played. Going with known production, if it is bad, is no virtue.

:) :) :) :)

[imb]

If he does type with his face does it make the point less valid? The Cubs have not a legit positional player since Grace. Dusty has only been here 3 years.

 

 

San Jose , that is one of my biggest pet peaves, Newer is always sexier than known. That is a universal human bias ( as much as there can be one) The real problem lies in the historically riduculous ability of the cub brass noe Dusty to develoup postional talent . 1991 how bad is that and Doug Glanville to beat .Thank God Hendry , fleeced the Marlins and the Pirates . God Bless Coach L

 

Are you typing with your face? Im just seriously wondering what the hell is going on.

 

I wasnt refuting his point, I was just pointing out that his posts get less and less understandable everytime.

[Ram1380]

A rookie will always assume the lion is try to eat him. An experienced person may think he has a thorn in his toe or something more dangerious is behind him than a lion. Experience and perspective is important. This is the same reason CEOs are not 20 years old. At the very worst if the vet. thought the lion was hungry he could just trip the rookie and let him get eaten even if the rookie was faster

javascript:emoticon('')

Smile

 

 

 

The problem with that analogy though is that, in the Cub's case, the "veteran" running always has a piano on his back.

 

 

 

8)

[Fred Hornkohl]

A rookie will always assume the lion is try to eat him. An experienced person may think he has a thorn in his toe or something more dangerious is behind him than a lion. Experience and perspective is important. This is the same reason CEOs are not 20 years old. At the very worst if the vet. thought the lion was hungry he could just trip the rookie and let him get eaten even if the rookie was faster

javascript:emoticon('')

Smile

 

 

 

The problem with that analogy though is that, in the Cub's case, the "veteran" running always has a piano on his back.

 

8)

 

.... but the rookies always seem to get tripped up just the same.

[Guest]

is that 85 wins based on a revised pythagenport or just based off of 79 wins plus however many runs?

Rough estimate based on the fact that a 10 run swing in a team's differential is roughly equivalent to one win. If I were being more precise I'd adjust for run environment by setting the RPW (runs per win) at 10*sqrt(RPG/9). For the 2005 Cubs their RPG was 8.75 and their RPW was 9.86. Technically, then, that 64 run underperformance cost them 6.49 wins.

[stitchface]

is that 85 wins based on a revised pythagenport or just based off of 79 wins plus however many runs?

Rough estimate based on the fact that a 10 run swing in a team's differential is roughly equivalent to one win. If I were being more precise I'd adjust for run environment by setting the RPW (runs per win) at 10*sqrt(RPG/9). For the 2005 Cubs their RPG was 8.75 and their RPW was 9.86. Technically, then, that 64 run underperformance cost them 6.49 wins.

 

I mostly asked because for a couple years the cubs underperformed run production, run prevention and pythagenport. I was wondering if this was true again.

[Guest]

is that 85 wins based on a revised pythagenport or just based off of 79 wins plus however many runs?

Rough estimate based on the fact that a 10 run swing in a team's differential is roughly equivalent to one win. If I were being more precise I'd adjust for run environment by setting the RPW (runs per win) at 10*sqrt(RPG/9). For the 2005 Cubs their RPG was 8.75 and their RPW was 9.86. Technically, then, that 64 run underperformance cost them 6.49 wins.

 

I mostly asked because for a couple years the cubs underperformed run production, run prevention and pythagenport. I was wondering if this was true again.

Yep on all counts, though the only significant difference was in expected vs. actual runs scored. The differences between expected/actual runs allowed and winning percentage were small enough that they fell well within the error range of the prediction formulas. The offense was the only real underachiever in 2005.

[stitchface]

nevertheless, this seems to be a consistent trend for the Cubs under the Baker regime.

[CubDad4Ever]

IMB is it , sorry bud i will try not to distract you with poor typing. Im often in a hurry in my job. I will try to simplify my point. The athlete not on the team ( rookie or otherwise) will to some people always seem like the better option than the known quantity. Im not talking about Macias vrs AndyMarte. A careful evaluation of the unknown including metrics such as durability , make up , defense , coachability all need to be looked at. I hope this was succinct and informative IMB. May God Bless both our days. Coach L

[Magnetic Curses]

IMB is it , sorry bud i will try not to distract you with poor typing. Im often in a hurry in my job. I will try to simplify my point. The athlete not on the team ( rookie or otherwise) will to some people always seem like the better option than the known quantity. Im not talking about Macias vrs AndyMarte. A careful evaluation of the unknown including metrics such as durability , make up , defense , coachability all need to be looked at. I hope this was succinct and informative IMB. May God Bless both our days. Coach L

 

when the "known quantity" is neifi perez, there are more than a few better options, even an unknown such as cedeno.

 

neifi just isn't that good at not making outs.

[CubDad4Ever]

Sully my friend , you could very well be correct . I have been defending Nefis value as a defender and starter equal to that of many teams that have won big. Those are facts. This is however is my deepest desire as a fan . I hope Cedeno is better than Nefi. I think he will be the starter. I agree we would be better served , if we could find a top defender at ss who brought more on the obp end. Thanks Sully and God Bless Coach L

[Ding Dong Johnson]

if we could find a top defender at ss who brought more on the obp end

 

We already had him on the roster last year.

[Magnetic Curses]

I have been defending Nefis value as a defender and starter equal to that of many teams that have won big.

 

but you can at least admit that our offense cannot afford neifi's defense.

 

if we had an offense that was capable of winning big, neifi would be acceptable. we do not.

[CubDad4Ever]

Sully , if you look again at my post , i agreed with you on that point. I said we would be better served to have that situation. I believe that is why Hendry targeted Frucal and Tejada. Also that is why Cedeno will get first crack. I guess we were preaching to the choir. God Bless and points well taken Coach L