Honest question for sabermetricians re: Cedeno

[SanJoseCubsFan]

The issue was about Sisco for motivation not positional players. I am not going to say the cubs have done well with positional players that is crazy. They suck. But with Pitchers they have 3 all stars under 30. What other team has done that? What organization are you comparing them to the late 1960s Orioles? Please let me know a better organization with developing pitching in the last 5 years taking into account players traded.

 

Other pitchers that have made it to the majors:Mitre, Hill, Beltran, Downs, + some that have been traded. I am only going back a few years.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I was talking about pitching prospects. And I respectfully disagree, the cubs have a good track record with developing pitchers. I think this is a leap to say after all of the pitchers they have brought up the last 8 years that all of these pitchers required motivattion = to the one and only way the cubs know how to motivate. That is a harder stretch for me than the Sisco may be an exception. I am sure they are evaluating what went wrong with the Sisco situation for the next time. Every organization uses different tools, they felt this was the best way to motivate him, time will tell if he is a one year guy or has a decent career. He may not have the self motivation to get better.

 

Who are all these prospects? Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Farnsworth, Wuertz, Ohman.............. Quevedo bombed, Cruz fizzled, Welly and Leicester are in limbo. Have they really brought up that many that stuck? 6 guys in 10 years who they are responsible for developing and bringing into the game, who are still enjoying some success in the league. Am I missing somebody?

 

And why should we only talk about pitchers, both hitters and pitchers matter. Overall the Cubs aren't good at developing prospects. Maybe their motivation techniques are part of the problem. Who knows. What we do know is they obviously aren't doing anything particularly great in that area.

[goonys evil twin]

The issue was about Sisco for motivation not positional players. I am not going to say the cubs have done well with positional players that is crazy. They suck. But with Pitchers they have 3 all stars under 30. What other team has done that? What organization are you comparing them to the late 1960s Orioles? Please let me know a better organization with developing pitching in the last 5 years taking into account players traded.

 

Other pitchers that have made it to the majors:Mitre, Hill, Beltran, Downs, + some that have been traded. I am only going back a few years.

 

It doesn't matter if Sisco is not a position players. The motivation of all prospects matters.

 

In 10 years the Cubs have developed few prospects, even if you just look at pitchers. They've had 3 top notch guys, but that doesn't say much about their ability to motivate guys, which is the discussion. It looks to me that outside of elite pitchers, they can't develop squat. And those elite pitchers don't need much motivation.

 

Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might be lacking?

[SanJoseCubsFan]

I said the cubs have not done squat in positional players. I disagree on the pitchers. Turn over in the major leagues in not as high as you think. If you have developed 3-4 studs +5 decent pitchers in the last 8 years you are better than most teams. I may be wrong but give me the 10-15 teams that have done better over the last 8 years with pitchers. (you claim they are horrible at brining pitchers along). I don't think you can assume an elite picher doesn't need motivation. Everyone needs to be brought along except for a few (Prior is probably one that didn't need much) I have no issue calling the cubs to the mat on positional prospects but it just seems like on many of these discussions come down to feelings that Hendry and Dusty are dumb so they do nothing right. I do not belive this is the case. Just like any GM they do somethings better than others. I have been the first to say if they don't get it done they will be fired. I want to see how this year plays out.

 

 

 

 

The issue was about Sisco for motivation not positional players. I am not going to say the cubs have done well with positional players that is crazy. They suck. But with Pitchers they have 3 all stars under 30. What other team has done that? What organization are you comparing them to the late 1960s Orioles? Please let me know a better organization with developing pitching in the last 5 years taking into account players traded.

 

Other pitchers that have made it to the majors:Mitre, Hill, Beltran, Downs, + some that have been traded. I am only going back a few years.

 

It doesn't matter if Sisco is not a position players. The motivation of all prospects matters.

 

In 10 years the Cubs have developed few prospects, even if you just look at pitchers. They've had 3 top notch guys, but that doesn't say much about their ability to motivate guys, which is the discussion. It looks to me that outside of elite pitchers, they can't develop squat. And those elite pitchers don't need much motivation.

 

Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might be lacking?

[Illini Iceman]

The issue was about Sisco for motivation not positional players. I am not going to say the cubs have done well with positional players that is crazy. They suck. But with Pitchers they have 3 all stars under 30. What other team has done that? What organization are you comparing them to the late 1960s Orioles? Please let me know a better organization with developing pitching in the last 5 years taking into account players traded.

 

Other pitchers that have made it to the majors:Mitre, Hill, Beltran, Downs, + some that have been traded. I am only going back a few years.

 

It doesn't matter if Sisco is not a position players. The motivation of all prospects matters.

 

In 10 years the Cubs have developed few prospects, even if you just look at pitchers. They've had 3 top notch guys, but that doesn't say much about their ability to motivate guys, which is the discussion. It looks to me that outside of elite pitchers, they can't develop squat. And those elite pitchers don't need much motivation.

 

Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might be lacking?

 

Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might do some things right?

[CubsWin]

Actually , including Willis and Loshe , (i wont include Garland who was drafted by the cubs) I think that is a large number of pitchers , compared to almost any team in baseball.

 

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors.

So can the Cubs now take credit for developing and motivating Murton into the majors? He was in the Cubs system for a year before he came up to the majors, too. You can't have it both ways.

 

Willis had his breakthrough season in the Cubs organization and then maintain that growth with the Marlins. Who gets to claim that they developed him? I don't see how anyone could defend a position that it was clearly one team or another. Same with Murton. Murton was clearly recognized as a good hitter before he came to the Cubs and was in the Boston organization much longer, but his breakthrough season came with the Cubs. Is it clear and obvious that his improvement had absolutely nothing to do with any of the Cubs instructors or coaches? No, just as it is not provable that they did cause his breakout performance.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that some people will choose to think the Cubs were foolish for needlessly protecting Cedeno the year they did and others will think that given his upside, they were smart not to risk losing him even though it was a small risk to take. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one is clearly the more accurate interpretation. Its a matter of perspective.

 

Clearly, Cubs management has made some poor decisions. And they have made some excellent ones. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument over whether Cubs management has improved this organization over the last 11 years or whether they have failed at their jobs. No one is stupid for holding either opinion. It is all a matter of perspective. As I believe this question of Cedeno is, as well.

[stitchface]

That point is also relevant to the Sisco situation, like I kinda referenced earlier. If he is protected, he never gets mad at not being protected and work himself into shape, and isn't Sisco 2005 that we saw this past year.

 

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people.

 

Or Sisco is unresponsive to that type of motivation.

 

If you only use one type, it's your own fault. Every sports organization has to deal with a wide range of motivationals tools for their many different athletes.

 

I find it hard to believe a young pitcher should need outside motivation to make it to the major leagues. if he did, he won't stay long. Perhaps what you mean is that it was a wake up call.

[CubinNY]

Actually , including Willis and Loshe , (i wont include Garland who was drafted by the cubs) I think that is a large number of pitchers , compared to almost any team in baseball.

 

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors.

So can the Cubs now take credit for developing and motivating Murton into the majors? He was in the Cubs system for a year before he came up to the majors, too. You can't have it both ways.

 

Willis had his breakthrough season in the Cubs organization and then maintain that growth with the Marlins. Who gets to claim that they developed him? I don't see how anyone could defend a position that it was clearly one team or another. Same with Murton. Murton was clearly recognized as a good hitter before he came to the Cubs and was in the Boston organization much longer, but his breakthrough season came with the Cubs. Is it clear and obvious that his improvement had absolutely nothing to do with any of the Cubs instructors or coaches? No, just as it is not provable that they did cause his breakout performance.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that some people will choose to think the Cubs were foolish for needlessly protecting Cedeno the year they did and others will think that given his upside, they were smart not to risk losing him even though it was a small risk to take. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one is clearly the more accurate interpretation. Its a matter of perspective.

 

Clearly, Cubs management has made some poor decisions. And they have made some excellent ones. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument over whether Cubs management has improved this organization over the last 11 years or whether they have failed at their jobs. No one is stupid for holding either opinion. It is all a matter of perspective. As I believe this question of Cedeno is, as well.

 

I hope Ronny makes Hendry look like Shurhholtz. But I think the evidence is pretty clear that he is not.

 

Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might do some things wrong?

 

As one of my professors use to say, "the proof of the process is in the product."

 

Since MacPhail and Hendry took over the Cubs a decade ago they have had three medicore seasons and one decent season and still haven't cracked 90 wins with an escalating payroll every year.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

The likelihood of Cedeno bombing is quite high (over the course of a full MLB season). He just doesn't walk enough. He doesn't have the power to make up for the hit in OBP even if he does manage to hit .280 (unlikely). With the crappy OF we have, taking an offensive hit at SS is going to hurt that much more.

 

I can't wait to see Neifi in the every day lineup again. You think the Cubs paid Neifi 2M+/year to ride the pine or "compete" for a 2B job with Hairston/Walker/whoever? Hendry knows Ronny isn't a sure thing. It's sad that plan B is Neifi again, especially when the odds of plan B going into effect are high.

[CubsWin]

Actually , including Willis and Loshe , (i wont include Garland who was drafted by the cubs) I think that is a large number of pitchers , compared to almost any team in baseball.

 

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors.

So can the Cubs now take credit for developing and motivating Murton into the majors? He was in the Cubs system for a year before he came up to the majors, too. You can't have it both ways.

 

Willis had his breakthrough season in the Cubs organization and then maintain that growth with the Marlins. Who gets to claim that they developed him? I don't see how anyone could defend a position that it was clearly one team or another. Same with Murton. Murton was clearly recognized as a good hitter before he came to the Cubs and was in the Boston organization much longer, but his breakthrough season came with the Cubs. Is it clear and obvious that his improvement had absolutely nothing to do with any of the Cubs instructors or coaches? No, just as it is not provable that they did cause his breakout performance.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that some people will choose to think the Cubs were foolish for needlessly protecting Cedeno the year they did and others will think that given his upside, they were smart not to risk losing him even though it was a small risk to take. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one is clearly the more accurate interpretation. Its a matter of perspective.

 

Clearly, Cubs management has made some poor decisions. And they have made some excellent ones. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument over whether Cubs management has improved this organization over the last 11 years or whether they have failed at their jobs. No one is stupid for holding either opinion. It is all a matter of perspective. As I believe this question of Cedeno is, as well.

 

I hope Ronny makes Hendry look like Shurhholtz. But I think the evidence is pretty clear that he is not.

 

Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might do some things wrong?

 

As one of my professors use to say, "the proof of the process is in the product."

 

Since MacPhail and Hendry took over the Cubs a decade ago they have had three medicore seasons and one decent season and still haven't cracked 90 wins with an escalating payroll every year.

Did you read the post you responded to?

 

In it, I wrote that there is evidence on both sides of the argument. That Cubs management has made some poor decisions and some excellent ones. So who is afraid to admit that "Cubs mgmt. might do some things wrong"? Who is claiming that Hendry is as good as Schuerholtz? Who is even comparing the two?

 

My post was about how the reality of the situation is probably somewhere in the middle of many of the perspectives on this board. I readily acknowledge the mistakes made by Cubs management. I also see a lot of things that they have done to improve the organization. I don't think that you are afraid to admit that they have done a lot of things right, are you? So why are you accusing me/people of being afraid to admit that they do some things poorly?

 

Maybe we can lose the extremism and the division of Cubs fans into one faction or the other. Maybe we can realize that our perspective isn't the only valid perspective out there, and we can allow for someone who disagrees with my take on things to actually have some valid points. Maybe its time we start recognizing our common ground in threads like these.

 

Nah, what fun would that be...

[CubinNY]

Actually , including Willis and Loshe , (i wont include Garland who was drafted by the cubs) I think that is a large number of pitchers , compared to almost any team in baseball.

 

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors.

So can the Cubs now take credit for developing and motivating Murton into the majors? He was in the Cubs system for a year before he came up to the majors, too. You can't have it both ways.

 

Willis had his breakthrough season in the Cubs organization and then maintain that growth with the Marlins. Who gets to claim that they developed him? I don't see how anyone could defend a position that it was clearly one team or another. Same with Murton. Murton was clearly recognized as a good hitter before he came to the Cubs and was in the Boston organization much longer, but his breakthrough season came with the Cubs. Is it clear and obvious that his improvement had absolutely nothing to do with any of the Cubs instructors or coaches? No, just as it is not provable that they did cause his breakout performance.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that some people will choose to think the Cubs were foolish for needlessly protecting Cedeno the year they did and others will think that given his upside, they were smart not to risk losing him even though it was a small risk to take. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one is clearly the more accurate interpretation. Its a matter of perspective.

 

Clearly, Cubs management has made some poor decisions. And they have made some excellent ones. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument over whether Cubs management has improved this organization over the last 11 years or whether they have failed at their jobs. No one is stupid for holding either opinion. It is all a matter of perspective. As I believe this question of Cedeno is, as well.

 

I hope Ronny makes Hendry look like Shurhholtz. But I think the evidence is pretty clear that he is not.

 

Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might do some things wrong?

 

As one of my professors use to say, "the proof of the process is in the product."

 

Since MacPhail and Hendry took over the Cubs a decade ago they have had three medicore seasons and one decent season and still haven't cracked 90 wins with an escalating payroll every year.

Did you read the post you responded to?

 

In it, I wrote that there is evidence on both sides of the argument. That Cubs management has made some poor decisions and some excellent ones. So who is afraid to admit that "Cubs mgmt. might do some things wrong"? Who is claiming that Hendry is as good as Schuerholtz? Who is even comparing the two?

 

My post was about how the reality of the situation is probably somewhere in the middle of many of the perspectives on this board. I readily acknowledge the mistakes made by Cubs management. I also see a lot of things that they have done to improve the organization. I don't think that you are afraid to admit that they have done a lot of things right, are you? So why are you accusing me/people of being afraid to admit that they do some things poorly?

 

Maybe we can lose the extremism and the division of Cubs fans into one faction or the other. Maybe we can realize that our perspective isn't the only valid perspective out there, and we can allow for someone who disagrees with my take on things to actually have some valid points. Maybe its time we start recognizing our common ground in threads like these.

 

Nah, what fun would that be...

 

I saw what you wrote. I should have not quoted you, it was my mistake. No excuse, I had to go and didn't have time to edit it. But the question stands as a rhetorical one.

 

I don't think there is anyone who posts here that thinks Hendry has not made ANY good decisions. I get frustraded that it appears that some deny reality b/c the Cubs are historicaly better then they have been.

 

During the Mcpahial/Hendry tenure the Cubs have never been good as defined by record or outcome. To me the Cedeno rostering proves absolutely nothing.

[CubsWin]

I saw what you wrote. I should have not quoted you, it was my mistake. No excuse, I had to go and didn't have time to edit it.

Okay, thank you for clearing that up.

 

But the question stands as a rhetorical one.

That question being, "why are some fans afraid to admit that Cubs management might get some things wrong"? First off, that is not a very good rhetorical question because it misrepresents those you are arguing with.

 

But that aside, my answer is that they aren't afraid. I bet you won't find one Cubs fan on this or any other site that isn't willing to list off things that Cubs management as done over the last decade that they aren't happy with.

 

So your question speaks more to your point of view than it does to anyone else's. Rightly or wrongly, you consider more of the moves that Hendry has made to be mistakes than some others do. That is fine by me, you have every right to do so and if you've got really well thought out reasons for that position even better. But the same holds true for those you disagree with. Its simply a difference of perspective. A different way to interpret the same events.

 

I believe the more perspectives we have balancing out and informing our opinions, the more accurate our interpretation or opinion becomes. We should welcome another person's strong argument and incorporate it into our own, allowing it to alter our opinion.

 

I don't think there is anyone who posts here that thinks Hendry has not made ANY good decisions. I get frustraded that it appears that some deny reality b/c the Cubs are historicaly better then they have been.

Again, this is a matter of holding our version of reality a little too tightly as the truth. When someone disagrees with our version of reality, if I'm convinced that my version is the right one, then those that disagree are simply delusional and living in denial. What if the accurate version of the events we are interpreting is somewhere in the middle?

 

We can create a strong argument for why our interpretation is closer to reality, but thats about as good as we can do. In most cases, no one can say with any amount of certainty that they are catagorically right, and the other guy is flat-out wrong.

 

During the Mcpahial/Hendry tenure the Cubs have never been good as defined by record or outcome.

IMO, this statement is rather extreme. To say when a team gets to within 5 outs of going to the World Series that that outcome is not good is an unsupportable position to me.

 

I would also call their record good. Certainly not very good or great. But 88-74, 14 games over .500 and the 4th best record in the NL is good in my book, as was 89-73 (16 games over .500) in 2004 when they were 6th best. I am interested to hear why you disagree. Maybe I'll learn something.

 

To me the Cedeno rostering proves absolutely nothing.

I agree completely that the Cedeno rostering by itself proves absolutely nothing in the context of whether Cubs management is doing a good job or not. It is the totality of their actions that should determine how well they are doing their jobs, not one transaction.

 

Some conclusions that can be drawn from the Cedeno rostering are:

1. They were needlessly worried about Cedeno being taken and rostered him too early, and that was a mistake even though it may have had very little consequence.

2. They accurately predicted Cedeno's worthiness of being protected.

3. Even knowing the risk was small, they were so convinced of Cedeno's worth that it was logical to assume that other GMs were equally convinced and the rostering was justified.

4. Hendry does a poor job of managing the 40-man roster.

 

Each of these conclusions can be reasonably supported by an argument. It would be great to have a discussion/debate about which one has the strongest argument and why, but most often threads like these deteriorate into back-and-forths where very few people are actually listening and there is very little give and take.

[CubsWin]

]During the Mcpahial/Hendry tenure the Cubs have never been good as defined by record or outcome.

IMO, this statement is rather extreme. To say when a team gets to within 5 outs of going to the World Series that that outcome is not good is an unsupportable position to me.

 

I would also call their record good. Certainly not very good or great. But 88-74, 14 games over .500 and the 4th best record in the NL is good in my book, as was 89-73 (16 games over .500) in 2004 when they were 6th best. I am interested to hear why you disagree. Maybe I'll learn something.

Just curious if you would respond to this, CubinNY.