From Baseball America: Cubs weak hitting lineup

[Guest]

I thought I read somewhere (might have been right here on the board) that Jones' increased walk rate was pretty much attributable to an unusual increase in intentional walks. In any case, his performance this spring certainly does provide cause for optimism.

Jones' walk rate was certainly helped by the fact that he was issued 45 intentional balls last season, but he really has demonstrated improving patinece over the last few years. His take/swing ratios from 2003-2005 were 0.740, 0.936, and 0.973. (That's ignoring all intentional balls.) Even with the improvement Jones swings at more pitches than an average batter, but at least he's trending in the right direction. It's just too bad his BABIP has been going the other way.

[wastra]

I'm not sold on this offense at all. I'm not bashing it as a failure prematurely either.

 

But I have deep reservations. Generally, when you go into a season with 2-4 "ifs" in the lineup, a lot of thos "ifs" don't work out the way you'd hope.

 

Lee and Ramirez (and probably Walker) are truly the only givens in this entire lineup. We have two guys coming off horrid years compared to what we're expecting/needing from them (Jones and Pierre). We have two youngsters with under 200 career at bats who MUST produce (Murton and Cedeno), and a Catcher who has indeed battled some serious injuries in his career.

 

If they should fail, our bench (while solid enough as backups) aren't likely to be the type of "answers" we'd need for long term either. Grissom/Restovich/whomever the other outfielder is/Mabry aren't exactly every day players or guys you'd want filling in more than a game a week. Perez is...well...we all know how he fares. Hairston is a bit of a wild card. He's anotehr guy coming off a poor year by his standards, but if he's close to what he was before last year, could be a nice sub in the OF and IF.

 

And we're very one dimensional still aside from (hopefully) Pierre. We don't have guys who work the count and just get on base a lot. We have guys whose OBP is morea product of their quick bats and difficulty in strikign them out (RAmirez) and intentional walks (Lee). This is fine, except that all hitter slump. This means that on days we're not making good contact, we won't get on base at all, leading to lots more 2-1 snoozers.

 

 

 

So there's potential to be solid, but equal potential to be horrid. I'll reserve judgement. We COULD be pretty good if Murton and or cedeno pan out, and Pierre and Jones return to the form they had years ago.

[Guest]

I'm not sold on this offense at all. I'm not bashing it as a failure prematurely either.

 

But I have deep reservations. Generally, when you go into a season with 2-4 "ifs" in the lineup, a lot of thos "ifs" don't work out the way you'd hope.

 

Lee and Ramirez (and probably Walker) are truly the only givens in this entire lineup. We have two guys coming off horrid years compared to what we're expecting/needing from them (Jones and Pierre). We have two youngsters with under 200 career at bats who MUST produce (Murton and Cedeno), and a Catcher who has indeed battled some serious injuries in his career.

 

If they should fail, our bench (while solid enough as backups) aren't likely to be the type of "answers" we'd need for long term either. Grissom/Restovich/whomever the other outfielder is/Mabry aren't exactly every day players or guys you'd want filling in more than a game a week. Perez is...well...we all know how he fares. Hairston is a bit of a wild card. He's anotehr guy coming off a poor year by his standards, but if he's close to what he was before last year, could be a nice sub in the OF and IF.

 

And we're very one dimensional still aside from (hopefully) Pierre. We don't have guys who work the count and just get on base a lot. We have guys whose OBP is morea product of their quick bats and difficulty in strikign them out (RAmirez) and intentional walks (Lee). This is fine, except that all hitter slump. This means that on days we're not making good contact, we won't get on base at all, leading to lots more 2-1 snoozers.

 

 

 

So there's potential to be solid, but equal potential to be horrid. I'll reserve judgement. We COULD be pretty good if Murton and or cedeno pan out, and Pierre and Jones return to the form they had years ago.

1.) If an OF goes down for any length of time, I think you'll see the Cubs call up Pie to take his spot instead of putting the backup OF in his place.

 

2.) All teams face questions with guys coming off down years, questionable injury history, lousy replacements on the bench, etc.

 

3.) I'm very, very excited that the Cubs seem committed with going with rookies at two offensive positions. I think that is a very refreshing change . It may lead to more questions for the short term production, but I welcome those in return for the advantages brought by an infusion of youth.

 

4.) Pierre may be the only guy in the lineup who is a threat to steal 30+, but there's decent speed up and down the lineup outside of ARam.

[XZero771679666304]

As far as power goes, here is about what I think it is reasonable to expect:

 

Pierre - 1

Walker - 15

Lee - 40

Ramirez - 40

Jones - 25

Barrett - 18

Murton - 15

Cedeno - 5

 

Mabry - 5

Blanco - 5

Perez - 5

Hairston - 3

Grissom/Restovich - 7

 

That's 184 total, and I think that overall, that estimate may be conservative. 184 homers is a perfectly respectable team total.

 

With Pierre at Wrigley, I can expect a few more HRs out of him.

 

Maybe, but I was being conservative. I think that we could get 6-7 homers from out starting pitchers as well. I think Murton could very well hit 20 homers, and Cedeno could hit 10.

[stitchface]

I think someone said the lineup is more balanced. This is important. Having no zeroes in there will help a lot. I don't see a loss of 40 runs as at all likely - if that happens the Cubs won't win 79.

[XZero771679666304]

I think someone said the lineup is more balanced. This is important. Having no zeroes in there will help a lot. I don't see a loss of 40 runs as at all likely - if that happens the Cubs won't win 79.

 

If you have Pierre + Hairston/Walker batting in front of Lee and Ramirez instead of Patterson/Perez/Hairston, and Murton instead of Hollandsworthless, Gerut and Lawton, Cedeno instead of Perez, then it would take an absolute didaster to score less runs than last year. Even factoring in a decline from Lee, it is exceptionally unlikely.

 

Our everyday lineup looks better, and our bench looks much better.

[rjchapma]

definitly not a weak lineup any lineup with a 3 and 4 hitter that we have it is not a weak lineup that is ridiculous.

[David]

definitly not a weak lineup any lineup with a 3 and 4 hitter that we have it is not a weak lineup that is ridiculous.

 

When you consider our 5th and 6th hitters, it's not that ridiculous.

 

There's a very good possibility that production from the leadoff spot will be terrible too. All depends on whether or not Pierre can get his average back up.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

[Guest]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

 

I know you're playing, but I was only talking offense. I don't think there's a single one in the NL you could say we're clearly better than.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

 

If Edmonds gets hurt STL will have an awful OF.

[Zaphkiel]

I'm not really convinced that anyone in our division has an overly strong outfield. We don't have to have a great outfield, just one that roughly maintains parity with those in our division to have a good chance.

[David]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

 

Last year at this time it looked just as bad. It was tempered by the fact that we expected to have 3 infielders with .850+ OPSs and one at .800+... plus Barrett was above average at his position.

 

This year, we don't even have that... Nomar's expected production was big...Lots more question marks going into this one...

[Guest]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

 

I know you're playing, but I was only talking offense. I don't think there's a single one in the NL you could say we're clearly better than.

Who is in FLA's OF other than Hermida?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

 

I know you're playing, but I was only talking offense. I don't think there's a single one in the NL you could say we're clearly better than.

Who is in FLA's OF other than Hermida?

 

Miggy

[ltb]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

 

I know you're playing, but I was only talking offense. I don't think there's a single one in the NL you could say we're clearly better than.

Who is in FLA's OF other than Hermida?

 

Miggy

 

third base

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Miggy

 

third base

 

Wow, I guess they are going to do that instead of playing Helms there. Abercrombie looks to be in CF and Aguila in LF.

 

Well I guess there's one that'll be worse than us in all likelihood.

[frostwyrm]

If everything goes right the offense could be good, but almost any team could say that. The O has the potential to be terrible if Jones/Pierre repeat their 2005 numbers and Murton/Cedeno tank. Lee could regress too, and the overrated Pierre won't even be much of a stealing threat if Neifi sees a lot of time in the 2 hole. Aram also has to be a lot healthier or everything falls apart.

 

Wow, talk about pessimism. If Konerko gets injured, Buerhle's arm falls off, Posednik breaks his leg, Garland and Dye regress, Thome and Contreras realize how old they are, and Williams trades Garland and Garcia for Jeff Fassero, the White Sox could be in trouble too.

 

All the bad things I mentioned are reasonably likely to happen. I don't expect all of them to happen, but I don't think any more than half of them would be required to render the Cubs' offense mediocre. Bottom line for me is that way too many rolls of the dice have to fall our way for a good offense. Most of the posts in this thread reflect what I would consider a best case scenario, or something close.

[Outshined_One]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

 

I know you're playing, but I was only talking offense. I don't think there's a single one in the NL you could say we're clearly better than.

 

Other than Florida...

 

Washington?

Colorado?

[frostwyrm]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

 

Has anybody made an estimate of how many runs the Giants OF defense gives away relative to an average defensive OF?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Who will be playing for SF after Bonds & Alou get hurt? Even when they're active, does defense count here? :D

 

I know you're playing, but I was only talking offense. I don't think there's a single one in the NL you could say we're clearly better than.

 

Other than Florida...

 

Washington?

Colorado?

 

I think Soriano-Church-Guillen are all better than any of our outfielders.

 

Colorado is another one we may be able to top.

[RynoRules]

 

I think Soriano-Church-Guillen are all better than any of our outfielders.

 

Colorado is another one we may be able to top.

 

Murton, IMO, is farther along than Church based on his performance last year and in ST. Isn't Guillen hurt? And Soriano could have 30 errors in LF this year, to go with his .320 OBP in that cavernous park.

 

Just me, but I like our situation better. I think you are being a bit hyper-critical here. I agree our OF situation is not what it could or should be, but I disagree its the worst in the league.

[YearofDaCubs]

 

I think Soriano-Church-Guillen are all better than any of our outfielders.

 

Colorado is another one we may be able to top.

 

Murton, IMO, is farther along than Church based on his performance last year and in ST. Isn't Guillen hurt? And Soriano could have 30 errors in LF this year, to go with his .320 OBP in that cavernous park.

 

Just me, but I like our situation better. I think you are being a bit hyper-critical here. I agree our OF situation is not what it could or should be, but I disagree its the worst in the league.

It's not the worst in the league but it's not even close to being middle of the pack. Considering our payroll...it's pretty bad.

[Danny82]

Can someone think of an outfield that will give worse production than ours? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

You might not have to look any further than cross-town. The Sox, despite winning the World Series last year, had pretty mediocre OPS's in their OF...and that was with Rowand instead of Anderson and Dye having his best year in a while.