From Baseball America: Cubs weak hitting lineup

[rawaction]

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.

 

Ah yes, they are likely to be worse this year. The Dodgers have a chance to be worse if Drew misses as much time as he did last year. Cruz and Lofton aren't very productive.

 

I'd say the Mets, Phillies, Brewers, and Reds (with Dunn back) clearly have better OFs.

 

Florida, Colorado, and Atlanta are all relying on kids in at least 2 of their OF positions.

 

SF, Houston, Washington, and LAD are counting on injury prone players for key parts of their OF offense.

 

Pittsburgh, San Diego, Arizona, and St. Louis are counting on players over 35 years old in their OF.

[jjgman21]

At times the offense will be anemic, but at times will look powerful. Sound familiar?

All too familiar. Win 10-0 one game, lose the next two games 2-1.

 

did you guys even look to see if this is the case, because I see significant improvement. four positions will change from last year. just so happens those four positions were the biggest problem areas for obp. let's look at the Cubs obp from those positions in 2005

 

LF - .319 (this is deceptively high considering left fielder's not named Murton had a combined obp of around .300 last year)

CF - .281

RF - .320

SS - .307

 

now let's look at the 2006 players over the past three years

 

LF - .374 (A-ss)/.360ish (A-high)/.403(AA), .421 (AAA), .386 (Majors)

CF - .361/.374/.326

RF - .333/.315/.319

SS - .295 (A-high)/.328 (AA)/.403 (AAA), .358 (Majors)

 

so yes, I agree the Cubs have done nothing to improve their obp...at one position. the other three problem OBP positions from a year ago will see significant improvement. my minimal improvement predictions

 

LF - +30

CF - +50

RF - scratch

SS - +20

 

or are these nightmare predictions of the Cubs obp predicated on significant dropoffs from Aram, Lee, Walker, and Barrett?

 

furthermore, I broke down all the HR numbers by these positions a couple of weeks ago, and based on minimal expectations of what Jones, Murton, Cedeno, and Pierre can do, the Cubs may lose about 10 HRs from those positions.

 

as for other posters comments about not being able to say the Cubs offense will be good because there are too many "ifs"....

 

if Eckstein has another career year

if Rolen returns to form after two shoulder surgeries

if Edmonds, at age 36, can maintain his numbers and avoid another dropoff (dropped .143 in OPS from 05 to 06)

if Spivey can do anything

if leftfield can do anything

if Encarnacion has another career year

if Molina suddenly learns to hit the baseball

if Pujols doesn't miss any time due to his shoulder and foot problems.....

 

the Cards offense will be great.

 

you can say those kinds of things about any team. the Cubs have no more question marks than the team they are gunning for.

[goonys evil twin]

if Edmonds, at age 36, can maintain his numbers and avoid another dropoff (dropped .143 in OPS from 05 to 06)

 

From 04 to 05 perhaps?

 

Even if Edmonds does decline, he'll still be among the elite for his position on the team, and better than any Cubs outfielder.

 

Anyway, as for the other stuff, one thing to remember is it's not just OBP. The Cubs are still a team that doesn't walk, even if some of these guys get on more frequently than the ones they are replacing. But they have other offensive weaknesses as well. And the guys you list will not be playing 162 games next year. You can't compare the 2005 SS OBP with Ronny Cedeno alone, because Ronny will not play all season every game. Neifi will be a significant drag on the SS OBP, whether he's starting 20, 50 or 80 games at short. Likewise, Murton will not account for 650 PA from LF. Somebody else is going to get significant time out there, 100, 200, maybe 300? PA. And that person will most likely be a bad OBP guy.

 

When you take into account likely changes in OBP for the 650-700+ or so PA from each position, CF is the only one that is almost a guarantee for significant improvement. SS and LF should increase a bit, but probably not by an enormous amount. Meanwhile, 2B could easily decline (.346 in 2005) as could 1B and C (positions where primary player is coming off career year). Overall, the team OBP should be a bit better, but not by a very wide margin.

[jjgman21]

if Edmonds, at age 36, can maintain his numbers and avoid another dropoff (dropped .143 in OPS from 05 to 06)

 

From 04 to 05 perhaps?

 

Even if Edmonds does decline, he'll still be among the elite for his position on the team, and better than any Cubs outfielder.

 

Anyway, as for the other stuff, one thing to remember is it's not just OBP. The Cubs are still a team that doesn't walk, even if some of these guys get on more frequently than the ones they are replacing. But they have other offensive weaknesses as well. And the guys you list will not be playing 162 games next year. You can't compare the 2005 SS OBP with Ronny Cedeno alone, because Ronny will not play all season every game. Neifi will be a significant drag on the SS OBP, whether he's starting 20, 50 or 80 games at short. Likewise, Murton will not account for 650 PA from LF. Somebody else is going to get significant time out there, 100, 200, maybe 300? PA. And that person will most likely be a bad OBP guy.

 

When you take into account likely changes in OBP for the 650-700+ or so PA from each position, CF is the only one that is almost a guarantee for significant improvement. SS and LF should increase a bit, but probably not by an enormous amount. Meanwhile, 2B could easily decline (.346 in 2005) as could 1B and C (positions where primary player is coming off career year). Overall, the team OBP should be a bit better, but not by a very wide margin.

 

you often defend as being realistic, when I think this post makes pretty clear you are being quite pessimistic. the point about not playing 162 is well taken, but the basis of your argument seems to be the old "Dusty won't play the young guys" routine.

 

Murton currently is second on the team in ST games played (Cedeno is first), and is close in ABs. he played everyday the last three weeks of last season, and he's done very well the entire time. I think it is about time to give up on the "Dusty's gonna give Mabry all of Murton's ABs" argument. it seems pretty clear to me that Murton is Dusty's everyday leftfielder. that being the case, it is pretty much absurd to say that Murton's ability to get on base, be it via walk or hit, will not far surpass the .319 opb of Cubs 2005 leftfielders.

 

the argument is better served when talking about Neifi and Cedeno. of course this exchange is taking place when Cedeno, abysmal as he has been this ST, is still hitting far better than Neifi, is the starting shortstop in most ST games, and coming off a game which would make any gloveman fan very pleased (at least Pat Hughes was highly impressed with his D on saturday against the A's). maybe Cedeno will get subbed, but in all probability not enough to bring the OPB down to Neifi type levels. again, it is absurd to think there won't be significant improvement out of this position.

 

furthermore, if you were talking about any other team with a core of a 27, 28, 29 year old, you would be saying how those are the years a player is in his prime. when talking about Cub players, you seem to leave out the career progression that each of these players has shown, and the fact that they are in the middle of their prime. sure, Lee may decline a bit, as might Barrett, but both are in the years that you typically would say "those are the years those players are in their prime" and thus predict continued performance at similar levels.

 

in otherwords, I don't think there will be much of a dropoff for Barrett or Lee, and I think Aram will actually do better. Walker, sure, I can see a drop off. not as much as an improvement at SS, but a dropoff nonetheless. you seem to predict dropoffs from players in their primes, and I don't think I have ever seen you do that with a player that was not a Cub.

 

and one quick aside about Edmonds, with his age and the dropoff from last year, and Murton's age and the progress he has shown, I would not be surprised one bit if Murton is the better player by the all-star break.

 

re: this comment

 

Anyway, as for the other stuff, one thing to remember is it's not just OBP. The Cubs are still a team that doesn't walk, even if some of these guys get on more frequently than the ones they are replacing. But they have other offensive weaknesses as well.

 

...yes it is. my entire post, and the post I was responding to, was about obp. if you want to get caught up in whether the guy gets on base via walk or basehit, that's your perogative. I don't particularly care as long as the obp's are at the level expected. as for weaknesses, show me a team with less than a $200M payrol that doesn't have offensive weaknesses. perhaps that statement is a reflection of your unrealistic high expectations of what a team should be.

 

Finally, even if you are correct in that the only position the Cubs will see improvement in obp is center, that's still a huge improvement considering that the Cubs leadoff hitters obp was .299 last year.

 

in sum, the team opb was addressed (even if only by happenstance), and will be improved. any realistic assessment indicates that is and will be the case, unless your reality is "all things will turn out to be a disaster."

[goonys evil twin]

you often defend as being realistic, when I think this post makes pretty clear you are being quite pessimistic. the point about not playing 162 is well taken, but the basis of your argument seems to be the old "Dusty won't play the young guys" routine.

 

Enough with this crap already. It's not pessimism to suggest Matt Murton probably won't start 162 games in LF, and that whoever does replace him from time to time will be even worse. There's no way Ronny starts 162, or anywhere close to that number. It doesn't matter how often they play in the spring, these guys aren't playing everyday. And unless Ronny has a fabulous year in the OBP dept (something his pro career would seem to contradict), it wouldn't take many games for bad Neifi to drag the overall SS OBP down significantly.

 

furthermore, if you were talking about any other team with a core of a 27, 28, 29 year old, you would be saying how those are the years a player is in his prime. when talking about Cub players, you seem to leave out the career progression that each of these players has shown, and the fact that they are in the middle of their prime. sure, Lee may decline a bit, as might Barrett, but both are in the years that you typically would say "those are the years those players are in their prime" and thus predict continued performance at similar levels.

re: this comment

 

Why don't you try not telling me what I would write, and just read what I actually did write. 26 is the typical peak year. 26-28 is prime time. Barrett is 29, Lee is 30. Both are coming off career years. Typically, careers years in the late 20's aren't followed by repeat career years.

 

Most everybody I've ever heard discuss Lee this year is expecting some sort of drop off. So instead of making up BS about my unbridled pessimism and supposed anti-Cubs sentiment, maybe you should take a freaking second to look at the facts with these guys. Lee's OBP was more than .050 points over his average last year, more than .060 points over his previous season, and about .045 above the previous three year average. If he falls to a .400 OBP, that would still be way over where anybody would have thought he'd be going into 2005. Predicting such a number would hardly be considered pessimistic. I think he's probably going to be around .390-.395. Although I'm a little concerned that with all the time off he's had this spring, the so-called extra early work bounce he got for 2005 will be missing. Regardless, if he's just down to .400 (and plays everyday), that's still a .017 point drop from the 2005 Cubs. In other words, it probably takes away a big chunk of what you could realistically hope Murton would improve upon.

 

As for Barrett, I'm not predicting major decline or anything. I think that the guy is probably going to be a little worse in 2006, but probably still among the best hitting catchers in the NL, if not the best.

Anyway, as for the other stuff, one thing to remember is it's not just OBP. The Cubs are still a team that doesn't walk, even if some of these guys get on more frequently than the ones they are replacing. But they have other offensive weaknesses as well.

 

...yes it is. my entire post, and the post I was responding to, was about obp. if you want to get caught up in whether the guy gets on base via walk or basehit, that's your perogative. I don't particularly care as long as the obp's are at the level expected. as for weaknesses, show me a team with less than a $200M payrol that doesn't have offensive weaknesses. perhaps that statement is a reflection of your unrealistic high expectations of what a team should be.

 

Finally, even if you are correct in that the only position the Cubs will see improvement in obp is center, that's still a huge improvement considering that the Cubs leadoff hitters obp was .299 last year.

 

 

The post you responded to, or at least the part you quoted, didn't mention a thing about OBP.

 

Whether you care or not, walks are a vital aspect of OBP. And OBP that relies heavily on AVG is much more susceptible to dropoffs than one that relies on a steady stream of bases on balls. And I never said CF was the only position that would improve. I said it's the only position that is almost a guarantee for significant improvement. Of course others could improve as well. But they aren't guarantees.

 

Anyway, it's not about not having any weaknesses. It's about fielding the best team possible. And it's pretty clear that through several years of inefficent utilization of resources the Cubs are not fielding the best team possible. They have lots of weaknesses, and many problems that have been problems year after year. If you think expecting the Cubs to be a 90+ win team most every year is unrealistic expectations, then I don't see the point in discussing the issue. I think the Cubs should win a world series. I don't view back to back +.500 seasons as success.

 

Why don't you spend less time trying to carry out your personal vendetta against me and more time having an actual discussion about these issues. I don't care who you are, you shouldn't care who I am. We're obviously both Cubs fans. We have different opinions about what guys are likely to do this year. Get over it.

[wastra]

OBP should be better this year- but still mediocre overall (from bad last year) barring lots of surprises.

 

But it's important to note the difference between patient hitters who take lots of walks and guys who just make great contact.

 

Our guys tend to be swingers who don't walk a lot, meaning their OBP is mostly tied not to patience, but to how often the balls they hit don't find a defender. The result is the same at the end of the year, but during the season, it lends itself to inconsistancy.

 

When your ability to get on base is tied mostly to your ability to get it where they ain't with little reliance on making the pitcher throw strikes, it means that when the hitter slump (as every single team does during the season), there's no one on base. It's the same issue we had last year where we might score 10 in a given game when the hits are falling, and then 1 the next two games because we're just not making solid contact.

 

That means we should see some improvement, but we'll still be likely be subject to maddening periods of offensive ineptitude agaisnt junk ballers who force us to put the ball on the ground. Again, almost to a man, our team is full of guys who swing hard and are dead-red fastball hitters. They're tougher to strike out than other swingers, but they CAN be shut down for fairly sizeable stretches by limiting their ability to drive the ball, whereas someone who takes walks with regularity can still get on base consistantly even if he's not hitting well.

 

 

We COULD range anywhere from gawd-awful to very good with this offense. There are a lot of 'maybes,' 'ifs,' and 'hopefuls' up and down the order.

 

MAYBE murton can be as good as he looked in his short stint.

MAYBE Lee can duplicate a career seasone unlike anything he'd ever had before

HOPEFULLY Jones and Pierre's poor 2005 seasons were aberrations and they can return to their numbers for 3-4 years ago.

IF Cedeno plays more often than Neifi and HOPEFULLY can hit better than in ST

IF Ramirez can stay healthy for a change.

 

These are different than saying something like "If Pujols stays healthy" or "If Edmonds drops off" because Pujols has shown a track record of playing healthy and Edmonds, despite age, is still a really good player in his most recent season, whereas our ifs are all on the negative side (all the recent performances are sub-par), or without track record (Murton and Cedeno have no similar major league track record).

 

That SHOULD lead to some concern for a knwledgeable baseball fan. It doesn't mean you can't HOPE for better or even EXPECT better, but anyone who has followed baseball for many years SHOULD udnerstand that the law of averages in baseball is usually not good for the teams with multiple question marks. to ignore them, or brush them off as "pessimism" is to deny reality. they are legit concerns.

 

Baseball roster-building is most definitely the perfect example of needing to "prepare for the worst, but hope for the best." hendry, on the other hand, prepares for the best, and hopes for "not the worst" by consistantly fielding teams that will require lots of luck and career seasons/career resurgent seasons to get us to the world series.

[jjgman21]

Enough with this crap already. It's not pessimism to suggest Matt Murton probably won't start 162 games in LF, and that whoever does replace him from time to time will be even worse. There's no way Ronny starts 162, or anywhere close to that number. It doesn't matter how often they play in the spring, these guys aren't playing everyday. And unless Ronny has a fabulous year in the OBP dept (something his pro career would seem to contradict), it wouldn't take many games for bad Neifi to drag the overall SS OBP down significantly.

 

enough of that crap already. you're gonna sit there and tell me that with Murton playing a majority of the time in left field, which he will, regardless of your pessimism (300 PAs of someone else? please.), there will not be a significant improvement over the .319 obp the Cubs got out of left field last year, then turn around and claim you're not pessimistic? get over yourself.

 

the exact same thing can be said for short. just substitute "Cedeno," "shortstop," and ".307". yes, Ronny doesn't have a track record of high obp. of course his obp has been .403, .358, .400 in three different leagues in the past calendar year. you can attribute that to fluke or level of competition if you want. I tend to think carrying that success around with you from league to league is a sign that he learned to get on base, however it may be.

 

but let's not assume or generalize what the Neifi effect will be. let's test with some numbers. let's say Perez gets 40% of the ABs at short. he won't, but let's just say. assume 650 PAs since short will probably bat at the bottom of the order. assume 400 PAs for Cedeno and a .330 obp. Perez would need a .275 obp in his PAs to get the ss obp down to last years level. that is what you seem to be invisioning. that is pessimistic....worst case scenerio type stuff.

 

same assumption for Cedeno, but more realistic for Neifi. Perez get 25% of the PAs and his obp is his career average. that puts the ss obp at about .322, not the 20 point improvement I predicted above, only 15.

 

 

Most everybody I've ever heard discuss Lee this year is expecting some sort of drop off. So instead of making up BS about my unbridled pessimism and supposed anti-Cubs sentiment, maybe you should take a freaking second to look at the facts with these guys. Lee's OBP was more than .050 points over his average last year, more than .060 points over his previous season, and about .045 above the previous three year average. If he falls to a .400 OBP, that would still be way over where anybody would have thought he'd be going into 2005. Predicting such a number would hardly be considered pessimistic. I think he's probably going to be around .390-.395. Although I'm a little concerned that with all the time off he's had this spring, the so-called extra early work bounce he got for 2005 will be missing. Regardless, if he's just down to .400 (and plays everyday), that's still a .017 point drop from the 2005 Cubs. In other words, it probably takes away a big chunk of what you could realistically hope Murton would improve upon.

 

realistically hope for from Murton? I thought any improvement from Murton was going to be marginal.

 

I predict a drop off for Lee too, but expect Aram to easily make up for it by improving on the .343 the Cubs got out of thirdbase last year. what's lost in your point however is the well publicized adjustment that Lee made to the inside pitch, which most everybody attributes his improvement to. who knows though, as opposed to his early jump. maybe he'll suffer a case of amnesia and forget about that adjustment. and maybe you should take a freakin look at alot of your other sentiments instead of relying on this one rationally based points before concluding which way the scales shift on your pessimism/optimism balance. but I agree with your final number. .390-.395 sounds reasonable to me, as .375 for Aram should seem reasonable to you.

 

 

 

As for Barrett, I'm not predicting major decline or anything. I think that the guy is probably going to be a little worse in 2006, but probably still among the best hitting catchers in the NL, if not the best.

 

I agree, but I really don't expect any decline, the reason being his numbers should have been far better than they were, but for his incredibly unlucky April. look at his BABIP and line drive numbers for April if you can find them. he crushed the ball all month with little to show for it.

 

 

The post you responded to, or at least the part you quoted, didn't mention a thing about OBP.

 

my fault. the original post by UMfan was about obp, but the language was edited out by NCCubbie

 

 

Whether you care or not, walks are a vital aspect of OBP. And OBP that relies heavily on AVG is much more susceptible to dropoffs than one that relies on a steady stream of bases on balls. And I never said CF was the only position that would improve. I said it's the only position that is almost a guarantee for significant improvement. Of course others could improve as well. But they aren't guarantees.

 

nothing in life is a guaranty. all we can do is look at the information in front of us and make a prediction. as alluded to several times, you seem to take that information, and use it to consistently predict the worst possible thing, then label it "realistic."

 

Anyway, it's not about not having any weaknesses. It's about fielding the best team possible. And it's pretty clear that through several years of inefficent utilization of resources the Cubs are not fielding the best team possible. They have lots of weaknesses, and many problems that have been problems year after year. If you think expecting the Cubs to be a 90+ win team most every year is unrealistic expectations, then I don't see the point in discussing the issue. I think the Cubs should win a world series. I don't view back to back +.500 seasons as success.

 

I don't think you are realistic about what is needed for a 90+ win team. without so stating, what you pine for is a 100-105 win team

 

Why don't you spend less time trying to carry out your personal vendetta against me and more time having an actual discussion about these issues. I don't care who you are, you shouldn't care who I am. We're obviously both Cubs fans. We have different opinions about what guys are likely to do this year. Get over it.

 

again, get over yourself. I made a post about how I think the obp issues have been addressed and team obp will improve. it was just an ordinary post, directed to noone in particular, but in reply to another post not made by you. you jumped into the thread and replied to me telling me how wrong I was. so who has the vendetta?

 

in fact, when was the last time you let any post by me that might marginally be called optimistic pass without replying to the contrary? I guess I'm just supposed to let you have your say, and let said written word be treated as final. oh yeah, it's a message board, no I'm not.

 

and to be honest, sometimes it's hard to tell you're a Cubs fan. but I admit, it's a great position you put yourself in. Cubs win the WS, and you're happy. Cubs don't win the WS, and you get to claim how right you were. way to go out on a limb in support of your team.

[rawaction]

you often defend as being realistic, when I think this post makes pretty clear you are being quite pessimistic. the point about not playing 162 is well taken, but the basis of your argument seems to be the old "Dusty won't play the young guys" routine.

 

Enough with this crap already. It's not pessimism to suggest Matt Murton probably won't start 162 games in LF, and that whoever does replace him from time to time will be even worse. There's no way Ronny starts 162, or anywhere close to that number. It doesn't matter how often they play in the spring, these guys aren't playing everyday. And unless Ronny has a fabulous year in the OBP dept (something his pro career would seem to contradict), it wouldn't take many games for bad Neifi to drag the overall SS OBP down significantly.

 

furthermore, if you were talking about any other team with a core of a 27, 28, 29 year old, you would be saying how those are the years a player is in his prime. when talking about Cub players, you seem to leave out the career progression that each of these players has shown, and the fact that they are in the middle of their prime. sure, Lee may decline a bit, as might Barrett, but both are in the years that you typically would say "those are the years those players are in their prime" and thus predict continued performance at similar levels.

re: this comment

 

Why don't you try not telling me what I would write, and just read what I actually did write. 26 is the typical peak year. 26-28 is prime time. Barrett is 29, Lee is 30. Both are coming off career years. Typically, careers years in the late 20's aren't followed by repeat career years.

 

Most everybody I've ever heard discuss Lee this year is expecting some sort of drop off. So instead of making up BS about my unbridled pessimism and supposed anti-Cubs sentiment, maybe you should take a freaking second to look at the facts with these guys. Lee's OBP was more than .050 points over his average last year, more than .060 points over his previous season, and about .045 above the previous three year average. If he falls to a .400 OBP, that would still be way over where anybody would have thought he'd be going into 2005. Predicting such a number would hardly be considered pessimistic. I think he's probably going to be around .390-.395. Although I'm a little concerned that with all the time off he's had this spring, the so-called extra early work bounce he got for 2005 will be missing. Regardless, if he's just down to .400 (and plays everyday), that's still a .017 point drop from the 2005 Cubs. In other words, it probably takes away a big chunk of what you could realistically hope Murton would improve upon.

 

As for Barrett, I'm not predicting major decline or anything. I think that the guy is probably going to be a little worse in 2006, but probably still among the best hitting catchers in the NL, if not the best.

Anyway, as for the other stuff, one thing to remember is it's not just OBP. The Cubs are still a team that doesn't walk, even if some of these guys get on more frequently than the ones they are replacing. But they have other offensive weaknesses as well.

 

...yes it is. my entire post, and the post I was responding to, was about obp. if you want to get caught up in whether the guy gets on base via walk or basehit, that's your perogative. I don't particularly care as long as the obp's are at the level expected. as for weaknesses, show me a team with less than a $200M payrol that doesn't have offensive weaknesses. perhaps that statement is a reflection of your unrealistic high expectations of what a team should be.

 

Finally, even if you are correct in that the only position the Cubs will see improvement in obp is center, that's still a huge improvement considering that the Cubs leadoff hitters obp was .299 last year.

 

 

The post you responded to, or at least the part you quoted, didn't mention a thing about OBP.

 

Whether you care or not, walks are a vital aspect of OBP. And OBP that relies heavily on AVG is much more susceptible to dropoffs than one that relies on a steady stream of bases on balls. And I never said CF was the only position that would improve. I said it's the only position that is almost a guarantee for significant improvement. Of course others could improve as well. But they aren't guarantees.

 

Anyway, it's not about not having any weaknesses. It's about fielding the best team possible. And it's pretty clear that through several years of inefficent utilization of resources the Cubs are not fielding the best team possible. They have lots of weaknesses, and many problems that have been problems year after year. If you think expecting the Cubs to be a 90+ win team most every year is unrealistic expectations, then I don't see the point in discussing the issue. I think the Cubs should win a world series. I don't view back to back +.500 seasons as success.

 

Why don't you spend less time trying to carry out your personal vendetta against me and more time having an actual discussion about these issues. I don't care who you are, you shouldn't care who I am. We're obviously both Cubs fans. We have different opinions about what guys are likely to do this year. Get over it.

 

I think you went a little overboard here, Goony. I didn't take anything from the original post to believe there was something personal going on within it.

[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.

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.

 

Agreed. I was comparing only to Wash., but overall, you are correct, IMO.