You cannot underestimate the importance of speed

[srbin84]

Well, if you did make a team of the fastest guys at their positions, I think it would be above average as far as runs scored per game; but it would be very consistant and if paired with a good pitching staff, extremely effective.

 

The all speed team:

 

CF Pierre

2B Reyes

1B Lee

RF Abreu

SS Furcal

LF Taveras

3B Freel

C Olivo

[RynoRules]

I like having a good blend of power and speed on a team. There will be times when speed wins a game and times when power wins a game. I see no reason to be one dementional. I don't like the fact that the bench has no power hitters though.

 

Great post; completely agree.

[hardcorecubfan]

I was going to start a similar thread titled "I LOVE SPEED" As I sorta eluded to in the game thread, I think speed will be a big factor in the success of our offense. Fast players cause defenders to make more hurried rushes to the ball on grounders, and cause them to potentially make bad rushed throws because they know they have to be perfect to get the runner out.

 

Obviously, it also affects how they run on the bases too, as we saw when Pagan (or was it Cedeno) made it in easily on that single through the left side by Walker. It is also a big deal to the pitcher, as he must spend time concentrating on the runner at first, and lose a bit of concentration on the batter.

 

I don't think the speed will affect the offense as much as it did today, but you'd be suprised how much of a dimension it adds to the team this year.

 

agreed, makes the game a bit more exciting

[Blueheart05]

 

It was definitely a lot different than recent Cubs offenses. Only 3 of the 16 runs came via a homerun. There were lots of hits and a few sacs.

 

same thing happened last year on opening day, and people were saying the same thing.

 

yeah, it'd be great if the cubs could single their way to 17 hits every game, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

Last year more runs were scored via the homerun. That was the point moreso than the 18 hits.

[Guest]

 

It was definitely a lot different than recent Cubs offenses. Only 3 of the 16 runs came via a homerun. There were lots of hits and a few sacs.

 

same thing happened last year on opening day, and people were saying the same thing.

 

yeah, it'd be great if the cubs could single their way to 17 hits every game, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

Last year more runs were scored via the homerun. That was the point moreso than the 18 hits.

I might be mistaken on this, but I think I'm correct when I say that the White Sox scored a higher percentage of their runs off of homers than the Cubs did last year. I think they did pretty well, too.

[srbin84]

 

It was definitely a lot different than recent Cubs offenses. Only 3 of the 16 runs came via a homerun. There were lots of hits and a few sacs.

 

same thing happened last year on opening day, and people were saying the same thing.

 

yeah, it'd be great if the cubs could single their way to 17 hits every game, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

Last year more runs were scored via the homerun. That was the point moreso than the 18 hits.

I might be mistaken on this, but I think I'm correct when I say that the White Sox scored a higher percentage of their runs off of homers than the Cubs did last year. I think they did pretty well, too.

 

Yes, but you are forgetting about the games they won scoring 3 or 4 runs only because of their speed when they weren't hitting as well.

[Guest]

 

It was definitely a lot different than recent Cubs offenses. Only 3 of the 16 runs came via a homerun. There were lots of hits and a few sacs.

 

same thing happened last year on opening day, and people were saying the same thing.

 

yeah, it'd be great if the cubs could single their way to 17 hits every game, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

Last year more runs were scored via the homerun. That was the point moreso than the 18 hits.

I might be mistaken on this, but I think I'm correct when I say that the White Sox scored a higher percentage of their runs off of homers than the Cubs did last year. I think they did pretty well, too.

 

Yes, but you are forgetting about the games they won scoring 3 or 4 runs only because of their speed when they weren't hitting as well.

So the Cubs were able to score more without the use of a home run...but the Sox were put over the top because of their ability to score without a home run?

 

I'm not sure I understand that logic.

[Blueheart05]

 

It was definitely a lot different than recent Cubs offenses. Only 3 of the 16 runs came via a homerun. There were lots of hits and a few sacs.

 

same thing happened last year on opening day, and people were saying the same thing.

 

yeah, it'd be great if the cubs could single their way to 17 hits every game, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

Last year more runs were scored via the homerun. That was the point moreso than the 18 hits.

I might be mistaken on this, but I think I'm correct when I say that the White Sox scored a higher percentage of their runs off of homers than the Cubs did last year. I think they did pretty well, too.

 

I don't know if that is true or not, with respect to the Sox, but I do know that the Cubs feast or famine offense didn't do much for them. Over 40% of the Cubs runs were scored via the homerun. The offense was one dimensional. Similarly, the Reds lead the league in power and the most homeruns were hit at GABP yet, they were unable to score enough runs consistently to make up for their poor pitching staff.

 

The Cubs pitching is seemingly lacking (especially early in the season) so the hitters will need to have more ways to score. There will be many days this month that the ball won't leave the park. It is nice to have other options.

[goonys evil twin]

Forgetting the topic of speed for a second, the phrase "you cannot underestimate" always seems confusing to me.

 

Presumably you're talking about something you value highly when you start a sentence off with those three words. However, if you are saying you cannot underestimate something, you are essentially saying it is not possible to place a value on something that is lower than the actual value, or, this thing is so lacking in value that it is impossible to arbitrarily name a value that would be lower than its actual value. Or, in this case, speed is so worthless, you can't possibly come up with a value, however stated, that is lower than the actual value of speed.

 

Although, if you take is as a command, as in "YOU, yeah YOU, you are not allowed to underestimate the value of speed." Well, besides being a little harsh, this pretty much guarantees the person will be forced to overvalue speed, or whatever the object/concept is, because nobody can assume you will be perfect when assessing value. So, in other words, the value of speed is going to be overestimated, because it's either impossible to underestimate it, or you are not allowed to underestimate it.

 

It's like saying "I couldn't care less" when if fact you could very easily care less.

 

 

Anyway, it's been one game. You can't use one game to show us anything about how the offense will be different from year's past. Personally I'd love all Cubs players to have blazing speed as one of their many abilities, along with elite vision, hand eye coordination, balance, strength, quickness, intelligence, decision making ability, instincts, spunk, grit, confidence, clutchiness, intangibility, chemical capability, courtesy and generosity (to the fans and need, not opposing teams). But I don't think it's possible to find such a player, or group of players. So I'd just like to see them assemble the most productive group of players possible with a mixture of several traits.

[srbin84]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

[goonys evil twin]

I do know that the Cubs feast or famine offense didn't do much for them. Over 40% of the Cubs runs were scored via the homerun. The offense was one dimensional.

 

The one dimension you speak of was the SLG. The reason all those homeruns didn't lead to a lot of runs is because of the bottom of the barrel ranking in walks, which led to pathetic levels of OBP. The Cubs feasted of power, but starved for baserunners. To make the offense better, they need to get more baserunners while minimizing the reduction in power.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

 

Power and speed might score more than just power, or it might not. Speed doesn't guarantee more scoring. OBP guarantees more scoring. That is where the Cubs have been lacking. And you don't have to have great speed to get great OBP, but it's still nice to have.

[Lefty]

It played a HUGE factor in today's game, and its presence should be prevalent throughout the season. Stats can be a great measure of one's performance, but it doesn't do many facets a great deal of justice. It's not just the ability to score with speed that's important, its being able to use it in certain situations thereby manipulating runs (in close games) which is. IMO, it will win us a substantial amount of games this season.

 

But speed is reflected quite well in the traditional stats. It's what gives Jaun Pierre a a higher batting average than a pitcher. It allows Jaun Pierre to play CF and thus stay in the major leagues. It gives Jaun Pierre an ISO above .10 because he can leg out XBHs.

 

Baseball is uniquely able to be measured (as opposed to an offensive lineman's contribution). If you have no statistical basis for something in baseball, it's the Loch Ness Monster.

[srbin84]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

 

Power and speed might score more than just power, or it might not. Speed doesn't guarantee more scoring. OBP guarantees more scoring. That is where the Cubs have been lacking. And you don't have to have great speed to get great OBP, but it's still nice to have.

 

I'm saying that even if the power lineup scores more runs, and I concede that they probably will, the team with speed will still win more games.

[Blueheart05]

I do know that the Cubs feast or famine offense didn't do much for them. Over 40% of the Cubs runs were scored via the homerun. The offense was one dimensional.

 

The one dimension you speak of was the SLG. The reason all those homeruns didn't lead to a lot of runs is because of the bottom of the barrel ranking in walks, which led to pathetic levels of OBP. The Cubs feasted of power, but starved for baserunners. To make the offense better, they need to get more baserunners while minimizing the reduction in power.

 

I agree, and never made any assertion to the contrary. My first comment in this thread was about how speed lead to an increase in OBP for this particular game. Let's be honest, a number of the hits were of the infield variety. Pierre, Murton, Cedeno, Perez, and Pagan put pressure on the defenders by out running many of the INF arms. It also caused an error because the 3B hurried his throw to 1B.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

 

Power and speed might score more than just power, or it might not. Speed doesn't guarantee more scoring. OBP guarantees more scoring. That is where the Cubs have been lacking. And you don't have to have great speed to get great OBP, but it's still nice to have.

 

I'm saying that even if the power lineup scores more runs, and I concede that they probably will, the team with speed will still win more games.

 

You can say that all you want, but it's no more true than saying the team with bigger smiles on their faces will win more games.

[UBlink]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

 

Power and speed might score more than just power, or it might not. Speed doesn't guarantee more scoring. OBP guarantees more scoring. That is where the Cubs have been lacking. And you don't have to have great speed to get great OBP, but it's still nice to have.

 

I'm saying that even if the power lineup scores more runs, and I concede that they probably will, the team with speed will still win more games.

 

I think there are a couple of testable hypotheses here. Going back, I think the first hypothesis is that a speed team will score runs more consistently than a power team. We can compare the standard deviation of runs scored / game to test this hypothesis.

 

The second hypothesis is independent of the speed issue, asserting that the a team with more consistent run production will win more games than a team with more variance in the distribution of runs scored.

 

The second hypothesis is easy to test, the first requires a proxy for team speed.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

 

Power and speed might score more than just power, or it might not. Speed doesn't guarantee more scoring. OBP guarantees more scoring. That is where the Cubs have been lacking. And you don't have to have great speed to get great OBP, but it's still nice to have.

 

I'm saying that even if the power lineup scores more runs, and I concede that they probably will, the team with speed will still win more games.

 

I think there are a couple of testable hypotheses here. Going back, I think the first hypothesis is that a speed team will score runs more consistently than a power team. We can compare the standard deviation of runs scored / game to test this hypothesis.

 

The second hypothesis is independent of the speed issue, asserting that the a team with more consistent run production will win more games than a team with more variance in the distribution of runs scored.

 

The second hypothesis is easy to test, the first requires a proxy for team speed.

 

You'd have to somehow hold OBP constant, or at least the non speed related aspect of OBP, which is the majority of OBP.

[UBlink]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

 

Power and speed might score more than just power, or it might not. Speed doesn't guarantee more scoring. OBP guarantees more scoring. That is where the Cubs have been lacking. And you don't have to have great speed to get great OBP, but it's still nice to have.

 

I'm saying that even if the power lineup scores more runs, and I concede that they probably will, the team with speed will still win more games.

 

I think there are a couple of testable hypotheses here. Going back, I think the first hypothesis is that a speed team will score runs more consistently than a power team. We can compare the standard deviation of runs scored / game to test this hypothesis.

 

The second hypothesis is independent of the speed issue, asserting that the a team with more consistent run production will win more games than a team with more variance in the distribution of runs scored.

 

The second hypothesis is easy to test, the first requires a proxy for team speed.

 

You'd have to somehow hold OBP constant, or at least the non speed related aspect of OBP, which is the majority of OBP.

 

Oh, of course, the test in the first case is to see if the speed proxy adds any additional explanatory value over and above a "traditional" analysis using OBP, SLG, etc.

[srbin84]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

 

Power and speed might score more than just power, or it might not. Speed doesn't guarantee more scoring. OBP guarantees more scoring. That is where the Cubs have been lacking. And you don't have to have great speed to get great OBP, but it's still nice to have.

 

I'm saying that even if the power lineup scores more runs, and I concede that they probably will, the team with speed will still win more games.

 

You can say that all you want, but it's no more true than saying the team with bigger smiles on their faces will win more games.

 

The team with speed will have their runs spread out more whereas the power team will be on and off.

[goonys evil twin]

The team with speed will have their runs spread out more whereas the power team will be on and off.

 

Again, you can say it, but it's not necessarily true. Well, it's probably true that the runs will spread out more, but that doesn't mean they'll be more, or even as many runs. And it certainly won't mean they'll have more wins. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Speed isn't the determining factor in who wins more, nor is it close to the determining factor. Often times, some of the fastest teams in baseball are some of the worst (Tampa has plenty of speed guys, Washington/Montreal have had plenty of runners in recent years).

 

This is a blatant example of overvaluing speed, just like saying the team with more homeruns will always win more is blatantly overvaluing power. Speed is one aspect of the game, it's not even close to the most important aspect. Let's rein in the overzealous proclamations.

[Guest]

Well, if you did make a team of the fastest guys at their positions, I think it would be above average as far as runs scored per game; but it would be very consistant and if paired with a good pitching staff, extremely effective.

 

The all speed team:

 

CF Pierre

2B Reyes

1B Lee

RF Abreu

SS Furcal

LF Taveras

3B Freel

C Olivo

You think that would beat this team on a consistent basis:

 

C - Varitek

1B - Pujols

2B - Soriano

3B - ARod

SS - Tejada

LF - Manny

CF - Andruw

RF - Vlad

 

Because that team is the HR leaders at their positions over the past couple years. I'm sure your team would win a few games. But if our two teams played a 162 game schedule against each other with equivalent pitching staffs, I'd bet my team wins more than 110 games.

[Guest]

I'm saying that an offense with power and speed wins more games than an offense just with exceptional power, even though the one with exceptional power will likely score more runs.

 

Power and speed might score more than just power, or it might not. Speed doesn't guarantee more scoring. OBP guarantees more scoring. That is where the Cubs have been lacking. And you don't have to have great speed to get great OBP, but it's still nice to have.

 

I'm saying that even if the power lineup scores more runs, and I concede that they probably will, the team with speed will still win more games.

Please see the above comparison of fastest player at each position vs. player with most power at each position and compare.

[Andy]

Well, if you did make a team of the fastest guys at their positions, I think it would be above average as far as runs scored per game; but it would be very consistant and if paired with a good pitching staff, extremely effective.

 

The all speed team:

 

CF Pierre

2B Reyes

1B Lee

RF Abreu

SS Furcal

LF Taveras

3B Freel

C Olivo

You think that would beat this team on a consistent basis:

 

C - Varitek

1B - Pujols

2B - Soriano

3B - ARod

SS - Tejada

LF - Manny

CF - Andruw

RF - Vlad

 

Because that team is the HR leaders at their positions over the past couple years. I'm sure your team would win a few games. But if our two teams played a 162 game schedule against each other with equivalent pitching staffs, I'd bet my team wins more than 110 games.

Don't forget to bat Soriano leadoff, because he's small and fast. :wink:

 

In all seriousness, though, it's great to see the Cubs put some pressure on the opposing team while running the bases nowadays and I hope it continues.

[Guest]

I'd like to draw attention back to this excellent article by BK: They call it small ball for a reason