Why are the young guys getting a shot this year?

[Caryatid]

if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year.

 

Hollandsworth over Murton last year.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year.

 

Hollandsworth over Murton last year.

 

Hollandsworth (250/329/382/711) over Dubois (346/393/808/1201) last April.

[CubinNY]

Name the "youngsters Dusty has held back. Coach L

 

Haven't we had this conversation before?

 

Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time.

 

I'll see if I can simplify it.

 

Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better

Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better.

 

What do you do?

 

If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward.

 

allow me to preface by saying that I think Dusty prefers vets over younger players. however, I think it is quite overblown.

 

when time after time it turns out Dusty was right, ie. the younger player doesn't develop into anything, don't you think he may be on to something? I wanted to see Choi get the PT, but Karros and Simon did well. I wanted to see Bobby Hill be the starter, but Grudz had a great year. I wanted to see more of DuBois, but he's back down in AAA, and Hollandworth again is getting his PT.

 

none of these guys amounted or will amount to much. so when does it get to the point where some of us are willing to admit our expectations might have been wrong, and Dusty was right that the young player would not be an asset to the team?

 

if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year.

 

in other words, your assumption of "Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now" is just that, an assumption. if you want to decide who the better player was at a given time, you can stick with your opinion no matter how false it turned out to be, or you can look at how the players actually performed.

 

What are you talking about? That was a hypothetical.

 

Hollandsworth over Dubois and Grudz over Hill are but two examples.

 

And again it does not matter that Hollandsworth or Grudz might have better careers than Dubios or Hill. What matters is that at the time of the decision, playing the vet over the rookie was made even though the numbers for the vet were putrid.

[srbin84]

if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year.

 

Hollandsworth over Murton last year.

 

Estes over Cruz.

 

Harris over Hiatt and Leon (although Hiatt was older but still not a vet/experienced)

 

Karros vs. Choi is a tough one, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Harris over Hiatt and Leon

 

:shock: Harris sucked, but Hiatt or Leon?

[srbin84]

Harris over Hiatt and Leon

 

:shock: Harris sucked, but Hiatt or Leon?

 

Oh yeah, absolutely.

 

Take a look at what those two guys did at AAA. No way in hell Harris could have approaced their numbers if he were down there, and then look at Lenny's attrociously terribly putrid MLB numbers.

Edited May 2, 2006 by srbin84

[CubDad4Ever]

Hill, and Dubois, can you pick two bigger clownshoes as an example , nice try. SF and the cubs have lacked positional talent from within untill now. End of story. By the way i love that post dusty youth movement in the bay area. But i forgot , he probably got on the horn with Felipe and told him what to do. Coach L

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Harris over Hiatt and Leon

 

:shock: Harris sucked, but Hiatt or Leon?

 

Oh yeah, absolutely.

 

Take a look at what those two guys did at AAA. No way in hell Harris could have approaced their numbers if he were down there, and then look at Lenny's attrociously terribly putrid MLB numbers.

 

There are reasons that Hiatt and Leon are career minor leaguers -- they're not good. Lenny Harris sucked, but so did they.

[srbin84]

Actually, I would have also taken Prior and Zambrano over Harris in a platoon. The only thing that would stop me would be the injury risk, certainly not the numbers/ability.

[brinoch]

Hill, and Dubois, can you pick two bigger clownshoes as an example , nice try. SF and the cubs have lacked positional talent from within untill now. End of story. By the way i love that post dusty youth movement in the bay area. But i forgot , he probably got on the horn with Felipe and told him what to do. Coach L

 

Some of the youth might be "clown shoes" as you label them, but if they will outproduce the crusty "old hobnail" veteran, they should play. A great example is Perez over Cedeno last season. Cedeno rotted on the bench while Perez "saved" us. Estes over Cruz. Harris over anyone. Hollandsworth over Dubois. If a rookie gives at least the performance the veteran would offer, but has the potential for upside, you go with the young player who might perform better.

[jjgman21]

if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year.

 

Hollandsworth over Murton last year.

 

Estes over Cruz.

 

Harris over Hiatt and Leon (although Hiatt was older but still not a vet/experienced)

 

Karros vs. Choi is a tough one, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I suppose Hollandworth did get about 10 starts within the first three weeks after the Cubs called up Murton. after that, the choice was Lawton who came to the Cubs with a .380 OBP season going. after Lawton left, Murton got the bulk of the PT.

 

saying Dubois stopped getting PT after April would be...oh, what's the word I am looking for...I know, saying that would be wrong. maybe his .500 or so OPS in about 140 May and June plate appearances lead to him losing his platoon role.

 

yes, Cruz did ride pine in favor of Estes. if you were checking, you would probably note that Cruz had an even worse ERA than Estes that year.

 

edit: I will fully concede playing Lenny Harris was absurd.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

saying Dubois stopped getting PT after April would be...oh, what's the word I am looking for...I know, saying that would be wrong.

 

Nobody said that.

[srbin84]

if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year.

 

Hollandsworth over Murton last year.

 

Estes over Cruz.

 

Harris over Hiatt and Leon (although Hiatt was older but still not a vet/experienced)

 

Karros vs. Choi is a tough one, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I suppose Hollandworth did get about 10 starts within the first three weeks after the Cubs called up Murton. after that, the choice was Lawton who came to the Cubs with a .380 OBP season going. after Lawton left, Murton got the bulk of the PT.

 

saying Dubois stopped getting PT after April would be...oh, what's the word I am looking for...I know, saying that would be wrong. maybe his .500 or so OPS in about 140 May and June plate appearances lead to him losing his platoon role.

 

yes, Cruz did ride pine in favor of Estes. if you were checking, you would probably note that Cruz had an even worse ERA than Estes that year.

 

Slightly, but not as a starter. Cruz was always better as a starter. If Baylor had never yanked him from the rotation in 2002, I think he'd still be a consistent 10-12 game winner with a 4.25-4.75 ERA.

 

And I hope he dominates the Cubs but we still win this week. Maybe that's wrong, but he's always been one of my favorite players and the Cubs gave him away for nothing while playing overpaid bums like Estes and Rusch

Edited May 2, 2006 by srbin84

[CubDad4Ever]

Dont blanket cedeno in with those guys , he was brought along fine and then was hurt . Quit letting Dusty hate blind the facts. Coach L

[jjgman21]

Name the "youngsters Dusty has held back. Coach L

 

Haven't we had this conversation before?

 

Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time.

 

I'll see if I can simplify it.

 

Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better

Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better.

 

What do you do?

 

If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward.

 

allow me to preface by saying that I think Dusty prefers vets over younger players. however, I think it is quite overblown.

 

when time after time it turns out Dusty was right, ie. the younger player doesn't develop into anything, don't you think he may be on to something? I wanted to see Choi get the PT, but Karros and Simon did well. I wanted to see Bobby Hill be the starter, but Grudz had a great year. I wanted to see more of DuBois, but he's back down in AAA, and Hollandworth again is getting his PT.

 

none of these guys amounted or will amount to much. so when does it get to the point where some of us are willing to admit our expectations might have been wrong, and Dusty was right that the young player would not be an asset to the team?

 

if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year.

 

in other words, your assumption of "Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now" is just that, an assumption. if you want to decide who the better player was at a given time, you can stick with your opinion no matter how false it turned out to be, or you can look at how the players actually performed.

 

What are you talking about? That was a hypothetical.

 

Hollandsworth over Dubois and Grudz over Hill are but two examples.

 

And again it does not matter that Hollandsworth or Grudz might have better careers than Dubios or Hill. What matters is that at the time of the decision, playing the vet over the rookie was made even though the numbers for the vet were putrid.

 

what matters is whether Dusty chose to play the better player, and hindsite has proven over and over again that he made the right choice, which to me indicates that maybe Dusty has a little better foresight than people are willing to give him credit for.

 

people really should get off the Dubois and Hollandworth thing. the plan all along was to use him in a platoon, and after April 2005, Dubois proved pretty much overwhelmingly that he couldn't hit major league lefties, much less righties.

 

as for Grudz over Hill, go back in time and look at how Hill lost the starting job in ST. that's right, how Hill lost it. the plan was for him to be the everyday secondbaseman, but he played so terribly in ST the Cubs had little choice but to go with Grudz. then look how Grudz performed in the early part of that year and how Hill did down in Iowa. tell me you wouldn't have made the same decision.

[goonys evil twin]

I think the answer to the question in the title is pretty clear, it was the only option.

 

Rusch got a job ahead of any kid, but there weren't other old guys to take rotations spots. There isn't one decent corner OF option on the team, so there's no way you can start one ahead of Murton. The Cedeno over Perez situation must have come about from the Cubs finally realizing how bad Neifi was as a starter last year. They tried to get a different veteran SS to take his place (although that possibly would have meant Cedeno at 2B anyway), but when it fell through they stuck with Ronny, as Hendry has been a big believer for quite some time now.

[jjgman21]

saying Dubois stopped getting PT after April would be...oh, what's the word I am looking for...I know, saying that would be wrong.

 

Nobody said that.

 

he gave an example of Dusty not giving young players a chance and chose a vet instead by saying Dubois had a great April and Hollandworth a bad one, thus implying, if not explicitly stating, that Dubois was benched in favor of Hollandworth after said April.

 

maybe not in so many words, but he did say that.

[goonys evil twin]

saying Dubois stopped getting PT after April would be...oh, what's the word I am looking for...I know, saying that would be wrong.

 

Nobody said that.

 

he gave an example of Dusty not giving young players a chance and chose a vet instead by saying Dubois had a great April and Hollandworth a bad one, thus implying, if not explicitly stating, that Dubois was benched in favor of Hollandworth after said April.

 

maybe not in so many words, but he did say that.

 

Saying he played one guy over another isn't the same as saying he stopped getting any time. If one guy gets preferential treatment and more chances, the other guy is still going to get some PT.

[CubinNY]

Name the "youngsters Dusty has held back. Coach L

 

Haven't we had this conversation before?

 

Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time.

 

I'll see if I can simplify it.

 

Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better

Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better.

 

What do you do?

 

If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward.

 

allow me to preface by saying that I think Dusty prefers vets over younger players. however, I think it is quite overblown.

 

when time after time it turns out Dusty was right, ie. the younger player doesn't develop into anything, don't you think he may be on to something? I wanted to see Choi get the PT, but Karros and Simon did well. I wanted to see Bobby Hill be the starter, but Grudz had a great year. I wanted to see more of DuBois, but he's back down in AAA, and Hollandworth again is getting his PT.

 

none of these guys amounted or will amount to much. so when does it get to the point where some of us are willing to admit our expectations might have been wrong, and Dusty was right that the young player would not be an asset to the team?

 

if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year.

 

in other words, your assumption of "Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now" is just that, an assumption. if you want to decide who the better player was at a given time, you can stick with your opinion no matter how false it turned out to be, or you can look at how the players actually performed.

 

What are you talking about? That was a hypothetical.

 

Hollandsworth over Dubois and Grudz over Hill are but two examples.

 

And again it does not matter that Hollandsworth or Grudz might have better careers than Dubios or Hill. What matters is that at the time of the decision, playing the vet over the rookie was made even though the numbers for the vet were putrid.

 

what matters is whether Dusty chose to play the better player, and hindsite has proven over and over again that he made the right choice, which to me indicates that maybe Dusty has a little better foresight than people are willing to give him credit for.

 

people really should get off the Dubois and Hollandworth thing. the plan all along was to use him in a platoon, and after April 2005, Dubois proved pretty much overwhelmingly that he couldn't hit major league lefties, much less righties.

 

as for Grudz over Hill, go back in time and look at how Hill lost the starting job in ST. that's right, how Hill lost it. the plan was for him to be the everyday secondbaseman, but he played so terribly in ST the Cubs had little choice but to go with Grudz. then look how Grudz performed in the early part of that year and how Hill did down in Iowa. tell me you wouldn't have made the same decision.

 

We all know the importance of spring taining numbers. Look at Cedeno and Rameriz.

 

The other aspect which is difficult if not impossible to quantify is the pressure put on the young player to produce immediately or get demoted. The vet never has that pressure. I'm just glad Cedeno started out well, b/c if not I'm sure Neifi would be getting plenty of time at SS.

 

But really, I'm glad that the young guys are doing well. I hope Dusty and Hendry learn something from this experience.

[brinoch]

Dont blanket cedeno in with those guys , he was brought along fine and then was hurt . Quit letting Dusty hate blind the facts. Coach L

 

I don't like Dusty very much, but I don't let my likes and dislikes affect my judgement when it comes to analyzing the numbers. So, let's take a look at Cedeno's 2005, shall we?

 

Cedeno was called up from the DJaxx on 4/21/05 after Garciaparra hurt his groin. The Cubs signed Enrique Wilson on 5/17/05 and optioned Ronny to Iowa. During this period, he received 16 plate appearances in 22 games; Neifi had 89 plate appearances during this 22 game span.

 

After watching Enrique Wilson flounder, the Cubs brought Ronny back a second time on 6/28/2005 and at the same time outrighted the horrible Enrique Wilson to AAA. Ronny remained with the club for 39 games until 8/9/05 when he was sent down to make room for Corey Patterson. During this span, Ronny had 40 plate appearances to Neifi's 135.

 

Finally, Ronny returned to the Cubs on 8/26/05 with the injury to Ramirez. Ronny was active from the 26th until September 10th, when he broke a bone in his hand. While Nomar played third, Ronny finally had something of a chance, receiving 29 plates appearances in 15 games. Neifi, meanwhile, had 47 plate appearances.

 

So, by the numbers, Ronny was with the 2005 Cubs -- in an active, playing role -- for 76 games. During this time frame, Neifi appeared 271 times at the plate to Ronny's 85 plate appearances. 271 to 85.

[jjgman21]

 

We all know the importance of spring taining numbers. Look at Cedeno and Rameriz.

 

The other aspect which is difficult if not impossible to quantify is the pressure put on the young player to produce immediately or get demoted. The vet never has that pressure. I'm just glad Cedeno started out well, b/c if not I'm sure Neifi would be getting plenty of time at SS.

 

But really, I'm glad that the young guys are doing well. I hope Dusty and Hendry learn something from this experience.

 

Hill's numbers that ST made Cedeno's 2006 ST look all-star caliber. he was terrible, not only offensively, but letting routine groundballs between his legs, lawn darts to first, etc. he was just horrid. I remember it well because I was so disappointed. he went back to Iowa, dealt with a sickness, and then abosolutely sucked for a month and a half in Iowa as well. again, I followed closely because I was really excited about his future.

 

with all my defense of Dusty, please don't get me wrong. I believe the criticism is just, but overblown because I think there is something to his claim of 'I haven't had any good young players.' most managers that are expected to compete are going to choose the thing they know over the thing they don't know. so I agree. thank god that Cedeno is off to a good start, because I think Neifi probably would have been in there if he didn't.

 

as for my answer to the question that started this thread, I get the feeling that Hendry and Baker made a deal. Baker agreed to play the kids, Hendry agreed to stock the back end of the roster with players that Baker likes in case those players fail.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hill's numbers that ST made Cedeno's 2006 ST look all-star caliber.

 

Hill '03 ST: .154/.274/.173/.447

Cedeno '05 ST: .218/.271/.327/.598

 

Cedeno's obviously better, but both were pretty abominable, and since both came in about 50-55 ABs, there's not much difference in the performance aside from an XBH or two.

[jjgman21]

Hill's numbers that ST made Cedeno's 2006 ST look all-star caliber.

 

Hill '03 ST: .154/.274/.173/.447

Cedeno '05 ST: .218/.271/.327/.598

 

Cedeno's obviously better, but both were pretty abominable, and since both came in about 50-55 ABs, there's not much difference in the performance aside from an XBH or two.

 

fine. you're only reinforcing my point about Dusty having some foresight and ability to evaluate young players. Hill was sent down and will never be more than a marginal bench player. Cedeno was kept as the starter and appears to be heading to a fine career.

[brinoch]

C'mon folks, who wants to take up Dusty's defense with respect to Cedeno and Perez? I went through all the trouble of doing the research and there isn't a single post in response?

 

If not, thou shalt know me as Threadkiller.

[CubfaninCA]

so what. baker held back garbage and went w/ guys who actually produced in the majors.

 

maybe people are upset cause baker was absolutely correct on hill, dubois and choi.