Nevin to the Cubs

[Brian]

Well, if there's one thing Pittsburgh needs, it's left handed starting pitching.

 

screw wilson, they got any 2B they could send us for Hill, it would be the perfect trade :P

[NorthsideAvenger]

Well, if there's one thing Pittsburgh needs, it's left handed starting pitching.

 

screw wilson, they got any 2B they could send us for Hill, it would be the perfect trade :P

 

I'd take Jose Castillo.... :lol:

[Andy]

any news on jersey number?

He was wearing 25 with Texas, so he will definitely be switching.

[CubsWin]

I'm still trying to figure out why Womack, he of the .343 average, was benched in favor of Neifi of the .206 land of suck.

I know, I was scratching my head with that one too, but when I really thought about it, I came up with a lot of possible reasons that if I knew more inside information could be verified as Baker's actual reasons for starting Perez. Any one of these reasons by themselves might not justify the move, but a few them taken in concert with each other could.

 

1. Baker may consider Neifi a better defensive 2B than Womack.

2. Neifi's OPS against lefties over the last 3 full seasons is roughly 80 points higher.

3. Womack's numbers against Milton were actually worse than Neifi's though in a smaller sample size.

4. Baker is a big believer in a standard old school belief of righty hitter against lefty pitcher and vice versa. Neifi is a switch hitter.

5. It is possible Womack tweaked something in the batting cage or was abnormally sore, something that we as fans would never hear about.

6. Neifi homered in his last start and maybe Baker has reason to believe that Neifi has found something in all the lefty-thrown batting practice he has watched him take lately.

 

The list can go on.

 

I don't believe someone has to "have access to all the inside workings of the Cubs clubhouse and know everything there is to know about baseball." to give an opinion on Dusty's ability.

Neither do I. Nor did I ever say that they did.

 

What I did say was in order to so confidently declare that Dusty routinely misses the "obvious" choice and is clearly "stupid and irrational", one would have to know everything there is to know about baseball in order to so confidently identify the obvious choices from the more murky ones.

 

You will agree that at one point in time, it was obvious to humankind that the world was flat, then we thought the world was round. Lately, after much more careful and accurate measurements, they are saying the earth is kind of oval in shape. And as I just showed, what seemed like an "obvious" move (starting Womack over Perez) can be shown to be less obvious with a little consideration. So someone who considers a move "obvious" is either not thinking very deeply and considering all angles or knows basically everything there is to know and can thus accurately and confidently say which moves should be made and which ones shouldn't. I decided to go with the more flattering of the two options. As I give the benefit of the doubt to Baker, so too did I think I should give it to Careless.

[CubsWin]

[

I can't speak for CubinNY, but I think some people may have just lost faith in Dusty's ability to think clearly enough to make that obvious choice.

Dusty fails to make the obvious choice on a daily basis. He is, however, both stupid and irrational, so it is difficult to predict how he will behave.

Stupid, irrational and obvious.

 

Wow, well I guess you should know since you have access to all the inside workings of the Cubs clubhouse and know everything there is to know about baseball. Because, to me, thats what it would take to make such a bold statement. Certain aspects of baseball may seem simple to us, but I bet if you talk to a lot of major league managers today, they will say that there are very few "obvious" choices in baseball except for the ones the fans tell us about.

 

Of course, I could very well be wrong and baseball actually is a simple game with obvious choices that truly boils down to numbers and doesn't really involve human beings, but I'm certainly not smart enough or exposed to enough inside information to know this for sure. If you are, more power to ya.

 

As far as this thread is concerned, I guess we'll see who is right when Dusty either starts Nevin in place of Murton on a regular basis or doesn't and uses him as a fill in for Lee and a platoon with Jones.

Read the sections I've bolded, Cubswin.

What I'm saying is that there are very few obvious choices in this complex game except for, of course, all the ones that many fans think are obvious. So the use of the word obvious in the first bolded section is referring to those moves that us fans think are obvious, like starting Womack over Perez against Eric Milton the other day.

 

Those of us who have "lost faith" in Dusty's ability to make the obvious choices might be thinking that those choices are more obvious than they may actually be, and that if we gave the benefit of the doubt for just a moment and looked deeper, that we indeed will find reasons for making a choice other than the "obvious" one.

 

In the context of this thread, if Dusty sits Murton and starts Nevin on a regular basis, I will wonder why, but before I conclude that he is an idiot, I will look into every possible reason. Of course, that hasn't happened yet. What will you be saying if the man who you have dubbed as stupid and irrational plays Nevin primarily at 1B until Lee gets back and then brings him off the bench against lefties? How could a guy who is truly stupid and incapable of rational thought make such a seemingly logical decision based on the information available to us fans?

[ToThePain]

The Cubs and the Royals are about the only teams who have cashed in their 2006 chances of post-season play. Nevin was probably the best deal they could make at this point in the season - given the Cubs predispostion of holding on to their AAA stars until they've sufficiently failed at the MLB level so that their value is nil.

 

A month ago we could have made a deal with Rich Hill to anchor the offer, now he isn't worth a case of sunflower seeds.

 

Thank God for Pittsburgh - else we'd be a sure thing to finish dead last in the Central.

[RynoRules]

Nevin is basically a poor man's Craig Wilson. I don't see how the Cubs could use two players who are so similar.

 

You don't see how they could use two guys with pop on the bench?

 

Nevin is not a poor man's Wilson. Besides the fact that he costs more than twice as much, Nevin is 6 years older, and coming off a season with a 79 OPS+, compared to Wilson's 112. And Craig is running circles around Nevin now. Wilson could start for this team in LF, moving Murton into a platoon with Jones, which blows the doors off the current OF production. Nevin is the backup for 1B and 3B, and a pinch hitter. Wilson is a legit starter.

 

Not for the Cubs he dosen't. He is costing the Cubs a mere $375 k, which is virtually nothing in this day and age. Accordingly, if he doesn't work out and the Cubs find themselves in a position to acquire a true difference maker, I could see JH DFA-ing him.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Thank God for Pittsburgh - else we'd be a sure thing to finish dead last in the Central.

 

To quote my good friend, Lee Corso, "not so fast my friend". They're only 1 game behind us right now.

[ToThePain]

Thank God for Pittsburgh - else we'd be a sure thing to finish dead last in the Central.

 

To quote my good friend, Lee Corso, "not so fast my friend". They're only 1 game behind us right now.

 

True enough but they actually look worse on paper then the Cubs do... which is a difficult task in and of itself.

 

I have great confidence in my beloved Cubs to stave off last place and only lose 95-100 games.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

any news on jersey number?

He was wearing 25 with Texas, so he will definitely be switching.

 

And he wore 23 before. That ain't happenin either. ESPN has 40 listed.

[BigbadB]

As I mentioned earlier, Nevin's medicore 722 OPS this year has been vastly inflated by his home ABs at The Bandbox in Arlington. He won't reach 700 in Chicago unless the wind is blowing out every day at Wrigley.

 

Not so fast. The NL Central is a dreamy place to be a power hitter. Ask Albert Pujols and Morgan Ensberg. Nevin's numbers will probably rise playing in this division.

 

I'm not saying he'll be any savior, but I could see an .800 OPS.

[Backtobanks]

With interleague play coming, hopefully Dusty will use Nevin as DH and not Neifi.

[Careless]

[

I can't speak for CubinNY, but I think some people may have just lost faith in Dusty's ability to think clearly enough to make that obvious choice.

Dusty fails to make the obvious choice on a daily basis. He is, however, both stupid and irrational, so it is difficult to predict how he will behave.

Stupid, irrational and obvious.

 

Wow, well I guess you should know since you have access to all the inside workings of the Cubs clubhouse and know everything there is to know about baseball. Because, to me, thats what it would take to make such a bold statement. Certain aspects of baseball may seem simple to us, but I bet if you talk to a lot of major league managers today, they will say that there are very few "obvious" choices in baseball except for the ones the fans tell us about.

 

Of course, I could very well be wrong and baseball actually is a simple game with obvious choices that truly boils down to numbers and doesn't really involve human beings, but I'm certainly not smart enough or exposed to enough inside information to know this for sure. If you are, more power to ya.

 

As far as this thread is concerned, I guess we'll see who is right when Dusty either starts Nevin in place of Murton on a regular basis or doesn't and uses him as a fill in for Lee and a platoon with Jones.

Read the sections I've bolded, Cubswin.

What I'm saying is that there are very few obvious choices in this complex game except for, of course, all the ones that many fans think are obvious. So the use of the word obvious in the first bolded section is referring to those moves that us fans think are obvious, like starting Womack over Perez against Eric Milton the other day.

 

Those of us who have "lost faith" in Dusty's ability to make the obvious choices might be thinking that those choices are more obvious than they may actually be, and that if we gave the benefit of the doubt for just a moment and looked deeper, that we indeed will find reasons for making a choice other than the "obvious" one.

 

In the context of this thread, if Dusty sits Murton and starts Nevin on a regular basis, I will wonder why, but before I conclude that he is an idiot, I will look into every possible reason. Of course, that hasn't happened yet. What will you be saying if the man who you have dubbed as stupid and irrational plays Nevin primarily at 1B until Lee gets back and then brings him off the bench against lefties? How could a guy who is truly stupid and incapable of rational thought make such a seemingly logical decision based on the information available to us fans?

because it's obvious. ](*,)

[CubsWin]

[

I can't speak for CubinNY, but I think some people may have just lost faith in Dusty's ability to think clearly enough to make that obvious choice.

Dusty fails to make the obvious choice on a daily basis. He is, however, both stupid and irrational, so it is difficult to predict how he will behave.

Stupid, irrational and obvious.

 

Wow, well I guess you should know since you have access to all the inside workings of the Cubs clubhouse and know everything there is to know about baseball. Because, to me, thats what it would take to make such a bold statement. Certain aspects of baseball may seem simple to us, but I bet if you talk to a lot of major league managers today, they will say that there are very few "obvious" choices in baseball except for the ones the fans tell us about.

 

Of course, I could very well be wrong and baseball actually is a simple game with obvious choices that truly boils down to numbers and doesn't really involve human beings, but I'm certainly not smart enough or exposed to enough inside information to know this for sure. If you are, more power to ya.

 

As far as this thread is concerned, I guess we'll see who is right when Dusty either starts Nevin in place of Murton on a regular basis or doesn't and uses him as a fill in for Lee and a platoon with Jones.

Read the sections I've bolded, Cubswin.

What I'm saying is that there are very few obvious choices in this complex game except for, of course, all the ones that many fans think are obvious. So the use of the word obvious in the first bolded section is referring to those moves that us fans think are obvious, like starting Womack over Perez against Eric Milton the other day.

 

Those of us who have "lost faith" in Dusty's ability to make the obvious choices might be thinking that those choices are more obvious than they may actually be, and that if we gave the benefit of the doubt for just a moment and looked deeper, that we indeed will find reasons for making a choice other than the "obvious" one.

 

In the context of this thread, if Dusty sits Murton and starts Nevin on a regular basis, I will wonder why, but before I conclude that he is an idiot, I will look into every possible reason. Of course, that hasn't happened yet. What will you be saying if the man who you have dubbed as stupid and irrational plays Nevin primarily at 1B until Lee gets back and then brings him off the bench against lefties? How could a guy who is truly stupid and incapable of rational thought make such a seemingly logical decision based on the information available to us fans?

because it's obvious. ](*,)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Careless, but aren't you the one that said he would fail to make the obvious choice because he was stupid and irrational in the first place? You can't have it both ways.

 

But the semantic games that are being played here are only allowing you to avoid addressing the point. Are you ever going to speak to the issue I'm raising? About fans not digging deeper when they are perplexed by one of their manager's choices and jumping right to he's stupid and irrational? For example the starting Perez instead of Womack decision I detailed a page ago...

[goonys evil twin]

But the semantic games that are being played here are only allowing you to avoid addressing the point. Are you ever going to speak to the issue I'm raising? About fans not digging deeper when they are perplexed by one of their manager's choices and jumping right to he's stupid and irrational? For example the starting Perez instead of Womack decision I detailed a page ago...

 

Most of Baker's bad moves don't require any level of digging deeper.

 

And what exactly is the issue you are raising? It just sounds like a circuitous way of defending Baker at all costs by saying we can't know everything he knew to make the decision. Another example of the "you can't criticize him because you aren't in his shoes" theory.

[CubsWin]

But the semantic games that are being played here are only allowing you to avoid addressing the point. Are you ever going to speak to the issue I'm raising? About fans not digging deeper when they are perplexed by one of their manager's choices and jumping right to he's stupid and irrational? For example the starting Perez instead of Womack decision I detailed a page ago...

 

Most of Baker's bad moves don't require any level of digging deeper.

 

And what exactly is the issue you are raising? It just sounds like a circuitous way of defending Baker at all costs by saying we can't know everything he knew to make the decision. Another example of the "you can't criticize him because you aren't in his shoes" theory.

I can't be any less circuitous or more clear when I give you an example. Lets talk about the supposed obvious choice of starting Womack over Neifi against Milton which Baker didn't do. He was criticized for missing that "obvious" move in this thread. What's your opinion?

[goonys evil twin]

But the semantic games that are being played here are only allowing you to avoid addressing the point. Are you ever going to speak to the issue I'm raising? About fans not digging deeper when they are perplexed by one of their manager's choices and jumping right to he's stupid and irrational? For example the starting Perez instead of Womack decision I detailed a page ago...

 

Most of Baker's bad moves don't require any level of digging deeper.

 

And what exactly is the issue you are raising? It just sounds like a circuitous way of defending Baker at all costs by saying we can't know everything he knew to make the decision. Another example of the "you can't criticize him because you aren't in his shoes" theory.

I can't be any less circuitous or more clear when I give you an example. Lets talk about the supposed obvious choice of starting Womack over Neifi against Milton which Baker didn't do. He was criticized for missing that "obvious" move in this thread. What's your opinion?

 

Opinion about what? Whether he should have made that move? I don't think it really matters, they both suck.

[Banedon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Careless, but aren't you the one that said he would fail to make the obvious choice because he was stupid and irrational in the first place? You can't have it both ways.

 

But the semantic games that are being played here are only allowing you to avoid addressing the point. Are you ever going to speak to the issue I'm raising? About fans not digging deeper when they are perplexed by one of their manager's choices and jumping right to he's stupid and irrational? For example the starting Perez instead of Womack decision I detailed a page ago...

 

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying we shouldn't criticize a manager for decisions that we think are incorrect, just because there are possibly variables that we aren't aware of? In the case of Baker, he's been making bad decisions for at least 4 years, and probably longer if you ask SF fans. The fact that bad decisions sometimes end in good results doesn't mean they aren't still bad decisions. Have these mysterious variables existed for Baker's entire tenure?

 

Even if they have, we can only form opinions based on what we know. If this mysterious information comes to light that shows that Baker was somehow correct in these decisions, I'm sure there will be a large portion of those doing the criticizing that will admit their mistake. I don't think that will be necessary though.

 

How are we to "dig deeper"? We have a beat writer and a broadcaster (among others) posting here. We all regular read the newspaper, all the quotes from all the relevant parties, and keep ourselves tuned into all the baseball sources that we can. What exactly is it that you propose that we do? Since you think that "fans not digging deeper" is somehow a fault, please...give us an option to correct this.

[CubsWin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Careless, but aren't you the one that said he would fail to make the obvious choice because he was stupid and irrational in the first place? You can't have it both ways.

 

But the semantic games that are being played here are only allowing you to avoid addressing the point. Are you ever going to speak to the issue I'm raising? About fans not digging deeper when they are perplexed by one of their manager's choices and jumping right to he's stupid and irrational? For example the starting Perez instead of Womack decision I detailed a page ago...

 

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying we shouldn't criticize a manager for decisions that we think are incorrect, just because there are possibly variables that we aren't aware of?

I think it is very clear what I'm saying. I couldn't be saying it more plainly, if you are going to make the bold statement that someone is stupid and irrational, not that some of his moves seem stupid and irrational, but that the person is stupid and irrational, then you either have to know a whole lot more than the manager you are criticizing or you aren't looking into the situations you are criticizing very deeply.

 

I never said anything about not criticizing or not being critical. Why is it that many people jump to that. I don't know. I've never typed it.

 

How are we to "dig deeper"? We have a beat writer and a broadcaster (among others) posting here.

Yes, we do, and when was the last time they called Baker stupid and irrational?

 

We all regular read the newspaper, all the quotes from all the relevant parties, and keep ourselves tuned into all the baseball sources that we can. What exactly is it that you propose that we do? Since you think that "fans not digging deeper" is somehow a fault, please...give us an option to correct this.

Boy, it sure seems real simple to me, just consider all the possible reasons why a manager would have done what he did before labeling him stupid, irrational, an idiot, etc. I do it all the time. I posted an example of this one page earlier, surrounding the Womack/Perez issue that some people were criticizing Baker for. I, too, at first found the choice to start Perez odd, but when I did some research and considered that there may be reasons that I would never know about like the possibility of Womack being sore or something, there was enough reasonable doubt to not conclude that Baker was an idiot or that his brain is somehow deficient.

 

That's all I'm saying. I never asked anyone to stop criticizing Baker when they have a solid argument. But when you choose to label someone stupid and irrational, you have set the bar pretty high when it comes to providing the evidence to support your argument.

[CubsWin]

But the semantic games that are being played here are only allowing you to avoid addressing the point. Are you ever going to speak to the issue I'm raising? About fans not digging deeper when they are perplexed by one of their manager's choices and jumping right to he's stupid and irrational? For example the starting Perez instead of Womack decision I detailed a page ago...

 

Most of Baker's bad moves don't require any level of digging deeper.

 

And what exactly is the issue you are raising? It just sounds like a circuitous way of defending Baker at all costs by saying we can't know everything he knew to make the decision. Another example of the "you can't criticize him because you aren't in his shoes" theory.

I can't be any less circuitous or more clear when I give you an example. Lets talk about the supposed obvious choice of starting Womack over Neifi against Milton which Baker didn't do. He was criticized for missing that "obvious" move in this thread. What's your opinion?

 

Opinion about what? Whether he should have made that move? I don't think it really matters, they both suck.

Ugh, more avoidance. There are people who are criticizing Baker for missing the obvious choice there. I guess you aren't one of them then.

[goonys evil twin]

More avoidance. I guess there isn't much interest in having an honest discussion about this issue.

 

Or am I wrong. How would you like to shape this debate? Do you simply want to have it on your terms? Be my guest, set them.

 

I don't even know what the debate is. You just keep talking about fans digging deeper and obviousness. I really don't know what you're talking about.

[CubsWin]

More avoidance. I guess there isn't much interest in having an honest discussion about this issue.

 

Or am I wrong. How would you like to shape this debate? Do you simply want to have it on your terms? Be my guest, set them.

 

I don't even know what the debate is. You just keep talking about fans digging deeper and obviousness. I really don't know what you're talking about.

I realized that, so I went back and edited my post to clarify it just before you hit submit.

[goonys evil twin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Careless, but aren't you the one that said he would fail to make the obvious choice because he was stupid and irrational in the first place? You can't have it both ways.

 

But the semantic games that are being played here are only allowing you to avoid addressing the point. Are you ever going to speak to the issue I'm raising? About fans not digging deeper when they are perplexed by one of their manager's choices and jumping right to he's stupid and irrational? For example the starting Perez instead of Womack decision I detailed a page ago...

 

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying we shouldn't criticize a manager for decisions that we think are incorrect, just because there are possibly variables that we aren't aware of?

I think it is very clear what I'm saying. I couldn't be saying it more plainly, if you are going to make the bold statement that someone is stupid and irrational, not that some of his moves seem stupid and irrational, but that the person is stupid and irrational, then you either have to know a whole lot more than the manager you are criticizing or you aren't looking into the situations you are criticizing very deeply.

 

I never said anything about not criticizing or not being critical. Why is it that many people jump to that. I don't know. I've never typed it.

 

How are we to "dig deeper"? We have a beat writer and a broadcaster (among others) posting here.

Yes, we do, and when was the last time they called Baker stupid and irrational?

 

We all regular read the newspaper, all the quotes from all the relevant parties, and keep ourselves tuned into all the baseball sources that we can. What exactly is it that you propose that we do? Since you think that "fans not digging deeper" is somehow a fault, please...give us an option to correct this.

Boy, it sure seems real simple to me, just consider all the possible reasons why a manager would have done what he did before labeling him stupid, irrational, an idiot, etc. I do it all the time. I posted an example of this one page earlier, surrounding the Womack/Perez issue that some people were criticizing Baker for. I, too, at first found the choice to start Perez odd, but when I did some research and considered that there may be reasons that I would never know about like the possibility of Womack being sore or something, there was enough reasonable doubt to not conclude that Baker was an idiot or that his brain is somehow deficient.

 

That's all I'm saying. I never asked anyone to stop criticizing Baker when they have a solid argument. But when you choose to label someone stupid and irrational, you have set the bar pretty high when it comes to providing the evidence to support your argument.

 

Okay, so are you telling people not to call Dusty names?

 

I've considered the possible reasons why Dusty makes the idiotic moves he makes. It all boils down to the same thing, he's not a good manager and he keeps making the same stupid moves over and over.

[CubsWin]

Okay, so are you telling people not to call Dusty names?

No, only to provide the evidence that supports that he is those things. Saying that someone is stupid and irrational is a pretty difficult one to support. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

I've considered the possible reasons why Dusty makes the idiotic moves he makes.

Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Its difficult to know.

 

It all boils down to the same thing, he's not a good manager and he keeps making the same stupid moves over and over.

And you might be right.

 

But then again, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary as well. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he makes moves you disagree with and fail to understand and that you think he is a bad manager?

 

Or don't you think that there is any evidence on the other side of your position?

[XZero771679666304]

Okay, so are you telling people not to call Dusty names?

No, only to provide the evidence that supports that he is those things. Saying that someone is stupid and irrational is a pretty difficult one to support. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

I've considered the possible reasons why Dusty makes the idiotic moves he makes.

Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Its difficult to know.

 

It all boils down to the same thing, he's not a good manager and he keeps making the same stupid moves over and over.

And you might be right.

 

But then again, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary as well. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he makes moves you disagree with and fail to understand and that you think he is a bad manager?

 

Or don't you think that there is any evidence on the other side of your position?

 

When his decisions are consistently contrary to common sense and statistical probablilities, you have to look further than decision to decision analysis. The man makes the same mistakes over and over again, and the fallibility of those decisions is obvious to even the casual observer. Since these decisions have negative results the VAST majority of the time, yet are repeated ad nauseum, how long can you avoid questioning his thought processes and ability to properly analyze what he is seeing on the field?

 

Honestly, when many of the moves he makes fly in the face of incontravertible logic, how can you insinuate that it is just a disagreement based on perception?

 

When he puts low OBP guys at the top of the order, or consistenly plays guys who statistical production is abysmal over guys who are more productive, you can't say we just "don't agree" with his methodology.

 

It's piss poor methodology, and that is NOT debatable.