How to stunt a young player's growth. by Dusty Baker

[RegulusBlue]

Murton needs to be given the Juan Pierre treatment, in that he cannot earn a spot on the bench, nor should he be switched out for. I have faith in him to become a great player for many years in one of two paths:

 

A) The Sean Casey Path (.306/.371/.464) If the power spike never comes, and he regains his stride as the NL pitching becomes familiar, and talent takes over for inexperience and pressure. His walk rate returns, and he continues to spray the ball all over the field, clogging up the bases for many years to come. He becomes a run-scoring force at the leadoff or second spot in the lineup. As a bonus, he isn't the slowest man ever to play baseball second to only Cecil Fielder, so he will score even more (speed doesn't slump).

 

B) The Chad Tracy Path (.335/.389/.468) Following a predictable power surge in the next year or so, Matt begins to better recognize and turn on the inside pitch, driving it into the gaps and out of the park. His walk rate remains stable or increases as pitchers now have something to fear in him. He becomes a high OBP second, fifth, or even third hitter at times and an overall textbook good corner OF.

 

I see A as the less likely of the two scenarios, because his minior league numbers are favorable for this reality (.309/.380/.451) only if you ignore the upward trend in his slugging over the minor league years (2003=.397, 2004=.437, 2005=.504). Tracy's numbers in the minors are misleading (.335/.389/.468) because he also trended upward drastically at the end of his stint.

 

Tracy is also a fair comparison because of their physical similarity. Murton is actually a bit beefier than Tracy at 6'1'' 226 compared to 6'2'' 190 (Hair color is an obvious sticking point as well). Body size to power correlations are easy to refute, especially when Sean Casey is already in the discussion, but the figures are there, and Matt clearly has good legs under him for power production in the future.

 

I apologize for my earlier eruption of emotion and anger against our manager. I hope this is a much more objective analysis of Matt Murton, and a clear argument for why he should be allowed to struggle when it happens, rather than be switched out or outright benched for Bynum. He can easily become a special player in the very near future. Don't forget how pivotal he was to this team's success early in the season when it still meant something.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Casey's career numbers would probably be a career year for Murton if/when he doesn't develop power, so he'd be worse than that on the whole, which is pretty unacceptable for a corner OF.

[NewUserName]

I always find it interesting what Cub fans expect out of rookies. (I know Murton is not a rookie but close) If they are not winning the rookie of the year they feel like they will never be any good. I know that the Cub management for years has also had this approach so it must be a learned behavior.

 

For fun I would recomend looking at the first yr #s of these players. I am just pulling them from my head so some may be better than others

 

ARam, Ryne Sandberg, Morgan Ensberg, Scott Rolen, IRod, Eric Chavez, Miguel Tejada, Vlad Guerrero, Jim Thome, Brian Giles, Manny Ramirez, Derek Lee, Craig Biggio, Chad Tracy, jim Edmonds, AJones, CJones, Carlos Delgado, Torri Hunter.

 

I just threw a few out there, I am sure if I actually looked it up I could come up with more. I would predict that if Murton is given a full year at the job his first 600 abs #s would be similar to these players. I am not saying that Murton will be as good as these players, I am just saying dont let what he is doing now be your opinion on what kind of career he may have.

 

My biggest concern with him has been gap power not HR power. I think he only has 7 doubles and didnt show a big sign in the minors or last year to have a lot of double power. Still think he should be batting 2nd though. Aslo since the team is clearly not going to contend should be playing as much as possible.

[TheDude]

I like Murton myself, but would like to see him used as a trading chip for a more traditional LF threat. Murton is a better fit for a team like the Reds, Rangers, or even the White Sox, and could probably develop approrpiately in those environments.

 

I do think it is a bit ridiculous to claim that Murton is getting the Dusty treatment these days.

[SoonerCubFan]

The minute the author stated that Matt Murton was his favorite Cub I knew it would be probably an emotional post. I like Matt Murton, but he's really not that good for a team that has little power and little OBP. He's not as good now as I thought he'd be four-six months ago, and I'd question anyone who isn't disappointed with Murton to this point. He's not shown the same patience as he did last year, and, sorry, I refuse to believe that he is a robot and just decided to swing at everything because Dusty told him to. I have no problem with guys who are free-swingers as long as they swing at a pitch in their "hot" zone. Swinging at breaking pitches (which Murton does all too often) when ahead in the count is not smart. Perhaps, once again, we as fans overrated another young Cub position player. I hope not since I really like Murton, but he's been disappointing at various times this season. And Cedeno is going to be good, but let's not excuse his poor OBP. That's great that his average has been around .300 and he's pretty good defensively (still too many errors), but I don't care for his .320 OBP.

 

Oh yeah, I still don't know why Bynum is on this team. You'd have to ask Hendry what "tools" Bynum brings. Hendry's ability to evaluate talent just sickens me-- although I'm glad he was right about Lee.

 

This is the stance I most closely align with on the Murton issue. I pull as much for young guys to succeed as anyone, but to this point Murton is not helping against RHPs and would be optimally used in a platoon w/Jones. Unfortunately, we don't have a legit LF to plug in yet, so in the meantime I also agree that I'd rather Murton "learn" against RHPs in the 8 hole than have Bynum out there. I just hope he doesn't learn bad habits while struggling and maybe does figure something out.

 

As for Cedeno, I sort of disagree. I liken his hitting ability to a young Sandberg and think some stance adjustments and learning to pull the ball will lead to good pop eventually. He has the instainctive ability to hit line drives to all fields already, and he has the body frame to get stronger. He already works the count pretty well, but often gets too aggressive with those 3-2 pitches. As for his D, his range and athletic ability are again unteachable tools he already has, along with a strong arm. He could be GG caliber very soon with repetition of the basics.

[CubinNY]

I apologize for my tone. Given that, I just think we get too caught up in stats (money ball, percentages) and use that to beat Jim H and Dusty over the head with them.

 

Baseball is random by it's very nature and to nit pick, armchair quarterback, and criticize nearly everything they do is not fair. No other team in baseball would be doing well, either, given the circumstances they are in.

 

So let the debate begin, without all the accusations.

 

Randomness in baseball or life in general is very small. There is always a small bit of chance it won't happen, but pitchers who walk batters consistently have high ERAs and airplanes don't fall out of the sky for no reason at all.

 

Numbers show patterns and trends. To base baseball decision on hunches, feels, and guts is not the way to win.

[SoonerCubFan]

I apologize for my tone. Given that, I just think we get too caught up in stats (money ball, percentages) and use that to beat Jim H and Dusty over the head with them.

 

Baseball is random by it's very nature and to nit pick, armchair quarterback, and criticize nearly everything they do is not fair. No other team in baseball would be doing well, either, given the circumstances they are in.

 

So let the debate begin, without all the accusations.

 

Randomness in baseball or life in general is very small. There is always a small bit of chance it won't happen, but pitchers who walk batters consistently have high ERAs and airplanes don't fall out of the sky for no reason at all.

 

Numbers show patterns and trends. To base baseball decision on hunches, feels, and guts is not the way to win.

 

As with most things, there is truth on both sides of this issue. High OBP is always good, but it's better if most of the time it's in the context of a team rally, which is of itself random. Get more high-OBP guys on the same team, there is less randomness. Quality starts usually correlate closely with wins, but it's the randomness of when you throw them that makes a huge difference in W-L results. Compare Zambrano or Sean Marshall with Jason Marquis.

[CubinNY]

I apologize for my tone. Given that, I just think we get too caught up in stats (money ball, percentages) and use that to beat Jim H and Dusty over the head with them.

 

Baseball is random by it's very nature and to nit pick, armchair quarterback, and criticize nearly everything they do is not fair. No other team in baseball would be doing well, either, given the circumstances they are in.

 

So let the debate begin, without all the accusations.

 

Randomness in baseball or life in general is very small. There is always a small bit of chance it won't happen, but pitchers who walk batters consistently have high ERAs and airplanes don't fall out of the sky for no reason at all.

 

Numbers show patterns and trends. To base baseball decision on hunches, feels, and guts is not the way to win.

 

As with most things, there is truth on both sides of this issue. High OBP is always good, but it's better if most of the time it's in the context of a team rally, which is of itself random. Get more high-OBP guys on the same team, there is less randomness. Quality starts usually correlate closely with wins, but it's the randomness of when you throw them that makes a huge difference in W-L results. Compare Zambrano or Sean Marshall with Jason Marquis.

 

That's not ture at all. Randomness is chance or luck. Over the course of 160 games luck plays a very limted role in who makes the playoffs and who doesn't.

 

Randomness is a convient excuse for why things don't happen the way we want them too. The Cubs aren't bad becuase the gods hate them or because of chance, they're bad becuase their numbers indicate it is so.

 

And using wins as a metric for starting pitchers becme usless around the time of Rolly Fingers.

[SoonerCubFan]

That's not ture at all. Randomness is chance or luck. Over the course of 160 games luck plays a very limted role in who makes the playoffs and who doesn't.

 

Randomness is a convient excuse for why things don't happen the way we want them too. The Cubs aren't bad becuase the gods hate them or because of chance, they're bad becuase their numbers indicate it is so.

 

And using wins as a metric for starting pitchers becme usless around the time of Rolly Fingers.

 

Not true at all? All or nothing? (Sir Francis notwithstanding).

 

I agree with most of what you say, and said so in my first post in this thread. There's no question these Cubs have been bad in many ways this year that are easily illustrated by metrics. But, baseball is also replete with randomness - pitch by pitch, game by game. Just why do you think that wins are "useless" for measuring a pitcher's performance?

[RegulusBlue]

Just why do you think that wins are "useless" for measuring a pitcher's performance?

 

Its because the pitcher only controls the earned runs he gives up, his own fielding, and 1/9 of the entire offense at the bottom of the order. There is no magic here. The same pitchers always lead the league in K/BB ratio and ERA. It doesn't translate to wins because errors (re: the Reds) and lack of run support (re: the Cubs) are different elements, not some magical random force.

 

As stated earlier, there is terribly little randomness over 600+ PA, 200 IP, or 162 G. There IS randomness in small sample sizes, but as statistics state at every turn, small sample sizes lead to flawed perception, which is what you and Joe Morgan have right now.

 

The element that confuses old baseball people is that the qualities that make a great player are only visible in retrospect, through their stats. The ability to wait for the right pitch, and work the count for a walk, or foul off pitches until the meatball pitch comes are all intangibles when not considering numbers. Scouts view those qualities as crapshoots, despite their easy availability on the internet.

[Pinktermite]

I agree about the "wins" thing, if Zambrano had more control over his fate, he'd be a 10 or 11 game winner by now, which, illustrates the randomness with which the game affects a team. The Yankees are replete with great teams and high win totals and high on base percentages and lots of home runs, but the randomness of their injuries and the randomness with which things happen keep even the big spenders from winning all the time. Though, in retrospect, they have those numbers (the metrics, as you say), and they do at least make the playoffs probably due to that, but lose due to the random happenings of the playoffs. So both are true, in my opinion.

 

The cubs suck because they have four or five good high OBP players, and surround the rest of the team with bozos and knuckleheads like Neifi and Glendon. We'll see lots of Neifi this week, he hit the ball successfully on sunday.

[anemic offense]

I understand how some can be advocating for a platoon based on numbers, but how is Murton suppose to improve (and be able to hit righties) if he doesn't play everyday? Good god, it would be utterly scary if every young player who ever struggled in any facet were to be platooned so swiftly. With our moribund record and the likelyhood of continued futility I hope this team gives Murt every opportunity to prove he can't succeed. With only a thrid of the season gone by that certainly hasn't happened yet.

[Roast]

I agree about the "wins" thing, if Zambrano had more control over his fate, he'd be a 10 or 11 game winner by now, which, illustrates the randomness with which the game affects a team. The Yankees are replete with great teams and high win totals and high on base percentages and lots of home runs, but the randomness of their injuries and the randomness with which things happen keep even the big spenders from winning all the time. Though, in retrospect, they have those numbers (the metrics, as you say), and they do at least make the playoffs probably due to that, but lose due to the random happenings of the playoffs. So both are true, in my opinion.

 

The cubs suck because they have four or five good high OBP players, and surround the rest of the team with bozos and knuckleheads like Neifi and Glendon. We'll see lots of Neifi this week, he hit the ball successfully on sunday.

 

I find it amusing how you make two posts saying how baseball is random and is poorly described by stats, and then go and end your post by saying that the reason the cubs are bad is because they have low OBP.

 

Also, i would like to meet these four or five good high OBP players.

 

I can think of two good obp guys for the cubs this year:

Barrett and Walker.

 

And one who is decent:

Murton (and he's in a downward obp spiral)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I agree about the "wins" thing, if Zambrano had more control over his fate, he'd be a 10 or 11 game winner by now, which, illustrates the randomness with which the game affects a team. The Yankees are replete with great teams and high win totals and high on base percentages and lots of home runs, but the randomness of their injuries and the randomness with which things happen keep even the big spenders from winning all the time. Though, in retrospect, they have those numbers (the metrics, as you say), and they do at least make the playoffs probably due to that, but lose due to the random happenings of the playoffs. So both are true, in my opinion.

 

The cubs suck because they have four or five good high OBP players, and surround the rest of the team with bozos and knuckleheads like Neifi and Glendon. We'll see lots of Neifi this week, he hit the ball successfully on sunday.

 

I find it amusing how you make two posts saying how baseball is random and is poorly described by stats, and then go and end your post by saying that the reason the cubs are bad is because they have low OBP.

 

Also, i would like to meet these four or five good high OBP players.

 

I can think of two good obp guys for the cubs this year:

Barrett and Walker.

 

And one who is decent:

Murton (and he's in a downward obp spiral)

 

corner infielders

[Roast]

corner infielders

 

I wasnt counting DLEE as he isnt playing.

And I just looked at Arams low obp, and didnt even think about the fact that its still about sixty points over his avg.