Bruce Miles For Supreme Ruler!

[Warpticon]

And another way to illustrate the point about just getting good hitters in general. Buying clutch is adhering to a defeatist attitude. You don't need "clutch" hitting when you're up 6-2. Trying really hard to come up with guys who have a higher likelihood of doing better in a relatively small number of situations is just silly when you're just not that good offensively to begin with.

[BigbadB]

Why can't the Cubs brass have access to statistics like ^^^^^^^

 

ESPN.com is blocked where they work?

 

Good point. It's exactly where I got all of my information. I moved some stuff around and did some basic adding and percentage calculating, but it was all taken from the ESPN stats pages. Last time I looked, I wasn't the only one granted access to this secret society that is ESPN. LOL.

[Chocolate Milk]

Why can't the Cubs brass have access to statistics like ^^^^^^^

 

Seriously. What kind of time does it take to pull this stuff up. 30 seconds? How can paid professionals, whose job it is to evaluate baseball players, not investigate every way to evaluate them? It's your job. If someone said, "Hey, something interesting to look at when evaluating a ball player is X." Isn't it your duty to at least investigate the matter?

 

What do these guys do all day? Do MacPhail and Hendry just serf the internet all day or watch old movies? When someone interrupts them to ask, "Why does your team suck?" They just spout off some garbage that could be disproved in about 30 seconds by going to ESPN.com? How is this acceptable on any possible level?

 

It's infuriating.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why can't the Cubs brass have access to statistics like ^^^^^^^

 

ESPN.com is blocked where they work?

 

Good point. It's exactly where I got all of my information. I moved some stuff around and did some basic adding and percentage calculating, but it was all taken from the ESPN stats pages. Last time I looked, I wasn't the only one granted access to this secret society that is ESPN. LOL.

 

Who controls the British crown?

Who keeps the metric system down?

We do! We do!

 

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?

Who keeps the Martians under wraps?

We do! We do!

 

Who holds back the electric car?

Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?

We do! We do!

 

Who robs cavefish of their sight?

Who rigs every Oscar night?

We do! We do!

[ManCrushOnNomar]

St. Louis: 675 hits + 233 BB + 33 HBP= 941 baserunners

Cincinnati: 649 hits + 301 BB + 27 HBP= 977 baserunners

Houston: 641 hits + 254 BB + 31 HBP= 926 baserunners

Milwaukee: 644 hits + 234 BB + 34 HBP= 912 baserunners

Chicago: 629 hits + 171 BB + 19 HBP= 819 baserunners

Pittsburgh: 661 hits + 221 BB + 39 HBP= 921 baserunners

 

St. Louis: 941 baserunners= 360 runs= 38% of baserunners score

Cincinatti: 977 baserunners= 366 runs= 37% of baserunners score

Houston: 926 baserunners= 337 runs= 36% of baserunners score

Milwaukee: 912 baserunners= 340 runs= 37% of baserunners score

Chicago: 819 baserunners= 290 runs= 35% of baserunners score

Pittsburgh: 921 baserunners= 338 runs= 36% of baserunners score

 

I did this with just the NL Central, but I could sit here and do it with every team in MLB, and the Cubs would be dead last in baserunners. And it's because their dead last in baserunners that coincides with being dead last in runs scored. They actually rank 22nd in hits. But, dead last in walks. That tells me that at least the other lousy hitting teams 23rd-30th in hits know that they suck, and at least value walks much more than the Cubs.

 

Is the real problem timely hitting? While it can't be discounted completely, it is nowhere near the problem Dusty and Hendry make it out to be. The Cubs have the lowest percentage in their division at bringing home baserunners, but not by a huge amount. Significant is that Cincinnati has had 158 more baserunners than the Cubs. Only one team in the NL Central has less than 100 more baserunners than the Cubs, and not by much (Milwaukee).

 

Looking back at the stats, the team that has had the most baserunners in this division has scored the most runs. The team with the 2nd most baserunners in this division has scored the 2nd most runs. Looks like better timely hitting has given Milwaukee a slight edge in runs scored over Houston and Pittsburgh, but the edge is insignificant.

 

What is significant is that the Cubs aren't even in the discussion. They are pathetically horrible at getting runners on base, which explains why they are nearly 40 runs off the pace from the 2nd worst offense in that division. A 2nd worse offense that has next to nothing offensively outside of Jason Bay and a red hot Freddy Sanchez. Yet, Pittsburgh has drawn 50 more walks than the Cubs.

 

Cubs are dead last in the league in baserunners and dead last in runs scored. IT IS NOT JUST A COINCIDENCE, HENDRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Now when Hendry sees that he'll process the information and get 8 guys that only walk with no power. That's what he did with the speed and "catchaball" guys.

With this let us herald the return of Bellhorn!

[BigbadB]

By the way, HUGE THANKS to Bruce Miles for helping to spread the word. If OBP never left NSBB (not that we actually invented this important stat or anything), our message would probably go unheard. That it is being published in newspapers almost weekly is the one true way to educate more fans and maybe even a few front office guys. Maybe even a few Trib shareholders. Wouldn't it be great if a couple of Trib execs waltzed into Hendry's office and laid my spread sheet from above on Hendry's desk and started asking for some answers?

 

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

[USSoccer]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

That, to me, is the most important question. Whenever I see/hear/read about Hendry or Baker being interviewed, I never see anyone back up an assertation with a statistical fact. I always hear too much deference and use of baseball cliches like "Clutch".

 

I want to see someone point out the disparity in runs scored and hits for the Cubs since 2004. I want to see someone trot out Remlinger's R/L splits, or Neifi's statistical crapiness, or Rusch's anything. I want to see somebody use numbers to put Hendry in a position to justify his crap moves since 2004.

[BigbadB]

Why can't the Cubs brass have access to statistics like ^^^^^^^

 

Seriously. What kind of time does it take to pull this stuff up. 30 seconds? How can paid professionals, whose job it is to evaluate baseball players, not investigate every way to evaluate them? It's your job. If someone said, "Hey, something interesting to look at when evaluating a ball player is X." Isn't it your duty to at least investigate the matter?

 

What do these guys do all day? Do MacPhail and Hendry just serf the internet all day or watch old movies? When someone interrupts them to ask, "Why does your team suck?" They just spout off some garbage that could be disproved in about 30 seconds by going to ESPN.com? How is this acceptable on any possible level?

 

It's infuriating.

 

Actually, I probably spent about 20 minutes putting that post together. But, your point is well taken. :wink:

[gflore34]

How "clutch" is a fellow who rarely has base runners when he's up, compared to one who often has base runners during his at bats? It’s a function of opportunity, the more opportunities a hitter is afforded with base runners the greater his "clutch-ness". Once again, it boils down to fact that RS is directly proportional to the number of base runners. Why is something so simple apparently beyond the grasp of Hendry, et al?

[goonys evil twin]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

A) Hendry has to agree to an interview.

B) He's been asked about it and often brushes it aside, or says something like, "we look at OBP, but it's not the most important stat."

C) You can't treat him like he's a witness and you're a lawyer and force him to answer in full. Or else your access would be effectively shut off.

 

 

(this is just what I've gathered from reading the articles that do include quotes from Hendry - obviously I've never been in the room when interviews take place)

[badgercub]

How "clutch" is a fellow who rarely has base runners when he's up, compared to one who often has base runners during his at bats? It’s a function of opportunity, the more opportunities a hitter is afforded with base runners the greater his "clutch-ness". Once again, it boils down to fact that RS is directly proportional to the number of base runners. Why is something so simple apparently beyond the grasp of Hendry, et al?

 

the word "clutch" should be banned from this forum unless there is a discussion about cars going on. It is just silly and such a subjective thing to say someone is "clutch"

[Chocolate Milk]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

That, to me, is the most important question. Whenever I see/hear/read about Hendry or Baker being interviewed, I never see anyone back up an assertation with a statistical fact. I always hear too much deference and use of baseball cliches like "Clutch".

 

I want to see someone point out the disparity in runs scored and hits for the Cubs since 2004. I want to see someone trot out Remlinger's R/L splits, or Neifi's statistical crapiness, or Rusch's anything. I want to see somebody use numbers to put Hendry in a position to justify his crap moves since 2004.

 

I agree. This is one of those, "What the hell is going on???" moments for me. When someone get's the answer, "We lack in the clutch hitting department." Why doesn't someone say, "That's not true at all. The fact is you have far fewer baserunners than anyone else in the entire league. Here are the facts..." Why don't people say these things?

[Chocolate Milk]

Why can't the Cubs brass have access to statistics like ^^^^^^^

 

Seriously. What kind of time does it take to pull this stuff up. 30 seconds? How can paid professionals, whose job it is to evaluate baseball players, not investigate every way to evaluate them? It's your job. If someone said, "Hey, something interesting to look at when evaluating a ball player is X." Isn't it your duty to at least investigate the matter?

 

What do these guys do all day? Do MacPhail and Hendry just serf the internet all day or watch old movies? When someone interrupts them to ask, "Why does your team suck?" They just spout off some garbage that could be disproved in about 30 seconds by going to ESPN.com? How is this acceptable on any possible level?

 

It's infuriating.

 

Actually, I probably spent about 20 minutes putting that post together. But, your point is well taken. :wink:

 

That's just due to formating the post. The information can be pulled up in seconds. AMIRITE?

[CuseCubFan69]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

That, to me, is the most important question. Whenever I see/hear/read about Hendry or Baker being interviewed, I never see anyone back up an assertation with a statistical fact. I always hear too much deference and use of baseball cliches like "Clutch".

 

I want to see someone point out the disparity in runs scored and hits for the Cubs since 2004. I want to see someone trot out Remlinger's R/L splits, or Neifi's statistical crapiness, or Rusch's anything. I want to see somebody use numbers to put Hendry in a position to justify his crap moves since 2004.

 

I agree. This is one of those, "What the hell is going on???" moments for me. When someone get's the answer, "We lack in the clutch hitting department." Why doesn't someone say, "That's not true at all. The fact is you have far fewer baserunners than anyone else in the entire league. Here are the facts..." Why don't people say these things?

 

Maybe it's because most writers know a lot less than Hendry? I think Bruce is in the minority.

Edited June 23, 2006 by CuseCubFan69

[USSoccer]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

That, to me, is the most important question. Whenever I see/hear/read about Hendry or Baker being interviewed, I never see anyone back up an assertation with a statistical fact. I always hear too much deference and use of baseball cliches like "Clutch".

 

I want to see someone point out the disparity in runs scored and hits for the Cubs since 2004. I want to see someone trot out Remlinger's R/L splits, or Neifi's statistical crapiness, or Rusch's anything. I want to see somebody use numbers to put Hendry in a position to justify his crap moves since 2004.

 

I agree. This is one of those, "What the hell is going on???" moments for me. When someone get's the answer, "We lack in the clutch hitting department." Why doesn't someone say, "That's not true at all. The fact is you have far fewer baserunners than anyone else in the entire league. Here are the facts..." Why don't people say these things?

 

And to add to Goony's point, if you ask the follow up question, and back it up with numbers, and he hangs up on you and cuts your access off, you've proven your point. If he's on the air with you, you're in control of the interview.

 

How hard is it to ask a follow up question and attack the nonsense he spews?

[USSoccer]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

That, to me, is the most important question. Whenever I see/hear/read about Hendry or Baker being interviewed, I never see anyone back up an assertation with a statistical fact. I always hear too much deference and use of baseball cliches like "Clutch".

 

I want to see someone point out the disparity in runs scored and hits for the Cubs since 2004. I want to see someone trot out Remlinger's R/L splits, or Neifi's statistical crapiness, or Rusch's anything. I want to see somebody use numbers to put Hendry in a position to justify his crap moves since 2004.

 

I agree. This is one of those, "What the hell is going on???" moments for me. When someone get's the answer, "We lack in the clutch hitting department." Why doesn't someone say, "That's not true at all. The fact is you have far fewer baserunners than anyone else in the entire league. Here are the facts..." Why don't people say these things?

 

Maybe it's because most writers know a lot less than Hendry? I think Bruce is in the minority.

 

Yes and no. I've heard JH interviewed on WSCR here in Chicago by Boers and Bernstein. Bernstein, with all his flaws as a host, is a pretty smart guy (just ask him). He also has a grasp of statistical importance, and of all the people likely to hammer these points, he would be the one I would expect to do so. But it never happens.

[BigbadB]

How "clutch" is a fellow who rarely has base runners when he's up, compared to one who often has base runners during his at bats? It’s a function of opportunity, the more opportunities a hitter is afforded with base runners the greater his "clutch-ness". Once again, it boils down to fact that RS is directly proportional to the number of base runners. Why is something so simple apparently beyond the grasp of Hendry, et al?

 

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

Let us go back and look at Derrek Lee's wonderful 2005 season. Derrek had 99 XBH's and 107 RBI. No player in the history of the game had so many XBH's and so few RBI. Is it that Derrek is not clutch? NOPE.

 

It's because the brilliant manager of the Chicago Cubs put Neifi Perez, Corey Patterson and Jose Macias at the top of the order.

 

The sign should read: Top of the order hitter employment opportunity with the Chicago Cubs. Career .340 OBP or lower need not apply.

 

The Cubs had the opportunity last year to have a .350+ guy at every position throughout their line up. They had an opportunity to deepen the bench. They failed so badly, that they are now getting exactly what they deserve.

[CuseCubFan69]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

That, to me, is the most important question. Whenever I see/hear/read about Hendry or Baker being interviewed, I never see anyone back up an assertation with a statistical fact. I always hear too much deference and use of baseball cliches like "Clutch".

 

I want to see someone point out the disparity in runs scored and hits for the Cubs since 2004. I want to see someone trot out Remlinger's R/L splits, or Neifi's statistical crapiness, or Rusch's anything. I want to see somebody use numbers to put Hendry in a position to justify his crap moves since 2004.

 

I agree. This is one of those, "What the hell is going on???" moments for me. When someone get's the answer, "We lack in the clutch hitting department." Why doesn't someone say, "That's not true at all. The fact is you have far fewer baserunners than anyone else in the entire league. Here are the facts..." Why don't people say these things?

 

Maybe it's because most writers know a lot less than Hendry? I think Bruce is in the minority.

 

Yes and no. I've heard JH interviewed on WSCR here in Chicago by Boers and Bernstein. Bernstein, with all his flaws as a host, is a pretty smart guy (just ask him). He also has a grasp of statistical importance, and of all the people likely to hammer these points, he would be the one I would expect to do so. But it never happens.

 

I still think Bruce is in the minority. This Bernstein guy may be able to do it as you say but that puts him in that minority class too then. Think Gold Glove and the answer is clear.

Edited June 23, 2006 by CuseCubFan69

[gflore34]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

That, to me, is the most important question. Whenever I see/hear/read about Hendry or Baker being interviewed, I never see anyone back up an assertation with a statistical fact. I always hear too much deference and use of baseball cliches like "Clutch".

 

I want to see someone point out the disparity in runs scored and hits for the Cubs since 2004. I want to see someone trot out Remlinger's R/L splits, or Neifi's statistical crapiness, or Rusch's anything. I want to see somebody use numbers to put Hendry in a position to justify his crap moves since 2004.

 

I agree. This is one of those, "What the hell is going on???" moments for me. When someone get's the answer, "We lack in the clutch hitting department." Why doesn't someone say, "That's not true at all. The fact is you have far fewer baserunners than anyone else in the entire league. Here are the facts..." Why don't people say these things?

 

Maybe it's because most writers know a lot less than Hendry? I think Bruce is in the minority.

 

Or perhaps, most writers subscribe to the "good old boy network" (for lack of a better term) i.e., despite evidence to the contrary they'll refuse to ackownledge that for example, Neifi is a terrible Baseball player. Instead they find something, true or not, good to write or say about a player, manager, etc.

[BigbadB]

Why can't the Cubs brass have access to statistics like ^^^^^^^

 

Seriously. What kind of time does it take to pull this stuff up. 30 seconds? How can paid professionals, whose job it is to evaluate baseball players, not investigate every way to evaluate them? It's your job. If someone said, "Hey, something interesting to look at when evaluating a ball player is X." Isn't it your duty to at least investigate the matter?

 

What do these guys do all day? Do MacPhail and Hendry just serf the internet all day or watch old movies? When someone interrupts them to ask, "Why does your team suck?" They just spout off some garbage that could be disproved in about 30 seconds by going to ESPN.com? How is this acceptable on any possible level?

 

It's infuriating.

 

Actually, I probably spent about 20 minutes putting that post together. But, your point is well taken. :wink:

 

That's just due to formating the post. The information can be pulled up in seconds. AMIRITE?

 

Yes. UARITE. :D

[badgercub]

My one big problem is that even though you can find it in print now (thanks to Bruce once again), why isn't Hendry being asked these tough questions? Why isn't he being shown these stats and forced to answer?

 

That, to me, is the most important question. Whenever I see/hear/read about Hendry or Baker being interviewed, I never see anyone back up an assertation with a statistical fact. I always hear too much deference and use of baseball cliches like "Clutch".

 

I want to see someone point out the disparity in runs scored and hits for the Cubs since 2004. I want to see someone trot out Remlinger's R/L splits, or Neifi's statistical crapiness, or Rusch's anything. I want to see somebody use numbers to put Hendry in a position to justify his crap moves since 2004.

 

I agree. This is one of those, "What the hell is going on???" moments for me. When someone get's the answer, "We lack in the clutch hitting department." Why doesn't someone say, "That's not true at all. The fact is you have far fewer baserunners than anyone else in the entire league. Here are the facts..." Why don't people say these things?

 

Maybe it's because most writers know a lot less than Hendry? I think Bruce is in the minority.

 

Or perhaps, most writers subscribe to the "good old boy network" (for lack of a better term) i.e., despite evidence to the contrary they'll refuse to ackownledge that for example, Neifi is a terrible Baseball player. Instead they find something, true or not, good to write or say about a player, manager, etc.

 

What are you talking about Dude? Neifi saved us last year.

[BigbadB]

Or perhaps, most writers subscribe to the "good old boy network" (for lack of a better term) i.e., despite evidence to the contrary they'll refuse to ackownledge that for example, Neifi is a terrible Baseball player. Instead they find something, true or not, good to write or say about a player, manager, etc.

 

Neifi Perez was cut by the San Francisco Giants. No one else wanted him. That's how he became a Cub.

[goonys evil twin]

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

I've read that a couple times now and I still can't think who it was that led the league. I assume NL. Was it Andruw or Pat Burrell? I assume it wasn't Pujols because he couldn't hit that low in any split that included as many chances as RISP would include.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

I've read that a couple times now and I still can't think who it was that led the league. I assume NL. Was it Andruw or Pat Burrell? I assume it wasn't Pujols because he couldn't hit that low in any split that included as many chances as RISP would include.

 

Andruw. Ortiz led the AL, but was over 350 with RISP.

[BigbadB]

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

I've read that a couple times now and I still can't think who it was that led the league. I assume NL. Was it Andruw or Pat Burrell? I assume it wasn't Pujols because he couldn't hit that low in any split that included as many chances as RISP would include.

 

I don't know who it is. I'm assuming Warpticon wasn't just making that stat up.