Bruce at it again....

[wastra]

In 1988, you could field a team of low obp, high slg guys and win because every other team was doing it too- just

 

Except for Boston, Oakland, Yankees and Mets, 3 of whom won the 4 divisions at the time. Boston led the league in walks by a wide margin.

 

Definitely. There are always a few teams ahead of the curve. Granted...they were WINNING divisions. But you could still field a team of the low OBP guys and be competitive, but uultiamtely, you will likely lose out to the guys who know what they're doing. Today, you can't even be competitive because most other teams have caught on to the need to NOT make unnecessary outs and get on base.

 

 

Amazing, isn't it, how that works? High team OBP beats pretty much any other statistical measure of a team's offensive potential. That is, of course, unless you can field a team of potential olympic decathletes (read:bad but athletic ballplayers). That's worked real well for Jim Hendry. :wink:

[goonys evil twin]

In 1988, you could field a team of low obp, high slg guys and win because every other team was doing it too- just

 

Except for Boston, Oakland, Yankees and Mets, 3 of whom won the 4 divisions at the time. Boston led the league in walks by a wide margin.

 

Definitely. There are always a few teams ahead of the curve. Granted...they were WINNING divisions. But you could still field a team of the low OBP guys and be competitive,

 

Oh certainly, the Dodgers won it all that year by playing like everybody else, .304 OBP. They just had the pitching to make up for their offensive ineptness.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If Bruce keeps this up, he might become public enemy number one in the clubhouse. Keep it up Bruce. This team needs a critical eye placed upon its mistakes.

[Bruce Miles]

Also, I think Mr. Miles was correct in putting part of the blame on Michael Barrett. Barrett was selfish for what he did. He's probably the second best hitter on the club, and he effectively took the bat out of his own hands with the stupid punch he threw. Who could count on Henry Blanco having a career ten games?

 

No one counted on Blanco's performance, but we got it. So losing Barrett for 10 days meant equal production at the plate and probably better defense at C. If you can find any evidence at all that suggests that Barrett's absence actually cost us any games or kept us from contending this year, I'd like to see it. But I don't think you can.

 

No, it wasn't wise of Barrett to punch AJP, but it cost the Cubs nothing. Not a thing. Same offensive production, better D, and the 24-man roster argument doesn't hold water (see my earlier post about Guzman).

 

The problem w/ our team sucking is we go hunting for scapegoats. Barrett isn't one - he's been solid to very good all year. He's one of the few and maybe the only one who can say that (Z sucked for the first month).

 

I have to admit that that punch to AJ was the only dark side to Barrett this year so far. And when I saw how high his OBP is, I thought that was great. But who could've guessed Blanco would've done so well?

 

No one, but if we're looking back and saying "who is to blame for getting us here" - how can you say Barrett at all? Solid, one of the top offensive Cs all year, and his replacement for 10 games played as well as Barrett ever has in his best 10 games. At the time, maybe we all thought "crap w/o MB, our offense will be really bad." I sure did. But Blanco played incredible.

 

If you want to say the punch was dumb or whatever, I can respect that opinion. If you want to say Barrett is anywhere on a list of players to blame for this season, you'll need to come up w/ some evidence b/c right now he's been the MVP of the 1st half for us. Some have played better for a month or two - no one has been this good day in/day out all season.

 

As I said, it's precisely because Barrett is such a good offensive player that he's on my list. They Cubs missed him:

 

June 20: Blanco flies out with a man on in the seventh and groundes out to end the game with a man on second. Indians 4, Cubs 2.

June 23: Blanco strikes out with a man on base. Twins 7, Cubs 2

June 24: Blanco grounds into a double play with two men on base and goes 0-for-3. Twins 3, Cubs 0

June 25: Blanco leaves to runners stranded in the second inning. He does drive in a run with a ninth-inning single. Twins 8, Cubs 1. Does his early at-bat change things? Who knows?

June 26: Blanco goes 0-for-3. Brewers 6, Cubs 0.

June 27: Blanco doubles but leaves a man stranded in the sixth and flies out with two on in the eighth. Brewers 8, Cubs 5

 

Yes, Blanco played as well as could have been expected and maybe a little better at times. Would Barrett's presence have changed things in the above games? Maybe. Maybe not. But the Cubs were not as good an offensive team with Blanco in there over Barrett.

[goonys evil twin]

As I said, it's precisely because Barrett is such a good offensive player that he's on my list. They Cubs missed him:

 

June 20: Blanco flies out with a man on in the seventh and groundes out to end the game with a man on second. Indians 4, Cubs 2.

June 23: Blanco strikes out with a man on base. Twins 7, Cubs 2

June 24: Blanco grounds into a double play with two men on base and goes 0-for-3. Twins 3, Cubs 0

June 25: Blanco leaves to runners stranded in the second inning. He does drive in a run with a ninth-inning single. Twins 8, Cubs 1. Does his early at-bat change things? Who knows?

June 26: Blanco goes 0-for-3. Brewers 6, Cubs 0.

June 27: Blanco doubles but leaves a man stranded in the sixth and flies out with two on in the eighth. Brewers 8, Cubs 5

 

Yes, Blanco played as well as could have been expected and maybe a little better at times. Would Barrett's presence have changed things in the above games? Maybe. Maybe not. But the Cubs were not as good an offensive team with Blanco in there over Barrett.

 

You also have to assume Barrett wouldn't have been in any of those situations, because he wouldn't have hit in the same spot of the order as Blanco.

[Bruce Miles]

As I said, it's precisely because Barrett is such a good offensive player that he's on my list. They Cubs missed him:

 

June 20: Blanco flies out with a man on in the seventh and groundes out to end the game with a man on second. Indians 4, Cubs 2.

June 23: Blanco strikes out with a man on base. Twins 7, Cubs 2

June 24: Blanco grounds into a double play with two men on base and goes 0-for-3. Twins 3, Cubs 0

June 25: Blanco leaves to runners stranded in the second inning. He does drive in a run with a ninth-inning single. Twins 8, Cubs 1. Does his early at-bat change things? Who knows?

June 26: Blanco goes 0-for-3. Brewers 6, Cubs 0.

June 27: Blanco doubles but leaves a man stranded in the sixth and flies out with two on in the eighth. Brewers 8, Cubs 5

 

Yes, Blanco played as well as could have been expected and maybe a little better at times. Would Barrett's presence have changed things in the above games? Maybe. Maybe not. But the Cubs were not as good an offensive team with Blanco in there over Barrett.

 

You also have to assume Barrett wouldn't have been in any of those situations, because he wouldn't have hit in the same spot of the order as Blanco.

 

Of course. But the entire lineup dynamic (if you can use "dynamic" with anything involving the Cubs) would have been different with Barrett in there.

[goonys evil twin]

Of course. But the entire lineup dynamic (if you can use "dynamic" with anything involving the Cubs) would have been different with Barrett in there.

 

Yes, but I still doubt they would have done any better. If anything, maybe 1 more win. Also, didn't he miss 3 straight before the suspension due to injury? Perhaps he wouldn't have been able to go in a few of those 10 games. Certainly not all 10. They went 3-7 with him suspended, which is just below their winning percentage with him. And without all that rest after the injury, perhaps he's not as good in July, when he helped them to more win than may have been expected. The rest was good for him. The suspension was bad for the team.

 

But all in all, I can't list him on the top 5 list. I can see the argument for his inclusion, he's just not on my list.

[Tracer Bullet]

As I said, it's precisely because Barrett is such a good offensive player that he's on my list. They Cubs missed him:

 

June 20: Blanco flies out with a man on in the seventh and groundes out to end the game with a man on second. Indians 4, Cubs 2.

June 23: Blanco strikes out with a man on base. Twins 7, Cubs 2

June 24: Blanco grounds into a double play with two men on base and goes 0-for-3. Twins 3, Cubs 0

June 25: Blanco leaves to runners stranded in the second inning. He does drive in a run with a ninth-inning single. Twins 8, Cubs 1. Does his early at-bat change things? Who knows?

June 26: Blanco goes 0-for-3. Brewers 6, Cubs 0.

June 27: Blanco doubles but leaves a man stranded in the sixth and flies out with two on in the eighth. Brewers 8, Cubs 5

 

Yes, Blanco played as well as could have been expected and maybe a little better at times. Would Barrett's presence have changed things in the above games? Maybe. Maybe not. But the Cubs were not as good an offensive team with Blanco in there over Barrett.

 

First, I appreciate your willingness to come to the board and discuss this.

 

Second, there is almost no way that a single player would change the outcome of 5 games that the Cubs lost by 3 runs or more. Sure, it's possible that those particular games Barrett would have gone 4-4 and drove in the 4, 5, 6, or 7 runs necessary to win each game, but HIGHLY unlikely. Maybe Barrett makes a significant difference in 2-3 games, but we lost 7 games during the suspension, 1 by 1 run, 1 by 2, the rest by 3 or more.

 

Third, I'm pretty surprised that you're using 6 handpicked ABs to support this claim. Blanco hit .341 with 3 HRs in the 13 games Barrett missed; he had an OPS over 1.000 in June (15 total games, so only 2 games other than these 13). Yes, you can handpick a handful of situations where he didn't succeed, but I'm positive that I can find 6 games this season in which Barrett didn't get a hit with guys on base or whatever. That's really not a strong argument. The fact that Blanco stranded 1 runner in an 8-1 loss means Barrett's absence was a significant cause in the team being 20 games under .500 at the break?

 

Finally, and this is probably the biggest issue with laying blame on Barrett, I think the Cubs were 27-42 when Barrett's suspension was enforced. They were already 15 games below .500. I don't know how many games back that was, but they were out of the race. They were 3/10 without Barrett, but they were only playing .390 ball with him. So even if you want to say his being out cost us 2 games (we'd play .500 ball w/ him) or even all 7 games we lost - we'd still be 13 games under .500.

 

Our team has been terrible and Barrett has been very good and steadily playing well all year, I just don't understand why you'd want to blame him for this mess. Maddux has sucked since April. Z sucked in April when he was supposed to be the ace. Walker struggled in May and was horrible in June. If you want another player, I think there's a long line in front of our C with the now .903 OPS.

[Bruce Miles]

As I said, it's precisely because Barrett is such a good offensive player that he's on my list. They Cubs missed him:

 

June 20: Blanco flies out with a man on in the seventh and groundes out to end the game with a man on second. Indians 4, Cubs 2.

June 23: Blanco strikes out with a man on base. Twins 7, Cubs 2

June 24: Blanco grounds into a double play with two men on base and goes 0-for-3. Twins 3, Cubs 0

June 25: Blanco leaves to runners stranded in the second inning. He does drive in a run with a ninth-inning single. Twins 8, Cubs 1. Does his early at-bat change things? Who knows?

June 26: Blanco goes 0-for-3. Brewers 6, Cubs 0.

June 27: Blanco doubles but leaves a man stranded in the sixth and flies out with two on in the eighth. Brewers 8, Cubs 5

 

Yes, Blanco played as well as could have been expected and maybe a little better at times. Would Barrett's presence have changed things in the above games? Maybe. Maybe not. But the Cubs were not as good an offensive team with Blanco in there over Barrett.

 

First, I appreciate your willingness to come to the board and discuss this.

 

Second, there is almost no way that a single player would change the outcome of 5 games that the Cubs lost by 3 runs or more. Sure, it's possible that those particular games Barrett would have gone 4-4 and drove in the 4, 5, 6, or 7 runs necessary to win each game, but HIGHLY unlikely. Maybe Barrett makes a significant difference in 2-3 games, but we lost 7 games during the suspension, 1 by 1 run, 1 by 2, the rest by 3 or more.

 

Third, I'm pretty surprised that you're using 6 handpicked ABs to support this claim. Blanco hit .341 with 3 HRs in the 13 games Barrett missed; he had an OPS over 1.000 in June (15 total games, so only 2 games other than these 13). Yes, you can handpick a handful of situations where he didn't succeed, but I'm positive that I can find 6 games this season in which Barrett didn't get a hit with guys on base or whatever. That's really not a strong argument. The fact that Blanco stranded 1 runner in an 8-1 loss means Barrett's absence was a significant cause in the team being 20 games under .500 at the break?

 

Finally, and this is probably the biggest issue with laying blame on Barrett, I think the Cubs were 27-42 when Barrett's suspension was enforced. They were already 15 games below .500. I don't know how many games back that was, but they were out of the race. They were 3/10 without Barrett, but they were only playing .390 ball with him. So even if you want to say his being out cost us 2 games (we'd play .500 ball w/ him) or even all 7 games we lost - we'd still be 13 games under .500.

 

Our team has been terrible and Barrett has been very good and steadily playing well all year, I just don't understand why you'd want to blame him for this mess. Maddux has sucked since April. Z sucked in April when he was supposed to be the ace. Walker struggled in May and was horrible in June. If you want another player, I think there's a long line in front of our C with the now .903 OPS.

 

Those are all great points. I'm glad we can come here and discuss them civilly. You're right. When a team is 34-54, you've got plenty of candidates.

[The Voice of Reason]

OK maybe they didn't have the highest payroll EVERY SINGLE year but they've always been at or close to the top. Starting with the purchase of Babe Ruth they've been willing to spend money to get good players.

 

In the early years, before the draft, the Yankees simply outbid everyone for the best players. Read Bill Veeck's excellent book Veeck as in Wreck sometime. He documents this fact in detail. The Yankees were the reason MLB started the draft.

 

Bruce and I are not saying the Cubs should spend like the Yankees just like the Red Sox.

 

I'm not claiming they don't spend. I just think that the situation today often clouds fans' perceptions about how it's been in the past. They dwarf the competition today much more so than in the past.

 

I'm not so sure the Cubs should spend as much as Boston.

 

A) Boston is the only team in all of New England. It's a huge fish in a gigantic pond, the only fish in fact. The Cubs share a city with another team, and are surrounded by rivals in neighboring states.

 

B) Northeast money blows Chicago money out of the water. There is just a much greater pool of cash to play with there.

 

 

When you look at the money available to the Cubs market, I believe their rightful place is about 4th-7th on the list of teams that "should" spend big money. NYY, NYM and BOS all have greater resources to play with. LAA, LAD and SFG can and should all compete with the Cubs for the next spot.

 

Valid points but I still don't why the Red Sox payroll should be close to 50% more than the Cubs. Note: I am assuming the Red Sox are around $135M and the Cubs are around $90M. I can't believe the Red Sox squeeze more direct ballpark-related related revenues out of Fenway than the Cubs get for attendance, parking, signage, roof top access, etc. Also, with a national fan base, the Cubs memorabila sales revenue has to be close to the Red Sox.

 

Now, maybe one of you kids in Fantasy Land (i.e., college) with a lot of time on your hands can figure out now much more televison revenue the Red Sox get than the Cubs and how much higher the Red Sox Franchise is valued - I bet it's not 50% higher than the Cubs.

[goonys evil twin]

Valid points but I still don't why the Red Sox payroll should be close to 50% more than the Cubs. Note: I am assuming the Red Sox are around $135M and the Cubs are around $90M. I can't believe the Red Sox squeeze more direct ballpark-related related revenues out of Fenway than the Cubs get for attendance, parking, signage, roof top access, etc. Also, with a national fan base, the Cubs memorabila sales revenue has to be close to the Red Sox.

 

Now, maybe one of you kids in Fantasy Land (i.e., college) with a lot of time on your hands can figure out now much more televison revenue the Red Sox get than the Cubs and how much higher the Red Sox Franchise is valued - I bet it's not 50% higher than the Cubs.

 

They aren't 50% higher, it's more like 25%. Your assumptions on the ballparks are off. Boston has the highest ticket prices in the game. They also sell far more ad space, while Cubs fans complain when the slightest amount of advertising appears in the stadium. The Cubs get an extremely small amount of parking revenue as well. And something to remember is Boston is going on 3 consecutive years of postseason revenues added to the pot, and had an enormous boost in revenue related to WS championship memoribilia (something to remember when people say the Tribune has nothing to gain financially be a WS win).

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

OK maybe they didn't have the highest payroll EVERY SINGLE year but they've always been at or close to the top. Starting with the purchase of Babe Ruth they've been willing to spend money to get good players.

 

In the early years, before the draft, the Yankees simply outbid everyone for the best players. Read Bill Veeck's excellent book Veeck as in Wreck sometime. He documents this fact in detail. The Yankees were the reason MLB started the draft.

 

Bruce and I are not saying the Cubs should spend like the Yankees just like the Red Sox.

 

I'm not claiming they don't spend. I just think that the situation today often clouds fans' perceptions about how it's been in the past. They dwarf the competition today much more so than in the past.

 

I'm not so sure the Cubs should spend as much as Boston.

 

A) Boston is the only team in all of New England. It's a huge fish in a gigantic pond, the only fish in fact. The Cubs share a city with another team, and are surrounded by rivals in neighboring states.

 

B) Northeast money blows Chicago money out of the water. There is just a much greater pool of cash to play with there.

 

 

When you look at the money available to the Cubs market, I believe their rightful place is about 4th-7th on the list of teams that "should" spend big money. NYY, NYM and BOS all have greater resources to play with. LAA, LAD and SFG can and should all compete with the Cubs for the next spot.

 

Valid points but I still don't why the Red Sox payroll should be close to 50% more than the Cubs. Note: I am assuming the Red Sox are around $135M and the Cubs are around $90M. I can't believe the Red Sox squeeze more direct ballpark-related related revenues out of Fenway than the Cubs get for attendance, parking, signage, roof top access, etc. Also, with a national fan base, the Cubs memorabila sales revenue has to be close to the Red Sox.

 

Now, maybe one of you kids in Fantasy Land (i.e., college) with a lot of time on your hands can figure out now much more televison revenue the Red Sox get than the Cubs and how much higher the Red Sox Franchise is valued - I bet it's not 50% higher than the Cubs.

 

The Red Sox opening day payroll was 120.1 million and the Cubs was 94.5 million.

 

And the Red Sox have to keep up with the Yankees. The Yanks openining day was 194.6 million. So the Yanks spend close to 75 million more and yet they trail the Red Sox in the division. So there shouldn't be such a huge discrepancy between the Cubs record versus the Red Sox record considering the difference in payroll is around 25 million. Especially considering the national league is the weaker of the leagues.

 

Edit to add: payoll numbers came from Cot's

[BigbadB]

If the Cubs had 120m, I'm not so sure you wouldn't see the same line up out there with everyone getting raises.

 

Having the ability to evaluate talent will take this team much farther.

 

Just look to the south for a prime example. The Cardinals payrolls usually closely resemble the Cubs payrolls. The Cardinals are winning division championships and the Cubs aren't.

[dalgreen]

If the Cubs had 120m, I'm not so sure you wouldn't see the same line up out there with everyone getting raises.

 

Having the ability to evaluate talent will take this team much farther.

 

Just look to the south for a prime example. The Cardinals payrolls usually closely resemble the Cubs payrolls. The Cardinals are winning division championships and the Cubs aren't.

 

And Houston's has generally been less, as well.

[The Voice of Reason]

If the Cubs had 120m, I'm not so sure you wouldn't see the same line up out there with everyone getting raises.

 

Having the ability to evaluate talent will take this team much farther.

 

Just look to the south for a prime example. The Cardinals payrolls usually closely resemble the Cubs payrolls. The Cardinals are winning division championships and the Cubs aren't.

 

You might be right. How about $120M plus replacing MacPhail and Hendry with guys that knew what they were doing? Now that combination would get you results.

[goonys evil twin]

If the Cubs had 120m, I'm not so sure you wouldn't see the same line up out there with everyone getting raises.

 

Having the ability to evaluate talent will take this team much farther.

 

Just look to the south for a prime example. The Cardinals payrolls usually closely resemble the Cubs payrolls. The Cardinals are winning division championships and the Cubs aren't.

 

You might be right. How about $120M plus replacing MacPhail and Hendry with guys that knew what they were doing? Now that combination would get you results.

 

Hey, I'd love to see what this team could do with $25m worth of talent added on. But it's all about who is handing out the dough. As BBB pointed out, you'd probably just see Neifi and Rusch with longer and bigger deals, plus a few more expensive relievers. It's all about the brains behind the decisions. Money helps, a lot. But my biggest concern is that the Trib sees just how much of a waste spending more can be, and they cut back with the next guy who comes in. I don't want them to spend good money after bad, because that can only have bad results.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

If the Cubs had 120m, I'm not so sure you wouldn't see the same line up out there with everyone getting raises.

 

Having the ability to evaluate talent will take this team much farther.

 

Just look to the south for a prime example. The Cardinals payrolls usually closely resemble the Cubs payrolls. The Cardinals are winning division championships and the Cubs aren't.

 

You might be right. How about $120M plus replacing MacPhail and Hendry with guys that knew what they were doing? Now that combination would get you results.

 

Hey, I'd love to see what this team could do with $25m worth of talent added on. But it's all about who is handing out the dough. As BBB pointed out, you'd probably just see Neifi and Rusch with longer and bigger deals, plus a few more expensive relievers. It's all about the brains behind the decisions. Money helps, a lot. But my biggest concern is that the Trib sees just how much of a waste spending more can be, and they cut back with the next guy who comes in. I don't want them to spend good money after bad, because that can only have bad results.

 

I think the most beneficial thing the Cubs could do in terms of money would be a willingness to dump players ala Ortiz in Arizona. Granted Russ Ortiz is an extreme case. But, there is no reason that Rusch should still be on the team. Money can be the only reason and the reluctance to release him and admit being wrond to re signing him.

[goonys evil twin]

But, there is no reason that Rusch should still be on the team. Money can be the only reason and the reluctance to release him and admit being wrond to re signing him.

 

I'm pretty sure the main reason is that Jim still thinks it was a good signing and that Rusch can help the team. I do not think he believes it was a mistake but just doesn't want to admit it.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

But, there is no reason that Rusch should still be on the team. Money can be the only reason and the reluctance to release him and admit being wrond to re signing him.

 

I'm pretty sure the main reason is that Jim still thinks it was a good signing and that Rusch can help the team. I do not think he believes it was a mistake but just doesn't want to admit it.

 

If that is the case, then he probably did take a look at Ponson.