Maddux and $$$ to the Dodgers for Cesar Izturis

[Guest]

This has got to be the longest thread for a trade...Ever!

 

Nope. The Maddux signing was longer.

 

Isn't the Nomar trade the longest thread?

Choi for Lee was pretty darned long.

[UBlink]

This has got to be the longest thread for a trade...Ever!

 

Nope. The Maddux signing was longer.

 

Isn't the Nomar trade the longest thread?

Choi for Lee was pretty darned long.

What's the record for the most number of posts discussing the length of a thread?

[RynoRules]

I am looking at this thing non-premium for the first time. Holy cow.

[cheapseats]

Dan Fox, a Cubs fan, has a full column on the trade in today's Baseball Prospectus.

 

Dan cites Dusty's famous "base-clogging" quote in the article:

 

I think walks are overrated unless you can run. If you get a walk and put the pitcher in a stretch, that helps. But the guy who walks and can't run, most of the time they're clogging up the bases for somebody who can run. Who's been the champions the last seven, eight years? Have you ever heard the Yankees talk about on-base percentage and walks? Walks help. But you ain't going to walk across the plate. You’re going to hit across the plate. That’s the school I come from.

 

"Everybody can't hit with two strikes. Everybody can't walk. You’re taking away some of the aggressiveness from a kid when you tell him to go up there and work for a walk.

 

The article then goes on to show that Dusty and Hendry have populated the bench with infielders who can't get on base: Ramon Martinez, Tony Womack, Neifi Perez, Lenny Harris, Jose Macias, Rey Ordonez, etc.

 

There's a pattern here, and it goes something like this: sign thirtysomethings who have reputations as "winning-type players," or guys who can "control the bat," or can run a little, or are reputed for playing a little defense, and hope that they'll suddenly transform into much much better players than their track records of thousands of previous plate appearances would indicate. Oh, and the player in question must also bat first or second in the order when they do play (yes, study after study has shown that lineup position doesn't really matter much--I'm venting here, so cut me some slack).

 

Fox then states that the Cubs are now making the same mistakes with starting infielders that they've made with bench players in the past. Fox points out that Neifi is actually a better defender than Izturis (a point that I've argued in this thread), and that the Izturis trade is doubly hurtful to the Cubs because it means Cedeno moves to second, where his offensive problems are even more of a liability.

 

His conclusion:

 

The end result is that the Cubs have dug a hole for themselves from an offensive perspective at two positions while gaining relatively little in terms of defense...And if Aramis Ramirez elects to opt out of his contract and test free agency at the end of the season as has been reported, ...three quarters of the Cubs infield in 2007 could be subpar offensively. On a team that also struggles to get production at all three outfield spots, that's anything but a recipe for success.

[NCCubFan]

The article then goes on to show that Dusty and Hendry have populated the bench with infielders who can't get on base: Ramon Martinez, Tony Womack, Neifi Perez, Lenny Harris, Jose Macias, Rey Ordonez, etc.

There's also the immortal Damian Jackson and Enrique Wilson (of course, they could be included under "etc.").

[Laura]

The end result is that the Cubs have dug a hole for themselves from an offensive perspective at two positions while gaining relatively little in terms of defense...And if Aramis Ramirez elects to opt out of his contract and test free agency at the end of the season as has been reported, ...three quarters of the Cubs infield in 2007 could be subpar offensively. On a team that also struggles to get production at all three outfield spots, that's anything but a recipe for success.

 

That pretty much sums up my problems with this trade.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season.

 

So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same.

 

why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere.

 

in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies.

[dew1679666265]

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season.

 

So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same.

 

why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere.

 

in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies.

 

you're using anecdotes to prove that anecdotes are valid

 

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but this seems to be questioning the validity of non-statistical analysis (anecdotes as you call them). I'm also not telling you to "go watch the game" since I assume that most on the board watch around the same as I do. I just was attempting to debate what I viewed as some disregarding any view not metric-based. I feel there is value in a balanced analysis of the game.

[FamilyTradition]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but to add to the length of this thread for the shear fun of it, here is Ned Colletti's version of what happened on July 31st according to Medianews, some wire-service, that appeared in the Contra Costa Times (the paper of the SF east bay, apparently interviewing Colletti on his relationship with Sabean)

 

Things started off well:

(Colletti) made his first call to Chicago a month before the deadline, at which time Cubs GM Jim Hendry said giving up a future Hall of Famer would require a top prospect and a second-tier prospect. No Deal.

 

Hendry played hardball even on the morning of the 31st:

And again Hendry told him: "If I don't get a prospect, I can't do anything."

 

And then, after the Lugo trade, our fair GM apparently forgot what he was doing:

Colletti called Hendry and offered infielder Cesar Izturis, whose name had surfaced briefly in a previous conversation. They pulled the trigger, blazed through the paperwork and submitted the deal at the buzzer.

 

PS - I saw Andre Ethier at Dodger Stadium Tuesday...I wish Jim had stuck to that "high prospect" and i wish it had been Ethier!

[Magnetic Curses]

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season.

 

So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same.

 

why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere.

 

in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies.

 

you're using anecdotes to prove that anecdotes are valid

 

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but this seems to be questioning the validity of non-statistical analysis (anecdotes as you call them). I'm also not telling you to "go watch the game" since I assume that most on the board watch around the same as I do. I just was attempting to debate what I viewed as some disregarding any view not metric-based. I feel there is value in a balanced analysis of the game.

 

i still don't see how anything that you've quoted me as saying states that you should only analyze statistically. furthermore, "anecdotes" is a word in the english language--it's not like i'm the only one who uses the term. you make it sound like i'm using a clingon word or something.

 

the word "anecdote" means, according to the english dictionary, "a short account of an interesting or humorous incident". with "anecdotes" being the plural form.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm hoping that this off season Hendry will be able to move one of the middle infielders among others to aquire an impact bat. The Cubs might be able to move a couple of young pitchers along with a Cedeno/Perez or Izturis and get something decent in return.

[dew1679666265]

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season.

 

So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same.

 

why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere.

 

in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies.

 

you're using anecdotes to prove that anecdotes are valid

 

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but this seems to be questioning the validity of non-statistical analysis (anecdotes as you call them). I'm also not telling you to "go watch the game" since I assume that most on the board watch around the same as I do. I just was attempting to debate what I viewed as some disregarding any view not metric-based. I feel there is value in a balanced analysis of the game.

 

i still don't see how anything that you've quoted me as saying states that you should only analyze statistically. furthermore, "anecdotes" is a word in the english language--it's not like i'm the only one who uses the term. you make it sound like i'm using a clingon word or something.

 

the word "anecdote" means, according to the english dictionary, "a short account of an interesting or humorous incident". with "anecdotes" being the plural form.

 

I understand what an anecdote is. The issue that I have is that these quotes show, whether intentional by you or not, a feeling that one cannot trust what their eyes see and must therefore rely mainly if not completely on metrics. My feeling is that a balance between the two is ideal. I also don't see how CCP's reference to an anomaly in the metrics is appropriately referred to as a "short account of an interesting or humorous incident". To me, it's an anomaly which makes one think about the overarching validity of some metrics, not all but some perhaps. I quite liked Pedro's explanation of metrics and tend to believe that "taken with a grain of salt" means we should balance the metrics that may not be developed enough yet with another means of analysis.

[sherwood921]

So...lately I have been fortunate enough not to catch many of the games. How many games has Izturis won us with that dandy glove of his?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

So...lately I have been fortunate enough not to catch many of the games. How many games has Izturis won us with that dandy glove of his?

 

At least 40.

[illiniguy]

So...lately I have been fortunate enough not to catch many of the games. How many games has Izturis won us with that dandy glove of his?

 

At least 40.

Dude, his glove is hitting .350

[Ding Dong Johnson]

So...lately I have been fortunate enough not to catch many of the games. How many games has Izturis won us with that dandy glove of his?

 

At least 40.

Dude, his glove is hitting .350

 

And his GOBP has to be at least 425.

[illiniguy]

So...lately I have been fortunate enough not to catch many of the games. How many games has Izturis won us with that dandy glove of his?

 

At least 40.

Dude, his glove is hitting .350

 

And his GOBP has to be at least 425.

Yep, hard to view this as anything but a coup by our great gm. Luckily we locked him up before anyone else could steal him away.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season.

 

So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same.

 

why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere.

 

in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies.

 

you're using anecdotes to prove that anecdotes are valid

 

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but this seems to be questioning the validity of non-statistical analysis (anecdotes as you call them). I'm also not telling you to "go watch the game" since I assume that most on the board watch around the same as I do. I just was attempting to debate what I viewed as some disregarding any view not metric-based. I feel there is value in a balanced analysis of the game.

 

i still don't see how anything that you've quoted me as saying states that you should only analyze statistically. furthermore, "anecdotes" is a word in the english language--it's not like i'm the only one who uses the term. you make it sound like i'm using a clingon word or something.

 

the word "anecdote" means, according to the english dictionary, "a short account of an interesting or humorous incident". with "anecdotes" being the plural form.

 

I understand what an anecdote is. The issue that I have is that these quotes show, whether intentional by you or not, a feeling that one cannot trust what their eyes see and must therefore rely mainly if not completely on metrics. My feeling is that a balance between the two is ideal. I also don't see how CCP's reference to an anomaly in the metrics is appropriately referred to as a "short account of an interesting or humorous incident". To me, it's an anomaly which makes one think about the overarching validity of some metrics, not all but some perhaps. I quite liked Pedro's explanation of metrics and tend to believe that "taken with a grain of salt" means we should balance the metrics that may not be developed enough yet with another means of analysis.

 

first of all, a baseball season is such a long one that you absolutely cannot trust your eyes. the eyes do not generally know the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter, for example, which is quite a large difference. i'd rather put all of my faith in numbers than anecdotes--but as you say, there should be a balance, just not a 50-50 balance, not by a long shot.

 

watching games is fun and going to games is more fun, but even if you watch every single one of them, you aren't going to remember what each player does from day to day in every game from april to october.

[dew1679666265]

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season.

 

So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same.

 

why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere.

 

in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies.

 

you're using anecdotes to prove that anecdotes are valid

 

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but this seems to be questioning the validity of non-statistical analysis (anecdotes as you call them). I'm also not telling you to "go watch the game" since I assume that most on the board watch around the same as I do. I just was attempting to debate what I viewed as some disregarding any view not metric-based. I feel there is value in a balanced analysis of the game.

 

i still don't see how anything that you've quoted me as saying states that you should only analyze statistically. furthermore, "anecdotes" is a word in the english language--it's not like i'm the only one who uses the term. you make it sound like i'm using a clingon word or something.

 

the word "anecdote" means, according to the english dictionary, "a short account of an interesting or humorous incident". with "anecdotes" being the plural form.

 

I understand what an anecdote is. The issue that I have is that these quotes show, whether intentional by you or not, a feeling that one cannot trust what their eyes see and must therefore rely mainly if not completely on metrics. My feeling is that a balance between the two is ideal. I also don't see how CCP's reference to an anomaly in the metrics is appropriately referred to as a "short account of an interesting or humorous incident". To me, it's an anomaly which makes one think about the overarching validity of some metrics, not all but some perhaps. I quite liked Pedro's explanation of metrics and tend to believe that "taken with a grain of salt" means we should balance the metrics that may not be developed enough yet with another means of analysis.

 

first of all, a baseball season is such a long one that you absolutely cannot trust your eyes. the eyes do not generally know the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter, for example, which is quite a large difference. i'd rather put all of my faith in numbers than anecdotes--but as you say, there should be a balance, just not a 50-50 balance, not by a long shot.

 

watching games is fun and going to games is more fun, but even if you watch every single one of them, you aren't going to remember what each player does from day to day in every game from april to october.

 

I actually agree with much of what you say here except I am confused as to what you balance the stats with if you "absolutely cannot trust your eyes". I don't believe you should put all your faith in either, because neither is infallible. There are pluses to stats/metrics and pluses to using your eyes to see how good a route runner an outfielder is, etc. Using this balance, it's very possible that you will recognize anomalies such as Sammy being better than Ichiro, or Andruw Jones being a bottom 4 centerfielder defensively.

[Butterscup1679666578]

This trade looks worse and worse every time Maddux pitches.

[YearofDaCubs]

This trade looks worse and worse every time Maddux pitches.

Of course it does. Not only did LA get Maddux but they also dumped salary. Jeez our GM is TERRIBLE. WHy in the world would we want Izturis here? He brings nothing to the table as far as I'm concerned.

[NorthsideAvenger]

This trade looks worse and worse every time Maddux pitches.

Of course it does. Not only did LA get Maddux but they also dumped salary. Jeez our GM is TERRIBLE. WHy in the world would we want Izturis here? He brings nothing to the table as far as I'm concerned.

 

I disagree. Hendry has been less terrible then more recent GMs in the franchise history, but has made his fair shares of mistakes.

 

Now the Izturis/Maddux deal, that is Karma coming back and biting Hendry in the butt. We won the Hundley for Karros/Grudz deal, the Dodgers win the Maddux/Izzy deal. Eye for an eye.

[A New Era]

So...lately I have been fortunate enough not to catch many of the games. How many games has Izturis won us with that dandy glove of his?

 

Not sure, but his offense has contributed quite well in some key situations.

[YearofDaCubs]

This trade looks worse and worse every time Maddux pitches.

Of course it does. Not only did LA get Maddux but they also dumped salary. Jeez our GM is TERRIBLE. WHy in the world would we want Izturis here? He brings nothing to the table as far as I'm concerned.

 

I disagree. Hendry has been less terrible then more recent GMs in the franchise history, but has made his fair shares of mistakes.

 

Now the Izturis/Maddux deal, that is Karma coming back and biting Hendry in the butt. We won the Hundley for Karros/Grudz deal, the Dodgers win the Maddux/Izzy deal. Eye for an eye.

Who cares about GM franchise history? The simple fact is Hendry sucks right now. He's terrrible.

[NorthsideAvenger]

This trade looks worse and worse every time Maddux pitches.

Of course it does. Not only did LA get Maddux but they also dumped salary. Jeez our GM is TERRIBLE. WHy in the world would we want Izturis here? He brings nothing to the table as far as I'm concerned.

 

I disagree. Hendry has been less terrible then more recent GMs in the franchise history, but has made his fair shares of mistakes.

 

Now the Izturis/Maddux deal, that is Karma coming back and biting Hendry in the butt. We won the Hundley for Karros/Grudz deal, the Dodgers win the Maddux/Izzy deal. Eye for an eye.

Who cares about GM franchise history? The simple fact is Hendry sucks right now. He's terrrible.

 

First: I was being abit tongue in cheek, and if it didn't come through, then I apologize.

 

Second: Sucks is too strong of a word.....