In all seriousness... what is the Cubs plan???

[Cubzfan64]

Please don't post too many sarcastic or silly remarks (although after today I know we mostly feel like that).

 

I'm seriously curious what the organization's 2-4 year plan is? Every successful company/organization has a gameplan for the future - has MacPhail or Hendry ever acknowledged what that is?

 

I'm very disheartened that it still seems apparent that the organization does not value OBP highly. The past two seasons I feel like Hendry and Baker have spent all their time throwing a multitude of things out there and hoping something sticks and that certainly is no way to build a team that's capable of competing for a division title every year.

 

I may not be an owner of the team, but I am a consumer and I'd sure like to know what the "big plan" is for this team. I think I know one of the answers and it's a very sad one for the fans - I think one of them is "we try to maximize profit by minimizing expenses." That in itself can't be the whole answer however because we have a high enough payroll to be able to content - so who out there has ever heard a discussion of what steps the organization plans to take to get us a WS title?

[Wolverineman]

The big plan appears to be getting as much speed and defense as possible and making all of those players put the ball in play and hoping something will happen. Combine that with power arms that strike a lot of guys out.

 

 

 

 

...thats about as much as I could write without getting snarky about it. But that does seem to be their general plan.

[Outshined_One]

The gameplan I think for the next few years is as follows:

 

1) OBP is valued...but there is an important caveat in this. The team values batting average very highly; moreso than OBP. If given the choice between a guy who hits .280/.350 and a guy who hits .300/.350, I think the Cubs would take the .300/.350 guy without even thinking twice. As Jim Hendry said in his interview a few weeks ago, this organization clearly believes that high batting averages correlate with high OBPs.

 

2) Infield defense is critical. Zambrano, Prior, Marshall, Marmol, Guzman, and other pitchers in this organization are primarily ground ball pitchers, so clearly they need good defenders across the infield in order to proper handle these balls and not give the other team a number of extra outs.

 

3) I think up until this year, Hendry was relying on the fact that Prior's and Wood's injuries were either flukes or were not very serious. Both guys were expected to come back much earlier than they did this season and in previous seasons, but that has clearly not been the case. I think if Hendry realized the folly of relying too heavily on those guys, he would have gone out and acquired another starting pitcher.

 

4) Speed can make up for the lack of power. Fast guys are able to beat out infield hits, steal bases, get into scoring position, and leg out hits for extra bases. Any dropoff in power they might have is made up for by their ability to use their speed as a weapon on the basepaths.

 

5) The bullpen is hard to rely on day in, day out. So, starters who can consistently pitch 6-7 innings every time out will be most welcome. Carlos Zambrano exemplifies this since the Cubs have been able to throw him out there for 140 pitches with little ill effect (yet). This is a similar philosophy which was utilized with Wood and Prior in 2003. We saw how that ended. However, I think they're still clinging to this notion and prefer to wear out the rotation rather than the bullpen.

 

6) Chemistry matters. Dusty runs a loose clubhouse without much in the way of rules, exercising, warming up, and so on. Veterans who don't need coaching are left alone to do their own thing and work out their problems on their own. Guys who are headcases and/or have been hostile towards the media and fans are seen as clubhouse headaches who are not worth the effort. Happy players produce.

 

7) Strikeouts are best avoided with hitters. Walks are okay, but it's preferable to get a single rather than take a walk. Putting the ball in play advances runners and also increases the probability of the defense making a mistake of some sort. Strikeouts do nothing for the team. They can kill rallies, don't advance any baserunners, and generally have no offensive productivity.

 

Whether or not you agree with any or all of these, I think this is the case for the team.

[RegulusBlue]

I some of that. This is because that is the philosophy of a team that could win a bunch of games, despite minor flaws. The Chicago Cubs' philosophy is not a good one.

 

1) OBP now has... barely an influence over decisions.

2) Strikeouts are fine, as long as he is being aggressive.

3) Young kids are showing up on the roster, but bench them.

4) Defense is critical, because that scores us runs somehow...

5) Toolsy middle infielder/utility guys are the best players ever.

6) All pitchers should strike everyone out, be a headcase, and throw 234mph.

7) Spend life savings on bullpen, then abuse them in the first year.

 

That is closer to our philosophy.

[Cubzfan64]

well, 2 out of 3 non-sarcastic remarks are about the best % I could have expected :)

 

I appreciate the well thought out answers and I think both of you have given a good insight into what can only be a best guess as to what the "plan" is.

 

If what you are saying is correct (and I have no reason to think it isn't based on what's on the field), then Hendry's main goals this offseason absolutely HAVE to revolve around starting pitching. Relying on Wood and Prior has proven (as was mentioned that) to clearly be a mistake, and I see no other real choice if speed, contact hitting and defense are to be relied on offensively than to put together a starting rotation of guys who just don't give up many runs.

 

I guess we have to hope that Prior can stay healthy and at least be an above average pitcher, Marshall and Marmol can continue progressing, Hill or Guzman can progress AND Hendry can find a way to get a #2 starter to go behind Zambrano. I don't think we can rely on anything from Wood in 2007 and just see it as a plus if he can do something.

 

Do you agree then, that given your synopsis of the organization philosophy, the only hope we have is if we can find AT LEAST 1 if not 2 solid groundball starting pitchers?

[sethuel1]

well, 2 out of 3 non-sarcastic remarks are about the best % I could have expected :)

 

I thought all 3 were pretty good.

[Cubzfan64]

well, 2 out of 3 non-sarcastic remarks are about the best % I could have expected :)

 

I thought all 3 were pretty good.

 

I didn't say it wasn't good - just that it was sarcastic :)

[d_money]

Is Freddie Bynum considered an IFer?

 

Whats the deal w/ him and the Cubs plan? If Bynum is an OFer - he has no power. We traded a decent arm in Koronka, so I would think they plan on keeping him - but what value does he bring? Anyone?

 

Seems like we have yet again - too many of the same type of player - speed, low OBP, IFer's (cedeno, izturis, perez, theriot?, bynum). I didn't mention murton and pierre on purpose.

[Wolverineman]

If what you are saying is correct (and I have no reason to think it isn't based on what's on the field), then Hendry's main goals this offseason absolutely HAVE to revolve around starting pitching.

 

 

That seems very likely. I would expect a run at Zito or Schmidt. Neither would make a ton of sense for their plan as they aren't groundball pitchers(40% GB% for Zito, 36% for Schmidt). Not sure if they'll get either as they both should get rather large contracts and could be blown away by an offer ala Furcal and go elsewhere. I would also expect at least one 2nd tier signing.. someone like Ted Lilly. Maybe swing a trade for someone unexpected(if we're going with good defense, Jake Westbrook would make sense and is reportedly available).

[Tracer Bullet]

1) OBP is valued...but there is an important caveat in this. The team values batting average very highly; moreso than OBP. If given the choice between a guy who hits .280/.350 and a guy who hits .300/.350, I think the Cubs would take the .300/.350 guy without even thinking twice. As Jim Hendry said in his interview a few weeks ago, this organization clearly believes that high batting averages correlate with high OBPs.

 

But this is true - assuming the guy w/ the .300 AVG doesn't have a wildly crazy BABIP or something, logic suggests you'd prefer a .300/.350 guy.

 

But I think the Cubs philosophy is that a .300/.320 guy is better than a .280/.350 guy. And that's simply stupid.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm not sarcastic at all...

 

Hendry said he "can't put his finger on what went wrong." I think he still thinks this will be a good team next year.

 

My guess is he'll keep this offense intact by re-signing Pierre and plans to have a line-up of:

 

CF Pierre

SS Izturis

1b Lee

3b Ramirez

C Barrett

RF Jones

LF Murton

2b Cedeno

 

He may add one bat for the outfield. He'll be utterly surprised that his team that can "really catch the ball" finishes 20 games out of the race again next season.

[cheapseats]

I'm not sarcastic at all...

 

Hendry said he "can't put his finger on what went wrong." I think he still thinks this will be a good team next year.

 

My guess is he'll keep this offense intact by re-signing Pierre and plans to have a line-up of:

 

CF Pierre

SS Izturis

1b Lee

3b Ramirez

C Barrett

RF Jones

LF Murton

2b Cedeno

 

He may add one bat for the outfield. He'll be utterly surprised that his team that can "really catch the ball" finishes 20 games out of the race again next season.

 

I don't see Aramis here next year. I think he will opt out of his contract, and there are several teams that will need a 3B next year.

 

I doubt Murton will be our starting LF. Look for the Cubs to sign a Ryan Klesko or Luis Gonzalez type past-his-prime veteran.

[Outshined_One]

But this is true - assuming the guy w/ the .300 AVG doesn't have a wildly crazy BABIP or something, logic suggests you'd prefer a .300/.350 guy.

 

But I think the Cubs philosophy is that a .300/.320 guy is better than a .280/.350 guy. And that's simply stupid.

 

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy.

 

However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time.

 

In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy.

[NewUserName]

Really hard to tell what direction the team is going. I am guessing that a LFer will be added for a very steep price and at least one starting pitcher. Also we will way overpay to have Pierre resign. It is becoming increasingly clear that Murton is not in any longterm plans. We may contend next year but not be anywhere near good enough to win the WS. Which will get Hendry extended again. Than the pitchers, LFers, Jones, pierre and Isterius contracts will start to were us down again. Big Z will leave via free agency becuase we couldnt afford him. The last couple of months of him being here the Cubs will start a pr smear campaign very similar to Sosa and Walkers so the fans wont be that upset. I am really sick about this. I hate that I care so much. I hate that the Cubs in 2003 looked to be a team in the right direction. I hate that the current management staff has been allowed to completely screw that up. I hate that I used to think Steve Stone was a smart baseball announcer. I hate Cesar Izsteius. I hate ESPN for defending Baker and Hendrys stupid trade. I hate the fact that we sweeped the Cardinals. I hate that 40,000 people show up for this every game. I hate that fact that 2/3s of the Cubs fans I know thought getting isiturius was a good idea(of course they thought the pierre thing was great and signing Maddux to that ridiculous contract in the first place was a good idea)

 

By the way I dont mean to be sarcastic or mean. Every prediction in this post I really do believe will come true

[CubsBullsBears]

The Cubs plan is to make deals for the sake of making deals. Did it last year w/ Dubouis, doing it this year w/ Walker. Also, be prepared to lose Big Z for a long time on April 19, 2007.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

But this is true - assuming the guy w/ the .300 AVG doesn't have a wildly crazy BABIP or something, logic suggests you'd prefer a .300/.350 guy.

 

But I think the Cubs philosophy is that a .300/.320 guy is better than a .280/.350 guy. And that's simply stupid.

 

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy.

 

However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time.

 

In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy.

 

Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

But this is true - assuming the guy w/ the .300 AVG doesn't have a wildly crazy BABIP or something, logic suggests you'd prefer a .300/.350 guy.

 

But I think the Cubs philosophy is that a .300/.320 guy is better than a .280/.350 guy. And that's simply stupid.

 

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy.

 

However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time.

 

In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy.

 

Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk.

 

But the walk is more repeatable/predictive than the hit. In a vacuum .300/.350 is more valuable than .280/.350, but because of defenses and luck(i.e. BABIP), the .280/.350 is more likely to continue to put up a .350 OBP(or just the better OBP of the two players) than the .300/.350.

[CubColtPacer]

But this is true - assuming the guy w/ the .300 AVG doesn't have a wildly crazy BABIP or something, logic suggests you'd prefer a .300/.350 guy.

 

But I think the Cubs philosophy is that a .300/.320 guy is better than a .280/.350 guy. And that's simply stupid.

 

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy.

 

However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time.

 

In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy.

 

Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk.

 

But the walk is more repeatable/predictive than the hit. In a vacuum .300/.350 is more valuable than .280/.350, but because of defenses and luck(i.e. BABIP), the .280/.350 is more likely to continue to put up a .350 OBP(or just the better OBP of the two players) than the .300/.350.

 

If you're just taking that in isolation though, wouldn't the hitter with .300/.350 be just as likely to hit .320/.370 as .280/.330? I agree that the hitter who is the .280/350 guy is more likely to put up a .350 OBP, but I think that the higher average guy has just as much chance of having a higher average the next season as having a lower one.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

But this is true - assuming the guy w/ the .300 AVG doesn't have a wildly crazy BABIP or something, logic suggests you'd prefer a .300/.350 guy.

 

But I think the Cubs philosophy is that a .300/.320 guy is better than a .280/.350 guy. And that's simply stupid.

 

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy.

 

However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time.

 

In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy.

 

Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk.

 

But the walk is more repeatable/predictive than the hit. In a vacuum .300/.350 is more valuable than .280/.350, but because of defenses and luck(i.e. BABIP), the .280/.350 is more likely to continue to put up a .350 OBP(or just the better OBP of the two players) than the .300/.350.

 

If you're just taking that in isolation though, wouldn't the hitter with .300/.350 be just as likely to hit .320/.370 as .280/.330? I agree that the hitter who is the .280/350 guy is more likely to put up a .350 OBP, but I think that the higher average guy has just as much chance of having a higher average the next season as having a lower one.

 

The likeliness of a player getting a certain AVG then delves into batted ball types, defense, and luck. Needless to say, there's more room for luck to be on your side when you're hitting .280 than when you're hitting .300. Simply put, you're a better bet for a higher OBP if you have the better IsoD, because it's much more predictive than AVG.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

But this is true - assuming the guy w/ the .300 AVG doesn't have a wildly crazy BABIP or something, logic suggests you'd prefer a .300/.350 guy.

 

But I think the Cubs philosophy is that a .300/.320 guy is better than a .280/.350 guy. And that's simply stupid.

 

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy.

 

However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time.

 

In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy.

 

Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk.

 

But the walk is more repeatable/predictive than the hit. In a vacuum .300/.350 is more valuable than .280/.350, but because of defenses and luck(i.e. BABIP), the .280/.350 is more likely to continue to put up a .350 OBP(or just the better OBP of the two players) than the .300/.350.

 

If you're just taking that in isolation though, wouldn't the hitter with .300/.350 be just as likely to hit .320/.370 as .280/.330? I agree that the hitter who is the .280/350 guy is more likely to put up a .350 OBP, but I think that the higher average guy has just as much chance of having a higher average the next season as having a lower one.

 

The likeliness of a player getting a certain AVG then delves into batted ball types, defense, and luck. Needless to say, there's more room for luck to be on your side when you're hitting .280 than when you're hitting .300. Simply put, you're a better bet for a higher OBP if you have the better IsoD, because it's much more predictive than AVG.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. It seems that you are saying the patient batter has a better chance at a higher OBP because it is easier to predict.

[Outshined_One]

Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk.

 

I got into a huge argument with some one over on Reds Zone about the predictive power of various stats (IsoD vs. K/BB) in measuring prospects and other hitters. Let me dig up his posts; they were actually really good.

 

Edit: Here we go.

 

Link

 

It's a long thread, but I had a blast participating in it.

Edited August 1, 2006 by Outshined_One

[Geech]

That doesn't make sense to me. It seems that you are saying the patient batter has a better chance at a higher OBP because it is easier to predict.

 

I think he's saying that ISoD is more predictable because it is less reliant on outside forces like defense and therefore less prone to flukish swings.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

That doesn't make sense to me. It seems that you are saying the patient batter has a better chance at a higher OBP because it is easier to predict.

 

I think he's saying that ISoD is more predictable because it is less reliant on outside forces like defense and therefore less prone to flukish swings.

 

I understand but he seemed to dispute the batter in question was just as likely to hit 320\370.

 

 

 

OO, thanks I'll check it out.

[Outshined_One]

That doesn't make sense to me. It seems that you are saying the patient batter has a better chance at a higher OBP because it is easier to predict.

 

I think he's saying that ISoD is more predictable because it is less reliant on outside forces like defense and therefore less prone to flukish swings.

 

That's the gist of it. IsoD is easier to predict in a hitter than batting average due to outside forces like BABIP, Line drive %, and so on.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

That doesn't make sense to me. It seems that you are saying the patient batter has a better chance at a higher OBP because it is easier to predict.

 

I think he's saying that ISoD is more predictable because it is less reliant on outside forces like defense and therefore less prone to flukish swings.

 

That's the gist of it. IsoD is easier to predict in a hitter than batting average due to outside forces like BABIP, Line drive %, and so on.

 

I agree with this but...

 

That doesn't mean you wouldn't rather have the 300\350 guy. He's just harder to predict.

Edited August 1, 2006 by CardsFanInChiTown