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

[Geech]

I agree with this but...

 

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

 

Well, having a predictably good OBP is worthwhile in and of itself, I think, and patience has other adantages, as well. The high ISoD guy would be better at making pitchers work and helping the team get into the weaker middle relievers.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I agree with this but...

 

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

 

Well, having a predictably good OBP is worthwhile in and of itself, I think, and patience has other adantages, as well. The high ISoD guy would be better at making pitchers work and helping the team get into the weaker middle relievers.

 

A single has a .474 "run value" per inning and a non-intentional walk has .33.

[Outshined_One]

I agree with this but...

 

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

 

It's hard to examine this particular number in a vacuum because it's really hard to find players who match up equally in other departments, such as defense, power, speed, etc. It's not like I can have Juan Pierre A and Juan Pierre B along with test numbers and whatnot.

 

Heading into a new season, if I had a choice between two hitters who matched up exactly except they had career averages of .280/.350 and .300/.350, I'd be inclined to go with the .280/.350 guy because his plate discipline skills are much better and easier to predict than a guy who has to rely more on BABIP, Line Drive %, and so on to create his production. It's much more likely that the .300/.350 hitter will have his numbers fluctuate than the .280/.350 guy.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I agree with this but...

 

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

 

It's hard to examine this particular number in a vacuum because it's really hard to find players who match up equally in other departments, such as defense, power, speed, etc. It's not like I can have Juan Pierre A and Juan Pierre B along with test numbers and whatnot.

 

Heading into a new season, if I had a choice between two hitters who matched up exactly except they had career averages of .280/.350 and .300/.350, I'd be inclined to go with the .280/.350 guy because his plate discipline skills are much better and easier to predict than a guy who has to rely more on BABIP, Line Drive %, and so on to create his production. It's much more likely that the .300/.350 hitter will have his numbers fluctuate than the .280/.350 guy.

 

I'd want the guy who's more likely to be productive - .300/.350

 

Again singles produce more runs than walks. That said, the difference isn't huge.

[Outshined_One]

I'd want the guy who's more likely to be productive - .300/.350

 

Again singles produce more runs than walks. That said, the difference isn't huge.

 

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I'd want the guy who's more likely to be productive - .300/.350

 

Again singles produce more runs than walks. That said, the difference isn't huge.

 

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season?

 

Yep

[Outshined_One]

I'd want the guy who's more likely to be productive - .300/.350

 

Again singles produce more runs than walks. That said, the difference isn't huge.

 

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season?

 

Yep

 

Sounds good. We'll disagree, in that case.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I'd want the guy who's more likely to be productive - .300/.350

 

Again singles produce more runs than walks. That said, the difference isn't huge.

 

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season?

 

Yep

 

Sounds good. We'll disagree, in that case.

 

I can understand you'd want to "lock in" production but personally I'd take the gamble. Again, more often than not the 300/.350 guy will be more productive.

 

I've been reading though the thread you posted - good stuff.

[Outshined_One]

I've been reading though the thread you posted - good stuff.

 

They've got a couple of people in the Sabr Society on that board; can't remember if Steel is one of them or not.

 

There are some really good posters over there, imo.

[wastra]

The problem isn't so much their "plan" as it stands. It's that the "plan" changes 180 degrees every season. A few years ago it was to get power. Then it was to get good "team" players. Now it's defense.

 

 

All of this is underscored with the belief that "tools" are better predictors than past performance.

 

This means that live arms are a commodity no matter their health, development staqe, control, etc. It means that athletes are more valuable than guys who have just hit well in the past. It means that guys who showcase those athletic tools (by swinging, rather than taking pitches) are considered more successful than those who walk, because walking doesn't show off any athletic ability.

 

Hence it overvalues defense, and undervalues actual statisitcal performance.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The problem isn't so much their "plan" as it stands. It's that the "plan" changes 180 degrees every season. A few years ago it was to get power. Then it was to get good "team" players. Now it's defense.

 

 

All of this is underscored with the belief that "tools" are better predictors than past performance.

 

This means that live arms are a commodity no matter their health, development staqe, control, etc. It means that athletes are more valuable than guys who have just hit well in the past. It means that guys who showcase those athletic tools (by swinging, rather than taking pitches) are considered more successful than those who walk, because walking doesn't show off any athletic ability.

 

Hence it overvalues defense, and undervalues actual statisitcal performance.

 

If the Rockies can rally and win the World Series, we might be after players who love Jesus.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

If the Rockies can rally and win the World Series, we might be after players who love Jesus.

 

There goes Cerrano.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I'd want the guy who's more likely to be productive - .300/.350

 

Again singles produce more runs than walks. That said, the difference isn't huge.

 

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season?

 

Yep

 

Sounds good. We'll disagree, in that case.

 

I can understand you'd want to "lock in" production but personally I'd take the gamble. Again, more often than not the 300/.350 guy will be more productive.

 

I've been reading though the thread you posted - good stuff.

 

I agree w/you cfict. Given a choice between a CAREER .300/.350 guy and a CAREER .280/350 guy, I go with the .300/.350. But I think overall, its important to consider their CAREER #'s, and I doubt that two players could be as evenly matched in such a comparison. For instance, think of a SEASON with two guys battng .300/.350 and .280/.350. With JUST the view of those #'s, and not considering career #'s, I'm going with the .280/.350 guy. He will be less succeptable to getting on base due to errors, intentional walks, etc, and more likely to be on base for you.

 

this is a great discussion, it extended my lunch break by 40 minutes. we need more of these :D

[soccer10k]

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.

 

That was tough, but good read.

 

On a side note, I like the reputation points thing they have going on over there.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

The Cubs' plan is clearly to suck for another century. They're awfully good at that.

[dalgreen]

Looking at where the Tigers and D-backs are right now, after having recent 100-loss seasons, the Cubs should just lose 100+ games this year or next year and then we should be good a few years after that. :twisted:

[wade]

I got into a lengthy discussion with a Brewer/ White Sox fan friend of mine a couple of weeks ago. His contention was that there was no plan at all. I argued many of the points made here so far that there is a plan-

 

They want athletes.

 

They value toolsy / versatile players who can play more than one position and play it well.

 

They want the pitching to be studly. Starters and relievers.

 

Injuries have killed them with starters, but the bullpen was obviously the top priority this past off-season (bunch of money to Dempster, Howry, Eyre). The search for a 'prototypical leadoff man' was second, and a lefty outfielder third.

 

Those who differ in the philosophy of putting a good baseball team together would have looked for OBP for the outfield.

 

To me, it seems they look for guys that sort of slot into the standard for their position- slick gloved middle infielders, who cares if they hit. Lefty swinging outfielder with pop, who cares how much he's on base. Leadoff hitters who steal bases, no matter how low their OBP.

[wade]

Looking at where the Tigers and D-backs are right now, after having recent 100-loss seasons, the Cubs should just lose 100+ games this year or next year and then we should be good a few years after that. :twisted:

 

It's funny you say that. I've followed the Tigers my whole life and they are pretty much the team Hendry wants. The Tiger team OBP is not great. They don't like to walk a lot. Their batting average is pretty high and the OBP they do have is driven by that average. The Tigers pitching is awesome, best ERA in baseball right now, and their defense is pretty solid (Brandon Inge, horrible hitter for a 3rd baseman, has a fine glove).

 

This, to me, is Hendry's dream team. All I can do is hope the Tigers keep it up and the Cubs can find that type of success with the same plan for the next couple of years.

[goonys evil twin]

Looking at where the Tigers and D-backs are right now, after having recent 100-loss seasons, the Cubs should just lose 100+ games this year or next year and then we should be good a few years after that. :twisted:

 

It's funny you say that. I've followed the Tigers my whole life and they are pretty much the team Hendry wants. The Tiger team OBP is not great. They don't like to walk a lot. Their batting average is pretty high and the OBP they do have is driven by that average. The Tigers pitching is awesome, best ERA in baseball right now, and their defense is pretty solid (Brandon Inge, horrible hitter for a 3rd baseman, has a fine glove).

 

This, to me, is Hendry's dream team. All I can do is hope the Tigers keep it up and the Cubs can find that type of success with the same plan for the next couple of years.

 

I don't want that to happen. If the Tigers win and Hendry feels more faith in his plan, he'll just keep going on the wrong route. That's just an inefficient way to build a team. Hitting for average is just way too unpredictable, while relying so heavily on pitching has already cost the Cubs big time.

[dalgreen]

Looking at where the Tigers and D-backs are right now, after having recent 100-loss seasons, the Cubs should just lose 100+ games this year or next year and then we should be good a few years after that. :twisted:

 

It's funny you say that. I've followed the Tigers my whole life and they are pretty much the team Hendry wants. The Tiger team OBP is not great. They don't like to walk a lot. Their batting average is pretty high and the OBP they do have is driven by that average. The Tigers pitching is awesome, best ERA in baseball right now, and their defense is pretty solid (Brandon Inge, horrible hitter for a 3rd baseman, has a fine glove).

 

This, to me, is Hendry's dream team. All I can do is hope the Tigers keep it up and the Cubs can find that type of success with the same plan for the next couple of years.

 

That's just it, when has our pitching been great? When have we combined great pitching with great defense? I wouldn't have a problem with a free-swinging team, as long as the team swings at strikes vs. b.s. breaking balls in the dirt or eight inches outside or fastballs eye-high.

[goonys evil twin]

Looking at where the Tigers and D-backs are right now, after having recent 100-loss seasons, the Cubs should just lose 100+ games this year or next year and then we should be good a few years after that. :twisted:

 

It's funny you say that. I've followed the Tigers my whole life and they are pretty much the team Hendry wants. The Tiger team OBP is not great. They don't like to walk a lot. Their batting average is pretty high and the OBP they do have is driven by that average. The Tigers pitching is awesome, best ERA in baseball right now, and their defense is pretty solid (Brandon Inge, horrible hitter for a 3rd baseman, has a fine glove).

 

This, to me, is Hendry's dream team. All I can do is hope the Tigers keep it up and the Cubs can find that type of success with the same plan for the next couple of years.

 

That's just it, when has our pitching been great? When have we combined great pitching with great defense? I wouldn't have a problem with a free-swinging team, as long as the team swings at strikes vs. b.s. breaking balls in the dirt or eight inches outside or fastballs eye-high.

 

I will always have a problem with a free swinging team. But I could live with it if those free swingers were freaking studs, instead of the garbage Hendry puts out there. Odds are, if they are free swingers but don't swing at balls in the dirt, etc, that probably means the pitchers realize they can't do any damage and will just ground out anyway.

[SoonerCubFan]

I'd want the guy who's more likely to be productive - .300/.350

 

Again singles produce more runs than walks. That said, the difference isn't huge.

 

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season?

 

Yep

 

Sounds good. We'll disagree, in that case.

 

I can understand you'd want to "lock in" production but personally I'd take the gamble. Again, more often than not the 300/.350 guy will be more productive.

 

I've been reading though the thread you posted - good stuff.

 

I agree w/you cfict. Given a choice between a CAREER .300/.350 guy and a CAREER .280/350 guy, I go with the .300/.350. But I think overall, its important to consider their CAREER #'s, and I doubt that two players could be as evenly matched in such a comparison. For instance, think of a SEASON with two guys battng .300/.350 and .280/.350. With JUST the view of those #'s, and not considering career #'s, I'm going with the .280/.350 guy. He will be less succeptable to getting on base due to errors, intentional walks, etc, and more likely to be on base for you.

 

this is a great discussion, it extended my lunch break by 40 minutes. we need more of these :D

 

This whole sub-thread is lacking a more important element - extra base hit ability (i.e., SLUG). If either SLUGs at a .600 clip and the other at a .400 clip, gimme the first guy, even if he's at .250/.300. As for the rest of the discussion, the difference between a .280/.350 guy and a .300/.350 is so miniscule (1 extra non-hit time on base per 50 PAs), assuming all else is equal, that I'd take the .300 hitter as well, thinking he may get a hit w/RISP that the other guy won't.

[Chocolate Milk]

The Plan:

 

Step 1: Acquire slappy hitting middle infielders

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Win World Series!

[wade]

Looking at where the Tigers and D-backs are right now, after having recent 100-loss seasons, the Cubs should just lose 100+ games this year or next year and then we should be good a few years after that. :twisted:

 

It's funny you say that. I've followed the Tigers my whole life and they are pretty much the team Hendry wants. The Tiger team OBP is not great. They don't like to walk a lot. Their batting average is pretty high and the OBP they do have is driven by that average. The Tigers pitching is awesome, best ERA in baseball right now, and their defense is pretty solid (Brandon Inge, horrible hitter for a 3rd baseman, has a fine glove).

 

This, to me, is Hendry's dream team. All I can do is hope the Tigers keep it up and the Cubs can find that type of success with the same plan for the next couple of years.

 

I don't want that to happen. If the Tigers win and Hendry feels more faith in his plan, he'll just keep going on the wrong route. That's just an inefficient way to build a team. Hitting for average is just way too unpredictable, while relying so heavily on pitching has already cost the Cubs big time.

 

I want the Tigers to keep it up because I like them, not because I want Hendry to follow their plan, he's already on it. I think I was confusing before the way I stated it. In my previous post I pointed out what I think they're doing and why I didn't like it.

 

I'd rather they build with more OBP players, but I do not believe they will. I think Hendry has his plan and I can only hope now that they somehow win with his plan. At this point I don't see any way he deviates.

[wade]

Looking at where the Tigers and D-backs are right now, after having recent 100-loss seasons, the Cubs should just lose 100+ games this year or next year and then we should be good a few years after that. :twisted:

 

It's funny you say that. I've followed the Tigers my whole life and they are pretty much the team Hendry wants. The Tiger team OBP is not great. They don't like to walk a lot. Their batting average is pretty high and the OBP they do have is driven by that average. The Tigers pitching is awesome, best ERA in baseball right now, and their defense is pretty solid (Brandon Inge, horrible hitter for a 3rd baseman, has a fine glove).

 

This, to me, is Hendry's dream team. All I can do is hope the Tigers keep it up and the Cubs can find that type of success with the same plan for the next couple of years.

 

That's just it, when has our pitching been great? When have we combined great pitching with great defense? I wouldn't have a problem with a free-swinging team, as long as the team swings at strikes vs. b.s. breaking balls in the dirt or eight inches outside or fastballs eye-high.

 

Our pitching was great in 2003.

 

I truly believe that the Tiger model is the model he bases his moves on. They obviously haven't worked yet and I don't believe he'll change.