Neyer on the Cubs

[snoodmonger]

ugh...triple post Edited August 17, 2006 by snoodmonger

[dalgreen]

What about the pitching, how come no one realizes that their pitching can also be to blame. This was a team that was supposed to be built on their pitching staff not their hitting. There is one guy I blame and that has to be a guy I was a supporter of his entire carrer with the Cubs and its the pitching coah. It is the only thing that makes sense to me, he has to give them the idea that its okay to be so fine and walk guys instead of letting them hit the ball. There are 7 guys behind the pitcher, and overall the Cubs have a pretty good defense in my opinion so let them play. It can't always be about strike outs and walks. I can't believe they didn't learn anything from Mad Dog but I guess he didn't have the success here to translate that they can be effective letting guy hit the ball.

 

Because the pitchers are young and for some reason many people can't get to the point to criticize young pitchers, especially if one is named Prior.

 

Most are likely being more critical of an organizational philosophy rather than a player(s). Especially when the player you brought into question has been hit w/numerous injuries, I can see how someone value the potential organizational lapse more than one player.

 

If you blame Prior, then you have to blame Lee.

 

Lee has never admitted to some of the problems being mental.

[dalgreen]

You've got the wrogn guys.

 

Guys like Blanco and, to a lesser degree, Bynum, aren't a major part of the problem because they don't play every day. Blanco in particular gives you about what you'd expect from a backup cather, though you could argue at too high a cost.

 

It's Pierre, Izturis, Jones, Cedeno, and Perez that are the problems. These are guys who will see tons of action, and they're all pretty bad. Jones wouldn't be bad we didn't have to rely on him to produce so much, and Cedeno probably deserves a chance to grow, given his age, but Pierre Izturis and Neifi are huge liabilities that severely limit our ability to field a decent offense.

 

I do not agree with these statements. I would suggest that the combination of all of them in the same lineup is pretty bad, but any two of them (excluding Neifi, who should only see limited PT, as he has lately) in a better balanced lineup would be fine. For instance, Pierre has been excellent the last 2.5 months with an OBP well over .350 and 25 EBHs, yet has only scored 32 runs in 67 games, due to a variety of factors.

 

Unfortunately things stack up such that the first 4 are likely starters next year. If we could find a way to upgrade 2 of these positions offensively (including Pierre simply maintaing his current and career paces), and see a return of DLee to at least .900 OPS, the Cubs could get back to at least the middle of the pack or better next year in runs scored. A big IF at this point, but just a couple of smart moves and good health away.

 

You say you do not agree, but then you backup the statements with support. Of course it's the fact that all of them are here that is the problem. But we can't just pretend they aren't all here, or won't all be here next year. Just about any combination of two of those guys is tolerable in the lineup if other spots improve dramatically. The problem is improvement in other spots in unlikely to happen. Hendry still ignores OBP, and the lack of walks, which has been a huge problem for years now, is going to remain a problem.

 

Nope. I disagree with statements that "they're ALL pretty bad" and that Pierre and Izturis (specifically) are "huge liabilities". These statements I do not support, I merely put things in a context I do support.

 

Pierre, with his .324 OBP and zero pop IS a huge liability. He's only useful if he's getting on base. This being his second bad year in a row makes me wonder if he's capable of that anymore. Izturis, while young and theoretically capable of improving, hasn't shown he's that much better hitter than Neifi. So basically, I don't see how they're not liabilities on offense.

 

They are liabilities, but they're liabilities because this organization's philosophy is a liability. Hendry has likely forgotten the first three months of the season and has only remembered Pierre's numbers over the last two months and will continue his habit of overpaying for mediocrity. Add in the 42 stolen bases to this point and Hendry is in heaven.

[UncleDon]

Hendry expected Maddux and Prior to be guys who throw strikes, it's not like he doesn't grind his teeth when we walk six batters a game. The thing with our youth is that they throw strikes on the farm, but not in the majors. Prior, Hill and Marshall should all develop decent command. Marmol is young, and Guzman is just inconsistent. 2007-

 

1. Z

2. FREE AGENT

3. PRIOR

4. HILL

5. MARSHALL

 

GUZMAN - PEN

MARMOL - AAA

 

The Cubs have so many possibilities to start, I would just sign one solid guy and spend the big money on Soriano.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

What about the pitching, how come no one realizes that their pitching can also be to blame. This was a team that was supposed to be built on their pitching staff not their hitting. There is one guy I blame and that has to be a guy I was a supporter of his entire carrer with the Cubs and its the pitching coah. It is the only thing that makes sense to me, he has to give them the idea that its okay to be so fine and walk guys instead of letting them hit the ball. There are 7 guys behind the pitcher, and overall the Cubs have a pretty good defense in my opinion so let them play. It can't always be about strike outs and walks. I can't believe they didn't learn anything from Mad Dog but I guess he didn't have the success here to translate that they can be effective letting guy hit the ball.

 

Because the pitchers are young and for some reason many people can't get to the point to criticize young pitchers, especially if one is named Prior.

 

Most are likely being more critical of an organizational philosophy rather than a player(s). Especially when the player you brought into question has been hit w/numerous injuries, I can see how someone value the potential organizational lapse more than one player.

 

If you blame Prior, then you have to blame Lee.

 

Lee has never admitted to some of the problems being mental.

 

I'm sure Lee has had problems that are mental, unless he's not human. I don't follow.

[UK1679666180]

What about the pitching, how come no one realizes that their pitching can also be to blame. This was a team that was supposed to be built on their pitching staff not their hitting. There is one guy I blame and that has to be a guy I was a supporter of his entire carrer with the Cubs and its the pitching coah. It is the only thing that makes sense to me, he has to give them the idea that its okay to be so fine and walk guys instead of letting them hit the ball. There are 7 guys behind the pitcher, and overall the Cubs have a pretty good defense in my opinion so let them play. It can't always be about strike outs and walks. I can't believe they didn't learn anything from Mad Dog but I guess he didn't have the success here to translate that they can be effective letting guy hit the ball.

 

Because the pitchers are young and for some reason many people can't get to the point to criticize young pitchers, especially if one is named Prior.

 

Most are likely being more critical of an organizational philosophy rather than a player(s). Especially when the player you brought into question has been hit w/numerous injuries, I can see how someone value the potential organizational lapse more than one player.

 

If you blame Prior, then you have to blame Lee.

 

Lee has never admitted to some of the problems being mental.

 

So what? You haven't even come close to presenting your stance.

 

1st off, I do believe that Prior is injured that his shoulder is not right and hasn't been from the start.

 

2nd, you still can't dictate whether or not a player or not will get injured, higher frequency for some and to compensate for that depends on roster construction.

 

3rd, if some believe the Cubs have a org. weakness as far as addressing OBP in part. drawing BBs and allowing them by their pitchers, that holds more weight as far as what might be a problem for a team rather than some random injured player. What about Wood?

[dalgreen]

What about the pitching, how come no one realizes that their pitching can also be to blame. This was a team that was supposed to be built on their pitching staff not their hitting. There is one guy I blame and that has to be a guy I was a supporter of his entire carrer with the Cubs and its the pitching coah. It is the only thing that makes sense to me, he has to give them the idea that its okay to be so fine and walk guys instead of letting them hit the ball. There are 7 guys behind the pitcher, and overall the Cubs have a pretty good defense in my opinion so let them play. It can't always be about strike outs and walks. I can't believe they didn't learn anything from Mad Dog but I guess he didn't have the success here to translate that they can be effective letting guy hit the ball.

 

Because the pitchers are young and for some reason many people can't get to the point to criticize young pitchers, especially if one is named Prior.

 

Most are likely being more critical of an organizational philosophy rather than a player(s). Especially when the player you brought into question has been hit w/numerous injuries, I can see how someone value the potential organizational lapse more than one player.

 

If you blame Prior, then you have to blame Lee.

 

Lee has never admitted to some of the problems being mental.

 

So what? You haven't even come close to presenting your stance.

 

1st off, I do believe that Prior is injured that his shoulder is not right and hasn't been from the start.

 

2nd, you still can't dictate whether or not a player or not will get injured, higher frequency for some and to compensate for that depends on roster construction.

 

3rd, if some believe the Cubs have a org. weakness as far as addressing OBP in part. drawing BBs and allowing them by their pitchers, that holds more weight as far as what might be a problem for a team rather than some random injured player. What about Wood?

 

Injured player, and maybe we're in the race. Injured players, particularly to three of our most important players, and you see what happens.

 

Regarding the lack of pitching. I think our OBP sucks and contributes to our poor performance this season. However, better pitching might be able to overcome our bad OBP and kept us in the race (albeit because the NL Central sucks) see Oakland. My stance, going back to my post, is that people conveniently leave out our sucky pitching when trying to pinpoint blame on this poor season. Yes, I put more blame on Prior than Lee (you brought up Lee) because you can't necessarily control physical injuries, but Prior has said on at least a couple of occasions that part of his problem is mental. And that's the reason why I said I don't place the same amount of blame on Lee as I do Prior. Can you imagine how much criticism "whipping boys" like Rusch would've received on here if he stated part of his problem was mental?

[dalgreen]

I'm sure Lee has had problems that are mental, unless he's not human. I don't follow.

 

You're sure because of what? I think his problem was strictly rushing back from a broken wrist.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I'm sure Lee has had problems that are mental, unless he's not human. I don't follow.

 

You're sure because of what? I think his problem was strictly rushing back from a broken wrist.

 

All baseball players will go through rough stretches where mental struggles play a role. Derrek Lee included. Glendon Rusch is the same. All Mark Prior did was admit it. If he wasn't affected by his poor play, something would be wrong.

[dalgreen]

I'm sure Lee has had problems that are mental, unless he's not human. I don't follow.

 

You're sure because of what? I think his problem was strictly rushing back from a broken wrist.

 

All baseball players will go through rough stretches where mental struggles play a role. Derrek Lee included. Glendon Rusch is the same. All Mark Prior did was admit it. If he wasn't affected by his poor play, something would be wrong.

 

Rough stretches? Yes. Rough years? No. There have been many,many people questioning Prior's heart and mental state from game 6 thru today. Maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong. But I believe Prior admitted to it last year, as well.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I'm sure Lee has had problems that are mental, unless he's not human. I don't follow.

 

You're sure because of what? I think his problem was strictly rushing back from a broken wrist.

 

All baseball players will go through rough stretches where mental struggles play a role. Derrek Lee included. Glendon Rusch is the same. All Mark Prior did was admit it. If he wasn't affected by his poor play, something would be wrong.

 

Rough stretches? Yes. Rough years? No. There have been many,many people questioning Prior's heart and mental state from game 6 thru today. Maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong. But I believe Prior admitted to it last year, as well.

 

I hope they were questioning it when Mark came back earlier than expected from a broken elbow last season.

[wastra]

You've got the wrogn guys.

 

Guys like Blanco and, to a lesser degree, Bynum, aren't a major part of the problem because they don't play every day. Blanco in particular gives you about what you'd expect from a backup cather, though you could argue at too high a cost.

 

It's Pierre, Izturis, Jones, Cedeno, and Perez that are the problems. These are guys who will see tons of action, and they're all pretty bad. Jones wouldn't be bad we didn't have to rely on him to produce so much, and Cedeno probably deserves a chance to grow, given his age, but Pierre Izturis and Neifi are huge liabilities that severely limit our ability to field a decent offense.

 

I do not agree with these statements. I would suggest that the combination of all of them in the same lineup is pretty bad, but any two of them (excluding Neifi, who should only see limited PT, as he has lately) in a better balanced lineup would be fine. For instance, Pierre has been excellent the last 2.5 months with an OBP well over .350 and 25 EBHs, yet has only scored 32 runs in 67 games, due to a variety of factors.

 

Unfortunately things stack up such that the first 4 are likely starters next year. If we could find a way to upgrade 2 of these positions offensively (including Pierre simply maintaing his current and career paces), and see a return of DLee to at least .900 OPS, the Cubs could get back to at least the middle of the pack or better next year in runs scored. A big IF at this point, but just a couple of smart moves and good health away.

 

Pierre, Izturis, and Perez ARE huge offensive liabilities. Neifi Perez is by manysabermetrics, amongst the worst major league hitters of all time. Izturis isn't that far behidn him, with the exception of one half-season. Pierre has some positives, but he's still an overall liability even with his .350 over the past month.

 

 

Guys who have to hit .320 to get a .350 OBP run hot and cold. that's bneen a symptom of this team for 4 years now- when gys aren't hitting it hard, they're not getting on base at all. A guy who takes al ot of pitches and is patient can still get on base even when he's not making the greatest contact, at least providing a bit of a cushion for hte rest of hte team during his inevitable slumps.

 

In my opinion, you want not only guys who can hit for some average, but guys whose differetional between OBP and AVG is significant, because it means they can help you offensively WITHOUT hitting. Otherwise, the team is overly subject to hot and cold streaks, and consistant offensive production is near impossible to muster.

[Lefty]

and Houston hasn't had any teams that had much of a shot.

 

What?

 

Each walk is worth about a third of a run. Each ten runs is about one win. So the Cubs have lost about 20 games more than they should have over this span because of the walk differential. The Reds, on the other hand, have had such awful pitching they haven't been able to take advantage of this. I wouldn't want to sacrifice HRs for BBs necessarily, but we know how to improve the offense, right?

[goonys evil twin]

I'm sure Lee has had problems that are mental, unless he's not human. I don't follow.

 

You're sure because of what? I think his problem was strictly rushing back from a broken wrist.

 

All baseball players will go through rough stretches where mental struggles play a role. Derrek Lee included. Glendon Rusch is the same. All Mark Prior did was admit it. If he wasn't affected by his poor play, something would be wrong.

 

Rough stretches? Yes. Rough years? No. There have been many,many people questioning Prior's heart and mental state from game 6 thru today. Maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong. But I believe Prior admitted to it last year, as well.

 

Wait, players don't go through rough years?

 

That's hilarious.

[gflore34]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

[goonys evil twin]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

Depends on who filled those lower spots. Simply reshuffling the same guys into different spots probably wouldn't have made much of a difference.

[cheapseats]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

You can try out different lineups here:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around.

[CubColtPacer]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

You can try out different lineups here:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around.

 

.7 runs total, or .7 runs per game?

[Warpticon]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

You can try out different lineups here:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around.

 

.7 runs total, or .7 runs per game?

 

It's per game. And I don't understand how you can say .7 runs per game isn't very much--is a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA not much better than one with a 4.50 ERA?

[CubColtPacer]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

You can try out different lineups here:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around.

 

.7 runs total, or .7 runs per game?

 

It's per game. And I don't understand how you can say .7 runs per game isn't very much--is a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA not much better than one with a 4.50 ERA?

 

Yeah, that's why I asked. .7 runs a game would push us from the 20th best offense last year to the 5th. It would have pushed Pittsburgh from the 28th best offense to the 7th best offense. I know we probably don't have the absolute worse lineup, but even a .2 to .5 difference per game is signficant over the course of a season.

[gflore34]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

You can try out different lineups here:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around.

 

.7 runs total, or .7 runs per game?

 

It's per game. And I don't understand how you can say .7 runs per game isn't very much--is a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA not much better than one with a 4.50 ERA?

 

Yeah, that's why I asked. .7 runs a game would push us from the 20th best offense last year to the 5th. It would have pushed Pittsburgh from the 28th best offense to the 7th best offense. I know we probably don't have the absolute worse lineup, but even a .2 to .5 difference per game is signficant over the course of a season.

 

I was thinking along the same lines, over 120 games that translates to 84 more runs, pushing the Cubs' total to 593.

[goonys evil twin]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

You can try out different lineups here:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around.

 

.7 runs total, or .7 runs per game?

 

It's per game. And I don't understand how you can say .7 runs per game isn't very much--is a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA not much better than one with a 4.50 ERA?

 

Yeah, that's why I asked. .7 runs a game would push us from the 20th best offense last year to the 5th. It would have pushed Pittsburgh from the 28th best offense to the 7th best offense. I know we probably don't have the absolute worse lineup, but even a .2 to .5 difference per game is signficant over the course of a season.

 

I was thinking along the same lines, over 120 games that translates to 84 more runs, pushing the Cubs' total to 593.

 

.7 per game would clearly make a difference. I'm skeptical that this little program is accurate though. It seems to be assuming that this would be the lineup everyday, and one thing is for certain, Barrett would not be able to hit in the 2 hole everyday.

 

I still don't think it would really make much of a difference. A difference? Probably. But it's not my biggest worry.

[Warpticon]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

You can try out different lineups here:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around.

 

.7 runs total, or .7 runs per game?

 

It's per game. And I don't understand how you can say .7 runs per game isn't very much--is a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA not much better than one with a 4.50 ERA?

 

Yeah, that's why I asked. .7 runs a game would push us from the 20th best offense last year to the 5th. It would have pushed Pittsburgh from the 28th best offense to the 7th best offense. I know we probably don't have the absolute worse lineup, but even a .2 to .5 difference per game is signficant over the course of a season.

 

I was thinking along the same lines, over 120 games that translates to 84 more runs, pushing the Cubs' total to 593.

 

.7 per game would clearly make a difference. I'm skeptical that this little program is accurate though. It seems to be assuming that this would be the lineup everyday, and one thing is for certain, Barrett would not be able to hit in the 2 hole everyday.

 

I still don't think it would really make much of a difference. A difference? Probably. But it's not my biggest worry.

 

A good way to test it would be to plug in some previous year's performances by overall batting position and see what the correlation to the actual results is. (meaning Team's #1 Hitters stats, not just Player Who Mostly Hit Leadoff's stats.)

[cheapseats]

goony I haven't the stats in front of me but, do you believe lineups with a 1 and 2 of Murton and Barrett instead of Baker' inane MO of a speedy OF and MI would have made much of difference this year?

 

You can try out different lineups here:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around.

 

.7 runs total, or .7 runs per game?

 

It's per game. And I don't understand how you can say .7 runs per game isn't very much--is a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA not much better than one with a 4.50 ERA?

 

But did you actually enter the numbers in the simulator to see the results?

 

As bad as Dusty's batting orders can be, he doesn't even approach the worst possible orders (batting the pitcher first, Juan Pierre cleanup, etc).

 

And, for various reasons (player egos first and foremost), the lineup that works the best in simulation is one that no current MLB manager would use.

 

The .7, therefore, is the range between the unrealistically good and the unrealistically bad.

 

You could make a case that Dusty's lineups cost the Cubs as much as 5 games last year (and will cost them about that much this year), but the Cubs are still a well-below .500 team no matter how you juggle the hitters.

[UK1679666180]

Injured player, and maybe we're in the race. Injured players, particularly to three of our most important players, and you see what happens.

 

Regarding the lack of pitching. I think our OBP sucks and contributes to our poor performance this season. However, better pitching might be able to overcome our bad OBP and kept us in the race (albeit because the NL Central sucks) see Oakland. My stance, going back to my post, is that people conveniently leave out our sucky pitching when trying to pinpoint blame on this poor season. Yes, I put more blame on Prior than Lee (you brought up Lee) because you can't necessarily control physical injuries, but Prior has said on at least a couple of occasions that part of his problem is mental. And that's the reason why I said I don't place the same amount of blame on Lee as I do Prior. Can you imagine how much criticism "whipping boys" like Rusch would've received on here if he stated part of his problem was mental?

 

The Cubs have scored the fewest amount of runs in MLB by a pretty good margin, better pitching would not overcome that.

 

You think players can control a mental problem? I don't think Prior's problem were mental at all. If they did become mental, that was after unsolved physical problems.

 

I think Part of Rusch's problems have been mental, I don't need a player stating quotes that mentally he wasn't right to find that out.

 

I thought much of Hill's early struggle was mental, Patterson last year. Murton's less obvious problems have been more mechanical and physical (non-injury related).

 

An inability to play day games well is a mental problem as well.