Cesar has a sore hamstring

[fromthestretch]

Again, I'd like to clarify that when I refer to defense I'm specifically referring to 'up the middle defense'; especially range in CF, the middle IF's ability to turn a DP, and the C's ability to call a game and manage a pitchers emotions.

 

Michael Barrett's .924 OPS is much more valuable to this team than his ability to tell a pitcher to calm down.

 

As for calling a game, unless the pitch selection is coming from the dugout, a pitcher has the ability to shake his catcher off. The pitcher is the one that should know what he wants to throw in a certain situation and where he wants to throw it. Blaming catchers for calling a bad game is an excuse used by pitchers that don't want to admit they screwed up.

[DiamondMind]

 

You're right: its not a cliche because its repeated. Its a cliche because it doesn't have any merit other than something people like to say because it sounds nice and team oriented. In fact, in baseball, defense means so much less than offense, especially when a player is one of the worst in baseball offensively, as are both Izturis and Perez.

 

I'd argue that 'team chemistry' is a cliche, and a cliche that really doesn't lead to anything. Winning creates chemistry, not vice versa.

 

edit: also, rookie pitchers are much much less inclined to shake off the catcher, and the Cubs have had quite the abundance of rookie pitching this year. Just saying.

Edited August 18, 2006 by DiamondMind

[CubColtPacer]

gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove!

 

Sarcasm or not, I'm in the camp of in any sport, defense wins championships.

 

Cliches don't win championships. It makes for a cute little point on the championship video, but in baseball, defense makes very little difference.

 

If you'll look at defensive efficiency, fielding percentage, etc., you'll see that very few playoff teams, World Series teams, or World Series champions have been at or near the top in defense. Some have, but not nearly enough to draw some kind of correlation.

 

It's not a cliche just because it's repeated. Maybe it's repeated because professional sports people, with experience, generally believe it. Why else would you hear it so often?

 

edit: Again, I'd like to clarify that when I refer to defense I'm specifically referring to 'up the middle defense'; especially range in CF, the middle IF's ability to turn a DP, and the C's ability to call a game and manage a pitchers emotions.

 

You're right: its not a cliche because its repeated. Its a cliche because it doesn't have any merit other than something people like to say because it sounds nice and team oriented. In fact, in baseball, defense means so much less than offense, especially when a player is one of the worst in baseball offensively, as are both Izturis and Perez.

 

Izturis is a little better than Neifi is offensively (at least at this point of Neifi's career)-about 50 points of OBP. Izturis is also about 40 points better in OBP then Ronny. So this is an upgrade offensively for now-was it worth the money? That's a much harder argument to make-but it is an upgrade, and now we will have to see if Hendry upgrades the other positions over the winter.

[DiamondMind]

 

Or it's negligible.

 

Agree to disagree. :D

[Sammy Sofa]

 

You're right: its not a cliche because its repeated. Its a cliche because it doesn't have any merit other than something people like to say because it sounds nice and team oriented. In fact, in baseball, defense means so much less than offense, especially when a player is one of the worst in baseball offensively, as are both Izturis and Perez.

 

I'd argue that 'team chemistry' is a cliche, and a cliche that really doesn't lead to anything. Winning creates chemistry, not vice versa.

 

Who is arguing "team chemistry" here?

[C.C.]

 

no, their defense won't save more runs than their lack of offense costs. the cubs problem is lack of offense - there is no reason to accept overpaid subpar performance from any position.

 

Respectfully disagree - the Cubs problem is not a general lack of offense, but lack of offense from the corner positions. Murton and Jones are both 4th OF in my opinion, Ramirez had a terrible first half, and Lee has been disabled for most of the season.

 

The Cubs were 5th in baseball in defensive efficiency before trading for Izturis, thus his defense can only improve them marginally. Furthermore, regardless of what the team "can" spend, they will only spend somewhere in the $100 million range. As such, you can't waste $4 on a defensive player who provided minimal offense when you've already got that same player on the roster (Perez). Perez's defense is roughly equivalent to Izturis', as is his offense (.650 OPS). You simply can't have two of the worst offensive players in baseball occupying the same roster because they might happen to save a run with their defense every third or fourth game.

 

Furthermore, when a team is last in the league in runs scored by over 100 runs, I would say the team's problem is a lack of offense in total, not just from the corner positions.

 

Over 100 runs from the next team? It's actually 14 runs-I understand your point though (although I still don't understand how we're 5th in defensive efficiency watching this team play defense everyday (especially the OF and catcher and the middle infield earlier in the season, and then see the differences when watching other teams, but that has been beaten to death :D). I happen to think that Izturis will surprise some people offensively next season, but for that we will have to wait and see.

 

"watching this team play defense everyday" just isn't a reliable way to judge the team.

 

I agree with everything you guys say, but no way in the world are the Cubs going to go with Izzy and Cedeno next year unless the really bulk up the outfield. Cedeno will not be @ 2B next year...Or Izzy will be traded.

[Caryatid]

 

The Cubs were 5th in baseball in defensive efficiency before trading for Izturis, thus his defense can only improve them marginally. Furthermore, regardless of what the team "can" spend, they will only spend somewhere in the $100 million range. As such, you can't waste $4 on a defensive player who provided minimal offense when you've already got that same player on the roster (Perez). Perez's defense is roughly equivalent to Izturis', as is his offense (.650 OPS). You simply can't have two of the worst offensive players in baseball occupying the same roster because they might happen to save a run with their defense every third or fourth game.

 

Furthermore, when a team is last in the league in runs scored by over 100 runs, I would say the team's problem is a lack of offense in total, not just from the corner positions.

 

Again, I can't provide any sort of numerical backing just because it'd take a ton of time - but there's no way they'd only save "a run every three or four games". On top of runs prevented, what about helping keep a pitchers pitch count low due to them turning the DP, making exceptional plays, etc?

 

I think you can't provide numerical backing, because numerical backing for that position doesn't exist.

 

Just like you can't provide numerical evidence of speed's influence on a pitchers missed location, range in CF saving doubles and triples, etc. Doesn't mean it's not important, just not quantifiable.

 

You can actually use "range factor" in quantifying range.

 

Of course its important, but not nearly as important as offense, and no anectdotal evidence can change that.

[Sammy Sofa]

Again, I'd like to clarify that when I refer to defense I'm specifically referring to 'up the middle defense'; especially range in CF, the middle IF's ability to turn a DP, and the C's ability to call a game and manage a pitchers emotions.

 

Michael Barrett's .924 OPS is much more valuable to this team than his ability to tell a pitcher to calm down.

 

As for calling a game, unless the pitch selection is coming from the dugout, a pitcher has the ability to shake his catcher off. The pitcher is the one that should know what he wants to throw in a certain situation and where he wants to throw it. Blaming catchers for calling a bad game is an excuse used by pitchers that don't want to admit they screwed up.

 

Heh...I agree with you, but I know the Red Sox sure don't right now.

[DiamondMind]

 

Michael Barrett's .924 OPS is much more valuable to this team than his ability to tell a pitcher to calm down.

 

As for calling a game, unless the pitch selection is coming from the dugout, a pitcher has the ability to shake his catcher off. The pitcher is the one that should know what he wants to throw in a certain situation and where he wants to throw it. Blaming catchers for calling a bad game is an excuse used by pitchers that don't want to admit they screwed up.

 

Agreed, but only in this case. A .900+ OPS is hardly the norm in baseball, especially for a catcher. Still, I'd like to see Barrett improve his game calling and plate blocking ability, but that's for another thread eh?

[Jon]

gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove!

 

Sarcasm or not, I'm in the camp of in any sport, defense wins championships.

Defense in football, basketball, soccer, etc. means preventing the other team from scoring. In baseball, that's overwhelmingly the task of the pitching staff, not the guys behind them. Defense in baseball doesn't compare to defense in other sports and is a relatively small factor in keeping the other team from crossing home.

[CubColtPacer]

 

no, their defense won't save more runs than their lack of offense costs. the cubs problem is lack of offense - there is no reason to accept overpaid subpar performance from any position.

 

Respectfully disagree - the Cubs problem is not a general lack of offense, but lack of offense from the corner positions. Murton and Jones are both 4th OF in my opinion, Ramirez had a terrible first half, and Lee has been disabled for most of the season.

 

The Cubs were 5th in baseball in defensive efficiency before trading for Izturis, thus his defense can only improve them marginally. Furthermore, regardless of what the team "can" spend, they will only spend somewhere in the $100 million range. As such, you can't waste $4 on a defensive player who provided minimal offense when you've already got that same player on the roster (Perez). Perez's defense is roughly equivalent to Izturis', as is his offense (.650 OPS). You simply can't have two of the worst offensive players in baseball occupying the same roster because they might happen to save a run with their defense every third or fourth game.

 

Furthermore, when a team is last in the league in runs scored by over 100 runs, I would say the team's problem is a lack of offense in total, not just from the corner positions.

 

Over 100 runs from the next team? It's actually 14 runs-I understand your point though (although I still don't understand how we're 5th in defensive efficiency watching this team play defense everyday (especially the OF and catcher and the middle infield earlier in the season, and then see the differences when watching other teams, but that has been beaten to death :D). I happen to think that Izturis will surprise some people offensively next season, but for that we will have to wait and see.

 

"watching this team play defense everyday" just isn't a reliable way to judge the team.

 

True, but I saw one of the metrics that had the Cubs high in defense this year this morning. Pierre was rated as the top defensive center fielder in the National League this year. Do you believe that?

[DiamondMind]

 

You're right: its not a cliche because its repeated. Its a cliche because it doesn't have any merit other than something people like to say because it sounds nice and team oriented. In fact, in baseball, defense means so much less than offense, especially when a player is one of the worst in baseball offensively, as are both Izturis and Perez.

 

I'd argue that 'team chemistry' is a cliche, and a cliche that really doesn't lead to anything. Winning creates chemistry, not vice versa.

 

Who is arguing "team chemistry" here?

 

I was trying to make the point that I believe team chemistry is a cliche, not team defense.

[abuck1220]

Again, I'd like to clarify that when I refer to defense I'm specifically referring to 'up the middle defense'; especially range in CF, the middle IF's ability to turn a DP, and the C's ability to call a game and manage a pitchers emotions.

 

Michael Barrett's .924 OPS is much more valuable to this team than his ability to tell a pitcher to calm down.

 

As for calling a game, unless the pitch selection is coming from the dugout, a pitcher has the ability to shake his catcher off. The pitcher is the one that should know what he wants to throw in a certain situation and where he wants to throw it. Blaming catchers for calling a bad game is an excuse used by pitchers that don't want to admit they screwed up.

 

Heh...I agree with you, but I know the Red Sox sure don't right now.

 

yep, the "red sox pitchers suck now because varitek is hurt" line is 2006's 16th best BS baseball story that analysts can bring up to sound smart!

[Sammy Sofa]

True, but I saw one of the metrics that had the Cubs high in defense this year this morning. Pierre was rated as the top defensive center fielder in the National League this year. Do you believe that?

 

Statistically? Why not?

[Sammy Sofa]

Again, I'd like to clarify that when I refer to defense I'm specifically referring to 'up the middle defense'; especially range in CF, the middle IF's ability to turn a DP, and the C's ability to call a game and manage a pitchers emotions.

 

Michael Barrett's .924 OPS is much more valuable to this team than his ability to tell a pitcher to calm down.

 

As for calling a game, unless the pitch selection is coming from the dugout, a pitcher has the ability to shake his catcher off. The pitcher is the one that should know what he wants to throw in a certain situation and where he wants to throw it. Blaming catchers for calling a bad game is an excuse used by pitchers that don't want to admit they screwed up.

 

Heh...I agree with you, but I know the Red Sox sure don't right now.

 

yep, the "red sox pitchers suck now because varitek is hurt" line is 2006's 16th best BS baseball story that analysts can bring up to sound smart!

 

Well, I don't think it's just the pitchers, and I think the whole thing is the exception to the rule, too.

[abuck1220]

 

no, their defense won't save more runs than their lack of offense costs. the cubs problem is lack of offense - there is no reason to accept overpaid subpar performance from any position.

 

Respectfully disagree - the Cubs problem is not a general lack of offense, but lack of offense from the corner positions. Murton and Jones are both 4th OF in my opinion, Ramirez had a terrible first half, and Lee has been disabled for most of the season.

 

The Cubs were 5th in baseball in defensive efficiency before trading for Izturis, thus his defense can only improve them marginally. Furthermore, regardless of what the team "can" spend, they will only spend somewhere in the $100 million range. As such, you can't waste $4 on a defensive player who provided minimal offense when you've already got that same player on the roster (Perez). Perez's defense is roughly equivalent to Izturis', as is his offense (.650 OPS). You simply can't have two of the worst offensive players in baseball occupying the same roster because they might happen to save a run with their defense every third or fourth game.

 

Furthermore, when a team is last in the league in runs scored by over 100 runs, I would say the team's problem is a lack of offense in total, not just from the corner positions.

 

Over 100 runs from the next team? It's actually 14 runs-I understand your point though (although I still don't understand how we're 5th in defensive efficiency watching this team play defense everyday (especially the OF and catcher and the middle infield earlier in the season, and then see the differences when watching other teams, but that has been beaten to death :D). I happen to think that Izturis will surprise some people offensively next season, but for that we will have to wait and see.

 

"watching this team play defense everyday" just isn't a reliable way to judge the team.

 

True, but I saw one of the metrics that had the Cubs high in defense this year this morning. Pierre was rated as the top defensive center fielder in the National League this year. Do you believe that?

 

defensive metrics are far from an exact science...but so is your memory of watching a bunch of games.

 

and i'd be curious as to which metric rated pierre that highly.

[soapy]

Another problem with putting Izturis in the lineup is that he can't really be "hidden" in the 8-hole. That would work if you didn't already have two other 8-hole hitters in the lineup, which the Cubs do (Pierre and Cedeno). If they are back next year, having Izturis in the lineup only adds to the problem. They need to upgrade offensively at atleast one of those positions, probably two. Instead, they regressed by adding Izturis to the lineup while removing Walker.

 

And it's been beaten to death, but you can't just shrug off $4 million just because the Cubs have it. Neifi + Rusch + Izturis = $10 million of next year's payroll.

[abuck1220]

gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove!

 

Sarcasm or not, I'm in the camp of in any sport, defense wins championships.

Defense in football, basketball, soccer, etc. means preventing the other team from scoring. In baseball, that's overwhelmingly the task of the pitching staff, not the guys behind them. Defense in baseball doesn't compare to defense in other sports and is a relatively small factor in keeping the other team from crossing home.

 

exactly. defense (as in preventing the other team from scoring) is very important in baseball. but actual fielding makes up a very small % of defense.

[fromthestretch]

Again, I'd like to clarify that when I refer to defense I'm specifically referring to 'up the middle defense'; especially range in CF, the middle IF's ability to turn a DP, and the C's ability to call a game and manage a pitchers emotions.

 

Michael Barrett's .924 OPS is much more valuable to this team than his ability to tell a pitcher to calm down.

 

As for calling a game, unless the pitch selection is coming from the dugout, a pitcher has the ability to shake his catcher off. The pitcher is the one that should know what he wants to throw in a certain situation and where he wants to throw it. Blaming catchers for calling a bad game is an excuse used by pitchers that don't want to admit they screwed up.

 

Heh...I agree with you, but I know the Red Sox sure don't right now.

 

Varitek was a crutch that the pitching staff leaned too hard on, and it's sad if Mirabelli and Lopez end up becoming scapegoats for poor pitching performances down the stretch.

[CubColtPacer]

 

no, their defense won't save more runs than their lack of offense costs. the cubs problem is lack of offense - there is no reason to accept overpaid subpar performance from any position.

 

Respectfully disagree - the Cubs problem is not a general lack of offense, but lack of offense from the corner positions. Murton and Jones are both 4th OF in my opinion, Ramirez had a terrible first half, and Lee has been disabled for most of the season.

 

The Cubs were 5th in baseball in defensive efficiency before trading for Izturis, thus his defense can only improve them marginally. Furthermore, regardless of what the team "can" spend, they will only spend somewhere in the $100 million range. As such, you can't waste $4 on a defensive player who provided minimal offense when you've already got that same player on the roster (Perez). Perez's defense is roughly equivalent to Izturis', as is his offense (.650 OPS). You simply can't have two of the worst offensive players in baseball occupying the same roster because they might happen to save a run with their defense every third or fourth game.

 

Furthermore, when a team is last in the league in runs scored by over 100 runs, I would say the team's problem is a lack of offense in total, not just from the corner positions.

 

Over 100 runs from the next team? It's actually 14 runs-I understand your point though (although I still don't understand how we're 5th in defensive efficiency watching this team play defense everyday (especially the OF and catcher and the middle infield earlier in the season, and then see the differences when watching other teams, but that has been beaten to death :D). I happen to think that Izturis will surprise some people offensively next season, but for that we will have to wait and see.

 

"watching this team play defense everyday" just isn't a reliable way to judge the team.

 

True, but I saw one of the metrics that had the Cubs high in defense this year this morning. Pierre was rated as the top defensive center fielder in the National League this year. Do you believe that?

 

defensive metrics are far from an exact science...but so is your memory of watching a bunch of games.

 

and i'd be curious as to which metric rated pierre that highly.

 

True-I like to use the metrics in combination with my memory and other people's memories to get the best results.

 

Cheapseats posted this metric earlier that has Pierre at the top:

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/defensive_rankings_by_position_and_league_200_innings/

[Sammy Sofa]

gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove! gold glove!

 

Sarcasm or not, I'm in the camp of in any sport, defense wins championships.

Defense in football, basketball, soccer, etc. means preventing the other team from scoring. In baseball, that's overwhelmingly the task of the pitching staff, not the guys behind them. Defense in baseball doesn't compare to defense in other sports and is a relatively small factor in keeping the other team from crossing home.

 

exactly. defense (as in preventing the other team from scoring) is very important in baseball. but actual fielding makes up a very small % of defense.

 

Plus, like I said, the defensive performance in those sports, and in hockey, can lead to your team scoring within seconds.

[Sammy Sofa]

True-I like to use the metrics in combination with my memory and other people's memories to get the best results.

 

And that's how we got the mess where people think there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll...

[sherwood921]

I think defense grows less important as you reach higher and higher levels of baseball. When you're a little kid, not many kids are very good at fielding. Often a ground ball is an automatic hit and if it gets into the outfield it's at least a double. As you move along through high school, the teams that play good defense are generally better teams, because at that age the guys that play better defense are generally better all around (played longer, more athletic, etc.). There are many more errors at those lower levels of baseball. However, as you get into college, minor league baseball, and eventually the majors...the different levels of defense are not nearly as noticeable, because the overall number of mistakes is way down.

 

Essentially, I think the whole concept of defense being the most important is stressed to the extreme at a younger age that it sticks in everyone's head. I know that's what all of my teams practiced and stressed the most.

[gflore34]

I believe we have to take or accept as fact the 2007 Cubs DP combination is going to be Cedeno and Izturis, along with Pierre in CF. Leaving LF as the only position in which an offensive upgrade is a possibilty...

[Warpticon]

 

The Cubs were 5th in baseball in defensive efficiency before trading for Izturis, thus his defense can only improve them marginally. Furthermore, regardless of what the team "can" spend, they will only spend somewhere in the $100 million range. As such, you can't waste $4 on a defensive player who provided minimal offense when you've already got that same player on the roster (Perez). Perez's defense is roughly equivalent to Izturis', as is his offense (.650 OPS). You simply can't have two of the worst offensive players in baseball occupying the same roster because they might happen to save a run with their defense every third or fourth game.

 

Furthermore, when a team is last in the league in runs scored by over 100 runs, I would say the team's problem is a lack of offense in total, not just from the corner positions.

 

Again, I can't provide any sort of numerical backing just because it'd take a ton of time - but there's no way they'd only save "a run every three or four games". On top of runs prevented, what about helping keep a pitchers pitch count low due to them turning the DP, making exceptional plays, etc?

 

I'd be shocked if they actually saved a run that frequently.

 

And the comment on turning the DP is exactly where the defensive arguments usually get convoluted. A superb shortstop is not going to turn *that* many more double plays than an average or even slightly below average SS. There is a difference, yes, but not an enormous one.