Cesar has a sore hamstring

[Andy]

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?

Well, many pro baseball people, with experience, believe that you need speed at the top of the order, that guys like Barrett are worthless because he's supposedly really bad defensively, and that wins is the best stat to judge a pitcher and that RBI is the best stat to judge a hitter. So I'm not so sure on jumping on this bandwagon either.

[rocket]

 

I'd rather give Cedeno the chance to improve. He's three years younger, makes a lot less money, and his OPS this season isn't too far off Izturis' career OPS. There's always a chance Cedeno won't improve. However, Izturis hasn't shown much at the major league level, and his minor league numbers certainly don't suggest that he has any offensive potential.

 

I'm just not drinking the Cubs brass' kool-aid on Cedeno. I think a majority of the hype came from the failed Furcal acquisition, so hey, we have a great Cedeno already so who cares if we failed again at an impact FA signing.

 

i'm not drinking the cubs brass' kool-aid that izturis is this amazing defender who's so great if off sets his horrible offensive production.

[soapy]

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...

The problem of course being that Murton provides the more production then any of those players and is also FAR cheaper then Izturis or Pierre.

[soapy]

 

I'd rather give Cedeno the chance to improve. He's three years younger, makes a lot less money, and his OPS this season isn't too far off Izturis' career OPS. There's always a chance Cedeno won't improve. However, Izturis hasn't shown much at the major league level, and his minor league numbers certainly don't suggest that he has any offensive potential.

 

I'm just not drinking the Cubs brass' kool-aid on Cedeno. I think a majority of the hype came from the failed Furcal acquisition, so hey, we have a great Cedeno already so who cares if we failed again at an impact FA signing.

 

i'm not drinking the cubs brass' kool-aid that izturis is this amazing defender who's so great if off sets his horrible offensive production.

It doesn't take any kind of kool-aid to see that Cedeno has more upside then Izturis for a fraction of the cost. I really don't see how Izturis' better defense (if that's even the case) offsets that.

[fromthestretch]

 

I'd rather give Cedeno the chance to improve. He's three years younger, makes a lot less money, and his OPS this season isn't too far off Izturis' career OPS. There's always a chance Cedeno won't improve. However, Izturis hasn't shown much at the major league level, and his minor league numbers certainly don't suggest that he has any offensive potential.

 

I'm just not drinking the Cubs brass' kool-aid on Cedeno. I think a majority of the hype came from the failed Furcal acquisition, so hey, we have a great Cedeno already so who cares if we failed again at an impact FA signing.

 

I don't like Cedeno because the Cubs tell me to like him. I like him because of the improvement he showed at AA in 2004, the numbers he put up at AAA in 2005 (despite being young for the league), and the numbers he put up at the major league level in 2005 (despite inconsistent playing time). His winter league numbers were icing on the cake.

 

Yes, he had his struggles in the minors in the past. But as he moved up, he improved. Combined with his age, that gives me faith he can continue to improve.

[YearofDaCubs]

I'm still upset that we ended up with Izturis. Garbage I tell you.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Did you know: Izturis is one month older than Rich Hill, 6 months younger than Corey Patterson

 

 

Too many people are ignoring that with Izturis, his offensive performance is likely to improve.

 

 

Oh, and defense means significantly less than offense and pitching, and Izturis is not significantly better defensively than Cedeno.

[goonys evil twin]

Too many people are ignoring that with Izturis, his offensive performance is likely to improve.

 

No it isn't. It's possible, but not likely. He's already at his peak age. He's been consistently bad throughout his professional career. It is possible that he will have a year where he matches the high point OPS+ of 88, but even that is not a guarantee, and wouldn't indicate that he has improved. Maybe he'll have a fluke year where he rattles off a 110 OPS+, but it's not likely. And even if he does, you're most likely going to have to put up with several substandard seasons both before and after such a spike season.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Too many people are ignoring that with Izturis, his offensive performance is likely to improve.

 

No it isn't. It's possible, but not likely. He's already at his peak age. He's been consistently bad throughout his professional career. It is possible that he will have a year where he matches the high point OPS+ of 88, but even that is not a guarantee, and wouldn't indicate that he has improved. Maybe he'll have a fluke year where he rattles off a 110 OPS+, but it's not likely. And even if he does, you're most likely going to have to put up with several substandard seasons both before and after such a spike season.

 

26 isn't "peak age" and you know it. I'm not saying that he'll be good enough to put 2nd in the order, but too many people are already writing off a .600 OPS for him when he's entering the prime of his career. He's not Neifi where he's already over 30, and there's reason for optimism with his BABIP numbers.

[KingCubsFan]

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.

Defense may not win championships, but it can certainly lose them. (See Gonzalez, Alex)

[Wolverineman]

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.

 

 

Making the easy assumption that missed location will lead to better offense for the person at the plate, there has been studies to try to quantify that. The only one I can find right now can be found at THT(Part 1 and Part 2. I could have sworn I read a better one recently but I apparently didn't bookmark it. Its certainly not solid proof or anything, but its a good attempt and the way I see it, it helps put boundries on what value having speed on base can have to the hitter. Although that may not be entirely true.. its quite possible the POSITIVE value is higher than that, but its counterbalanced by the NEGATIVE value having a guy jumping around on first brings. I can't imagine thats not a distraction to some, if not most, hitters. Plus some hitters are probably told to take pitches so a guy can steal, and its likely that some of those pitches would be very hittable.

 

As for the other part, The Fielding Bible tracks "Enhanced +/-" which takes into account the bases saved(or lost) against the average. Thats instead of their normal +/- which just counts plays above or below average. So those things are being quantified, though quite possibly not in the greatest way as of yet, but it is being done.

[goonys evil twin]

26 isn't "peak age" and you know it. I'm not saying that he'll be good enough to put 2nd in the order, but too many people are already writing off a .600 OPS for him when he's entering the prime of his career. He's not Neifi where he's already over 30, and there's reason for optimism with his BABIP numbers.

 

Everything I've read says that 26 is peak age. 26-29 is typically peak time frame, and guys will on occasion have career years later in life. But expecting a player to be significantly better than he already is at 26 is unwise, especially when that player has been the same terrible player each and every year of his professional career. He's shown absolutely no signs that he's capable of more. I think a 600 OPS is probably low, although I haven't noticed many people writing that as his peak. I think 650 is probably more likely, maybe a bump up to 675 or possibly 700 some year, but all of that is still god awful.

[USSoccer]

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.

Defense may not win championships, but it can certainly lose them. (See Gonzalez, Alex)

 

Every time someone points this out I'm going to point out AGonz's .980 OPS and 4HR's in the postseason, without which no one would ever remember the ground ball to SS.

 

Offense and pitching are so much more important that defense it's not even funny.

[goonys evil twin]

Going through baseballreference.com and comparing age/OPS+, it really is amazing how many guys peak at 25, 26 or 27, take a dip back, then pop back up to that level later on. Some will actually surpass that mark, but not by much. Some will actually take a big step forward later, like Joe Morgan, who was better in his early 30's than he was in his mid to late 20's. One thing that is pretty common as well is finding guys whose careers featured significant injury issues, they appear to be most common among the peak at 25 or 26 crowd, then dip back below.

 

Izturis has major injury issues clouding his career, and he's been consistently poor year in and year out, with a peak toward mediocrity at 24. I'd say it's almost a lock he won't get any better than he's already been in his career, at least not for any extended period of time, ie 2+ years.

[JoshiQ]

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.

 

I thought this was a really good post that got lost in the shuffle. I agree with this completely. From playing through pee-wee to little league and so forth...defense is horribly important. You'd have th 3-4 really good players on your team that would be put in some of the main defensive spots, and they were also usually your best hitters.

 

Everybody else usually was unable to really play defense all that well and that was why it was constantly practiced. It gets in your mindset then that since you practice it so much, it is the most important thing.

 

Until you hit college ball.

[CubColtPacer]

26 isn't "peak age" and you know it. I'm not saying that he'll be good enough to put 2nd in the order, but too many people are already writing off a .600 OPS for him when he's entering the prime of his career. He's not Neifi where he's already over 30, and there's reason for optimism with his BABIP numbers.

 

Everything I've read says that 26 is peak age. 26-29 is typically peak time frame, and guys will on occasion have career years later in life. But expecting a player to be significantly better than he already is at 26 is unwise, especially when that player has been the same terrible player each and every year of his professional career. He's shown absolutely no signs that he's capable of more. I think a 600 OPS is probably low, although I haven't noticed many people writing that as his peak. I think 650 is probably more likely, maybe a bump up to 675 or possibly 700 some year, but all of that is still god awful.

 

Exactly..he is at the start of his peak age, exactly as Tiger stated-he's entering the prime of his career. He's been terrible throughout his career, but he definitely hasn't been the same

at age 22-.232/.253/.303

at age 23-.251/.282/.315 (29 point jump in OBP, and 12 point jump in slugging)

age 24-.288/.330/.381 (48 point jump in OBP, and a 66 point jump in SLG)

age 25 is a completely washed out year because of the injuries-optimists will point out his .342/.388/.425 numbers in April and May, while others will look at the entire injury filled season as a downgrade of .257/.302/.322 (notice-I am not comparing him to Lee's production here-but looking at this season's overall numbers is like looking at Lee's 2006 numbers so far-the numbers with the injury and the numbers without the injury are dramatically different)

age 26-Overall-.259/.314/.341-with a bad BABIP

 

He may still not even be close to an average major league hitter, but he hasn't been consistently the same. He was a shortstop brought up only for his defense whose bat consistently got better before he got hurt-and now we will have to see if he can continue to get better as he enters his prime.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

I thought this was a really good post that got lost in the shuffle. I agree with this completely. From playing through pee-wee to little league and so forth...defense is horribly important. You'd have th 3-4 really good players on your team that would be put in some of the main defensive spots, and they were also usually your best hitters.

 

Everybody else usually was unable to really play defense all that well and that was why it was constantly practiced. It gets in your mindset then that since you practice it so much, it is the most important thing.

 

Until you hit college ball.

 

Excellent points. The difference between the typical defender, the above average defender and the below average defender is just not that big in major league baseball. The worst of the bunch are weeded out before ever coming up here, unless they are absolute superstars with the bats. There is a significant difference between the best of the best and the worst of the worst, but it's not anywhere close to that difference in the minors, college, high school or lower. If you get to the majors as a shortstop, odds are you are pretty darn good as a defender. You might not be as good as many others, but it's not that big of a gap.

[goonys evil twin]

26 isn't "peak age" and you know it. I'm not saying that he'll be good enough to put 2nd in the order, but too many people are already writing off a .600 OPS for him when he's entering the prime of his career. He's not Neifi where he's already over 30, and there's reason for optimism with his BABIP numbers.

 

Everything I've read says that 26 is peak age. 26-29 is typically peak time frame, and guys will on occasion have career years later in life. But expecting a player to be significantly better than he already is at 26 is unwise, especially when that player has been the same terrible player each and every year of his professional career. He's shown absolutely no signs that he's capable of more. I think a 600 OPS is probably low, although I haven't noticed many people writing that as his peak. I think 650 is probably more likely, maybe a bump up to 675 or possibly 700 some year, but all of that is still god awful.

 

Exactly..he is at the start of his peak age, exactly as Tiger stated-he's entering the prime of his career. He's been terrible throughout his career, but he definitely hasn't been the same

at age 22-.232/.253/.303

at age 23-.251/.282/.315 (29 point jump in OBP, and 12 point jump in slugging)

age 24-.288/.330/.381 (48 point jump in OBP, and a 66 point jump in SLG)

age 25 is a completely washed out year because of the injuries-optimists will point out his .342/.388/.425 numbers in April and May, while others will look at the entire injury filled season as a downgrade of .257/.302/.322 (notice-I am not comparing him to Lee's production here-but looking at this season's overall numbers is like looking at Lee's 2006 numbers so far-the numbers with the injury and the numbers without the injury are dramatically different)

age 26-Overall-.259/.314/.341-with a bad BABIP

 

He may still not even be close to an average major league hitter, but he hasn't been consistently the same. He was a shortstop brought up only for his defense whose bat consistently got better before he got hurt-and now we will have to see if he can continue to get better as he enters his prime.

 

You are grossly exagerating the improvement he's had. His OPS+ has been as follows for ages 21-25:

 

69

52

61

88

68

 

That's a career average of 69, with one downside outlier and one upside outlier. He's not poised for a breakout and he's not "likely to improve". We have probably seen the best we will see out of him, and it was probably that 88 in 2004. His injury is not a free pass to pretend he's capable of more, it's a pretty good sign that he will never be the best he could have been if he was always 100% healthy. The average peak year is 26, it can be 24/25, or 28/29, and a guy can pull a career year out of his butt at 32. But it's incorrect to state that he is likely to improve from what he already is, because he is already in his most likely peak time frame. The most likely scenario is that he will stay within the range he has already established as a major leaguer, which varies from absolute crap to just bad.

[abuck1220]

maybe izturis hasn't reached his peak...but even if he isn't, what's that peak going to be? because he sucks big time right now. is he building up to a peak of sucking moderately?

 

i could concede that he'll improve, but it's going to have to be a serious improvement for him to be worthy of a spot in the lineup. and it's going to have to be one hell of a quick improvement if the cubs are going to benefit from it.

[goonys evil twin]

maybe izturis hasn't reached his peak...but even if he isn't, what's that peak going to be? because he sucks big time right now. is he building up to a peak of sucking moderately?

 

i could concede that he'll improve, but it's going to have to be a serious improvement for him to be worthy of a spot in the lineup. and it's going to have to be one hell of a quick improvement if the cubs are going to benefit from it.

 

I do concede that he could improve, but he is not likely to improve. It doesn't make sense to look at a 26 year old who sucked as a minor leaguer and has sucked as a major leaguer and say he is likely to improve upon what he has already done. He could, he might, it's possible, but it's not likely.

 

Being a GM is about giving your team the best chances to win, not building your team on a bunch of long odds. Maybe you'll look like a genius if everything works out for the best, but you have to assume setbacks, and build your team to withstand them. You don't acquire bad players and expect them to get better.

[abuck1220]

agreed. chances are he won't improve. but, if by some stroke of luck, he does improve, he's still going to suck.

 

expecting him to improve at all is asking a lot. expecting him to improve to the point of not being terrible is asking much more than a lot.

[Jon]

Did you know: Izturis is one month older than Rich Hill, 6 months younger than Corey Patterson

 

 

Too many people are ignoring that with Izturis, his offensive performance is likely to improve.

Unlike those guys, though, Izturis has never really produced at any point in his professional career. He had a decent season in advanced A ball (.308/.340/.422) at the age of 19, but that was it. I'm not sure why he skipped AA, but he has a career .271/.311/.351 line in 2212 minor league ABs.

 

I'd imagine his numbers will improve a bit, but I don't see him becoming a hitter that I'd actually want in the lineup.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Did you know: Izturis is one month older than Rich Hill, 6 months younger than Corey Patterson

 

 

Too many people are ignoring that with Izturis, his offensive performance is likely to improve.

Unlike those guys, though, Izturis has never really produced at any point in his professional career. He had a decent season in advanced A ball (.308/.340/.422) at the age of 19, but that was it. I'm not sure why he skipped AA, but he has a career .271/.311/.351 line in 2212 minor league ABs.

 

I'd imagine his numbers will improve a bit, but I don't see him becoming a hitter that I'd actually want in the lineup.

 

Like you noted though, he was very young for all those leagues.

 

I'm not trying to justify the Izturis trade, it's just that I think too many of us are writing him off when there are factors pointing to him improving. And even then, he's likely only a more expensive version of Cedeno, which means the only true damage is the money lost(counterbalanced somewhat by Cedeno being expendable now) and the opportunity to get more for Maddux when we dealt him.

[KingCubsFan]

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.

Defense may not win championships, but it can certainly lose them. (See Gonzalez, Alex)

 

Every time someone points this out I'm going to point out AGonz's .980 OPS and 4HR's in the postseason, without which no one would ever remember the ground ball to SS.

 

Offense and pitching are so much more important that defense it's not even funny.

And every time someone points that out I'm going to, again, point out that defense can lose championships. You can say what you want, but the fact is that AGon blew a routine double play and cost us the World Series. Not Bartman. Especially at shortstop, defense is crucial at that time of the year. I don't really care what Gonzalez hit during the playoffs. If he hit .000 in the series, but made that play, he would have done his job because he wasn't an important part of our offense, but he WAS an important part of our defense, and he blew it. I don't remember any games hinging on Gonzalez's offensive exploits.

[fromthestretch]

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.

Defense may not win championships, but it can certainly lose them. (See Gonzalez, Alex)

 

Every time someone points this out I'm going to point out AGonz's .980 OPS and 4HR's in the postseason, without which no one would ever remember the ground ball to SS.

 

Offense and pitching are so much more important that defense it's not even funny.

And every time someone points that out I'm going to, again, point out that defense can lose championships. You can say what you want, but the fact is that AGon blew a routine double play and cost us the World Series. Not Bartman. Especially at shortstop, defense is crucial at that time of the year. I don't really care what Gonzalez hit during the playoffs. If he hit .000 in the series, but made that play, he would have done his job because he wasn't an important part of our offense, but he WAS an important part of our defense, and he blew it. I don't remember any games hinging on Gonzalez's offensive exploits.

 

You can put just as much blame on Zambrano's Game 1 performance, the offense not showing up for Game 5, Wood's Game 7 performance, etc. It's not all about one play.