Baker: Lee would've won us 10-15 games on his own

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think it's very possible that we would've won 10-15 more games with Lee in the lineup. Certainly a heck of a lot more than the 2-3 that some people were saying when he first went down. That was one of the most absurd things I had ever read.

 

I definitely agree with that. Because of the two infield situations we used most often (Walker at second/Mabry at first, or Neifi at second/Walker at first) Lee's at bats would essentially come at the expense of Neifi/Mabry. If replacing one of the worst hitters in the game with one of the best hitters in the game only results in 2-3 extra wins, then how is a bad team ever going to become good?

 

That's Lee's point. It's not just that he was out, it's that the rest of the guys sucked living butt while he was out. Even with him in the game, if the team around him continued to suck living butt, we still lose. A lot.

 

Is sucking living butt worse than sucking dead butt or is it the other way around? I can never keep it straight.

[YearofDaCubs]

Granted, without Lee in the lineup our offense was abysmal, even moreso with ARamis slumping but that doesn't tell the entire story. Our starting pitching has been downright terrible.

[garsky]

It's one excuse after another. When he's not making an excuse(injuries, rookies), he's setting one up for use later (racist mail). This man is a pathetic, old-school former player who refuses to take any responsibility for the teams poor fundamentals, baserunning gaffs, throwing to the wrong base, no-walk approach. He's gotta go and I believe Hendry sees it now. The season was over by June and I think Hendry realized it. Out of respect he's given him the rest of the season so he doesn't have to fire the man he hired.

 

Here's my conspiracy theory of the day: MacPhail wouldn't let Hendry fire Baker because MacPhail's gonna can 'em both at the end of the year.

 

Discuss.

[C.C.]

It's one excuse after another. When he's not making an excuse(injuries, rookies), he's setting one up for use later (racist mail). This man is a pathetic, old-school former player who refuses to take any responsibility for the teams poor fundamentals, baserunning gaffs, throwing to the wrong base, no-walk approach. He's gotta go and I believe Hendry sees it now. The season was over by June and I think Hendry realized it. Out of respect he's given him the rest of the season so he doesn't have to fire the man he hired.

 

Here's my conspiracy theory of the day: MacPhail wouldn't let Hendry fire Baker because MacPhail's gonna can 'em both at the end of the year.

 

Discuss.

 

No way does that happen. Hendry just signed an extension.

[Catman61]

from ESPN - Elias says

 

Derrek Lee returned to the Cubs lineup and Dusty Baker said, "You can figure he can make up 10, 12 or 15 games by himself." Well, this isn't an exact science, but in the 35 games that Lee has played this year, the Cubs are 16-19, a .457 winning percentage that translates to 74 wins over a 162-game season. In the 96 games Lee has missed, the Cubs are 38-58, a .396 winning percentage that comes out to 64 wins over 162 games. So while Dusty's math is not rocket-science good, it's close enough to explain the loss of D-Lee.

 

fuzzy logic but an interesting take

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2564713

[A New Era]

I think it's very possible that we would've won 10-15 more games with Lee in the lineup. Certainly a heck of a lot more than the 2-3 that some people were saying when he first went down. That was one of the most absurd things I had ever read.

I believe that the comments on 2-3 wins was based on the initial estimate that he was only supposed to miss 6 weeks (or around 1/4 of the season). As others have posted, Lee was worth around 10 wins above a Neifi/Mabry level player last year. Divide that by 4 and you get 2-3 wins.

 

Yes but when you add the total colapse and lack of confidence in themselves and lack of coaching and mental support by a compitent manager. Couldn't you add a handful of wins too? Lee went down, this team went in a TOTAL. . funk.

[Milli1306]

from ESPN - Elias says

 

Derrek Lee returned to the Cubs lineup and Dusty Baker said, "You can figure he can make up 10, 12 or 15 games by himself." Well, this isn't an exact science, but in the 35 games that Lee has played this year, the Cubs are 16-19, a .457 winning percentage that translates to 74 wins over a 162-game season. In the 96 games Lee has missed, the Cubs are 38-58, a .396 winning percentage that comes out to 64 wins over 162 games. So while Dusty's math is not rocket-science good, it's close enough to explain the loss of D-Lee.

 

fuzzy logic but an interesting take

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2564713

 

you know, I bet Dusty had no idea that percentage-wise he was kind right, but still, it is kinda shocking when you look at it that way...regardless, major kudos to DLee for stepping u[ and telling it how it is

[neely crenshaw]

i might even give dusty this fact. he may have been worth 10-15 games for the whole season. when we finish 65 wins...we could assume we that with him we would have been anywhere from 75 to 80 wins..which for 95 mil payroll absolutely blows

[Soul]

With Lee in the lineup, the CUBS are 16-17 and score 4.79 R/G. Without him, they are 38-60 and score 4.03 runs per game.

 

                   AB    R    H   2b   3b   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
CUBS w/Lee       1126  158  311   62   11   32  491  147   88  213  0.276  0.328  0.436  0.764
CUBS without     3354  395  878  158   24   99 1381  378  232  503  0.262  0.313  0.412  0.725

 

That difference of .76 R/G times the 98 games he's missed comes to 74.48 runs, or approximately 7 wins. What really killed the team when Lee was out is the fact that the pitching went into the tank as well.

 

                     IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
CUBS w/Lee        289.7  264  158  143  134  253   47  4.16  7.86  1.46  1.37  4.44
CUBS without      862.0  881  519  476  417  702  124  4.35  7.33  1.29  1.51  4.97

 

The CUBS' pitching went from 4.79 R/G to 5.30, accounting for another 50 runs, or approximately 5 wins.

 

Those 12 wins make the CUBS 66-65 on the season, and all of that plus $1.39 will buy you coffee down at the truckstop, no?

 

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee.

 

However, it seems pretty likely that this wasn't a playoff contender with or without our guy.

[stitchface]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

[UMFan83]

Since Lee went down, there have only been 25 losses decided by 2 runs or loss. So if Lee was in there, he would have made the difference in 60% of those games I am guessing?? (15/25)

[Mizzou]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee. As another poster alluded to, the team surely lost a ton of confidence when their best player went down. And that's not even to mention the loss of his Gold Glove at first. So no, stats can't "exactly" measure the loss of a player of his caliber.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee. As another poster alluded to, the team surely lost a ton of confidence when their best player went down. And that's not even to mention the loss of his Gold Glove at first. So no, stats can't "exactly" measure the loss of a player of his caliber.

 

But Dusty and other posters can?

[Mizzou]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee. As another poster alluded to, the team surely lost a ton of confidence when their best player went down. And that's not even to mention the loss of his Gold Glove at first. So no, stats can't "exactly" measure the loss of a player of his caliber.

 

But Dusty and other posters can?

Dusty gave a range, and what poster tried to exactly measure the impact of Lee's injury, without using stats?

 

*edited for clarity

[treebird]

Since Lee went down, there have only been 25 losses decided by 2 runs or loss. So if Lee was in there, he would have made the difference in 60% of those games I am guessing?? (15/25)

 

it seems as though you are saying lee is worth 1.5 runs (the average of the 1 or 2 runs we lost the games by) a game in 60% of games. in the other 40%, let's just say he's worth nothing.

 

60% of the games = 97.2

1.5 runs times 97.2 = 145.8

145.8 divided by 10 runs per win = 14.58

 

derrek lee was worth 13 wins last year. this scenario requires him to be considerably more valuable this season, and it's important to keep in mind that i'm being very generous in assigning no value to the other 40% of his games. crediting him for the positive things he does there would only makes it appear even more dubious that he could potentially be worth so much.

 

single players just simply are not worth as much as people naturally assume.

[stitchface]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee. As another poster alluded to, the team surely lost a ton of confidence when their best player went down. And that's not even to mention the loss of his Gold Glove at first. So no, stats can't "exactly" measure the loss of a player of his caliber.

 

if there is psychological effect, that will be reflected in the other player's performances. so, did the other players play worse than normal after lee got hurt? Seems pretty simple to evaluate statistically to me. if the other players didn't play worse, then the psychological effect doesn't exist.

[Mizzou]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee. As another poster alluded to, the team surely lost a ton of confidence when their best player went down. And that's not even to mention the loss of his Gold Glove at first. So no, stats can't "exactly" measure the loss of a player of his caliber.

 

if there is psychological effect, that will be reflected in the other player's performances. so, did the other players play worse than normal after lee got hurt? Seems pretty simple to evaluate statistically to me. if the other players didn't play worse, then the psychological effect doesn't exist.

I don't really have the time, nor the desire, to look that up. But either way, I think it's kind of silly to say that there isn't a physchological effect of losing your best hitter on an already anemic offense.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't really have the time, nor the desire, to look that up. But either way, I think it's kind of silly to say that there isn't a physchological effect of losing your best hitter on an already anemic offense.

 

But if there was, it would be measured in how much less productive the hitters were. If they weren't any worse, you couldn't say they were affected. You could say they were bummed, but the question is whether or not it affected their production. There really haven't been many underperformers this season, as far as their performance vs what was expected. So there isn't much evidence that they performed worse because of Lee's absence.

 

Your theory assumes the players are all weak willed and crumble in the face of adversity. It's just as likely, or maybe moreso, considering they are world class athletes, that the players actually performed better.

[soccer10k]

Psh. Dusty's just plain wrong on this. A healthy Derrek Lee would have guaranteed the Cubs a World Series victory this year.

[stitchface]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee. As another poster alluded to, the team surely lost a ton of confidence when their best player went down. And that's not even to mention the loss of his Gold Glove at first. So no, stats can't "exactly" measure the loss of a player of his caliber.

 

if there is psychological effect, that will be reflected in the other player's performances. so, did the other players play worse than normal after lee got hurt? Seems pretty simple to evaluate statistically to me. if the other players didn't play worse, then the psychological effect doesn't exist.

I don't really have the time, nor the desire, to look that up. But either way, I think it's kind of silly to say that there isn't a physchological effect of losing your best hitter on an already anemic offense.

 

which isn't what I said - what I said was that effect could be measured if it exists.

[abuck1220]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee.

 

and there's no proof that unicorns don't exist. but that doesn't mean they do.

[C.C.]

and there's proof that unicorns do exist. but that doesn't mean they do.

 

Fixed!

 

http://www.wherethedevilarewe.co.uk/pictures/unicorn.jpg[/img]

[A New Era]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee.

 

and there's no proof that unicorns don't exist. but that doesn't mean they do.

 

So you mean we are all robots and don't have emmotions? You don't beleive phycology exsists?

[abuck1220]

Stats can't begin to describe the loss to this team of Derek Lee

 

they can exactly describe the loss of DLee.

There isn't a stat that measure the psyhological effects of the loss of DLee.

 

and there's no proof that unicorns don't exist. but that doesn't mean they do.

 

So you mean we are all robots and don't have emmotions? You don't beleive phycology exsists?

 

not what i'm saying at all.

 

you just can't say that something is true (ie lee's injury had a huge emotional effect on the team) and then support it by saying that no one can prove it's not true.

[USSoccer]

I can buy the idea that with Lee out, it contributed mightily to Ramirez's tepid start. Having both of them in the lineup would have definetly helped. I can buy 10 wins. Not that that makes us a good team or anything...