Juan Pierre- 2006 NL Hit Leader

[Guest]

While the Cards, Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Dodgers, Mets, and Tigers get players...we get Glendon, Mabry, Neifi, and Freddie 'boom boom' Bynum...

The bottom end of those rosters look a lot like Glendon, Mabry, etc.

 

The problem isn't at the bottom end of the roster. It's at the top end.

 

The problem isn't that we have scrubs - every team does. The problem is that an average Juan Pierre was one of the better players on the team.

 

The problem isn't that Rusch was on the team. The problem was that he was forced into a larger role than desired because of the lack of better options.

 

To fix the team, don't worry so much about the Bynum's. Worry about getting 2-3 impact players and the rest takes care of itself.

[rawaction]

While the Cards, Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Dodgers, Mets, and Tigers get players...we get Glendon, Mabry, Neifi, and Freddie 'boom boom' Bynum...

The bottom end of those rosters look a lot like Glendon, Mabry, etc.

 

The problem isn't at the bottom end of the roster. It's at the top end.

 

The problem isn't that we have scrubs - every team does. The problem is that an average Juan Pierre was one of the better players on the team.

 

The problem isn't that Rusch was on the team. The problem was that he was forced into a larger role than desired because of the lack of better options.

 

To fix the team, don't worry so much about the Bynum's. Worry about getting 2-3 impact players and the rest takes care of itself.

 

But that's bound to happen when you have GM that actively seeks out and values those types of players. Hendry went after Mabry and bullpen help, before a starting RF. He traded something of value and sought after players like Perez, Macias, and Bynum because of their "versatility".

 

I think the bottom end of the roster is a huge problem. Especially, when it is a bottom 6 or 7, instead of a bottom 2. It's quite alright to have Glendon Rusch and Neifi Perez on your team. But when they are your 5th starter and starting SS because the regular goes down, then it's a problem. It's magnified by there being other 25th men on the roster.

 

The Cubs went into this season with Perez, Mabry, Pagan, Bynum, and Blanco on the bench. If the Yanks had that bench to start the year, they wouldn't have made the playoffs. You gotta know players aren't gonna make it thru the entire year. The problems comes when these guys get a ton of playing time because of injuries.

[Soriano12]

The problem isn't that we have scrubs - every team does. .

 

This is my issue with the Cubs in that regard....

 

why can't these scrub roles be filled with young players that have some upside.

 

ie....Is there a point to having a "Neifi Perez" on the roster, when the utility infield role could be filled by a guy like Theirot.

 

Why have a "John Maybre" when you can fill that role with a "Scott Moore"

 

Granted they want some of these young guys to get more PT down in the minors, but I really think they need to stop with the veteran's with no upside, and start integrating more young players into these roles.

[Pinktermite]

Lee Elia and Joey Amalfitano were worse, just for the record...Jim Essian anyone?

 

You guys are way smarter than I am when it comes to statistics and Billybeanisms and such...so I won't attempt arguments that will clearly have me feeding me my own feet.

 

However, why is it that all you guys on here can see this stuff and Jim Hendry can't? Why doesn't he just consult with the guys on here to field a better team? Does anyone know if Jim H lurks on here somewhere?

 

I agree wholeheartedly with using younger players as scrubs. Is there a manager out there that sees it the same way?

[wastra]

Havign scrubs IS a problem on a team managed by a guy who actively says he wants EVERYONE to play as much as possible.

 

When hendry hired Baker, he should have known then that he can't have 3 25th men on a roster, because they'll get 350 at bats each.

 

Lots of teams have those gusy- they just don't play them like regulars.

 

 

 

And I'm not using this as a reason to bash dusty- that's his philosophy for good or bad, and we all knew that before he was hired. We have a GM who built roster totally incompatable with that philosophy, and that's all on Hendry.

[BigbadB]

Lee Elia and Joey Amalfitano were worse, just for the record...Jim Essian anyone?

 

You guys are way smarter than I am when it comes to statistics and Billybeanisms and such...so I won't attempt arguments that will clearly have me feeding me my own feet.

 

However, why is it that all you guys on here can see this stuff and Jim Hendry can't? Why doesn't he just consult with the guys on here to field a better team? Does anyone know if Jim H lurks on here somewhere?

 

I agree wholeheartedly with using younger players as scrubs. Is there a manager out there that sees it the same way?

 

Jim Essian won 4 less games than he lost. Baker was 66-96 with a 95m payroll.

 

The Joey Amalfitano managed team of 1981 is arguably one of the worst Chicago Cubs teams ever assembled. Dusty's 2006 team was most certainly not one of the worst teams ever assembled. Joey wasn't winning many ball games. But, it was pretty much to be expected. Dusty wasn't winning many ball games. With Dusty and the team he was given, he WAS expected to win.

 

Lee Elia took over a team in 1982 that featured a pitching staff that most wouldn't have even heard of outside of a 39 year old Fergie Jenkins. Dusty had Wood, Prior, Zambrano and Maddux.

 

I was not a fan of Elia, but he most certainly did more with less when you compare him and how Dusty did less with more.

[CUBZ99]

Lee Elia and Joey Amalfitano were worse, just for the record...Jim Essian anyone?

 

You guys are way smarter than I am when it comes to statistics and Billybeanisms and such...so I won't attempt arguments that will clearly have me feeding me my own feet.

 

However, why is it that all you guys on here can see this stuff and Jim Hendry can't? Why doesn't he just consult with the guys on here to field a better team? Does anyone know if Jim H lurks on here somewhere?

 

I agree wholeheartedly with using younger players as scrubs. Is there a manager out there that sees it the same way?

 

Jim Essian won 4 less games than he lost. Baker was 66-96 with a 95m payroll.

 

The Joey Amalfitano managed team of 1981 is arguably one of the worst Chicago Cubs teams ever assembled. Dusty's 2006 team was most certainly not one of the worst teams ever assembled. Joey wasn't winning many ball games. But, it was pretty much to be expected. Dusty wasn't winning many ball games. With Dusty and the team he was given, he WAS expected to win.

 

Lee Elia took over a team in 1982 that featured a pitching staff that most wouldn't have even heard of outside of a 39 year old Fergie Jenkins. Dusty had Wood, Prior, Zambrano and Maddux.

 

I was not a fan of Elia, but he most certainly did more with less when you compare him and how Dusty did less with more.

 

There isn't a manager in the game that could have managed the Cubs to a winning season this year. You guys are giving far too much credit to the manager's position. With the amount of young pitchers and utter lack of depth on the bench, the only chance the Cubs had this year to be respectible was to have every regular player on their roster to stay healthy.

 

I'm quite sure that Baker didn't want Jim Hendry to rely on Wood and Prior to be healthy all season. I'm also quite sure that Baker would have rather had a better option at SS than Neifi, and Neifi-lite.

 

Dusty had a great year in 2003, when the GM provided him with a team. The Cubs were respectable, but underperformed in 2004. Could it be due to having Kerry Wood and Mark Prior for about half the year? After 2004, Hendry once again relies on having Wood and Prior in the starting rotation, while letting Clement go. Same in in 2006. Hendry is the person responsible for putting the garbage on the field that we've been seeing since 2005.

[goonys evil twin]

Dusty had a great year in 2003, when the GM provided him with a team. The Cubs were respectable, but underperformed in 2004. Could it be due to having Kerry Wood and Mark Prior for about half the year? After 2004, Hendry once again relies on having Wood and Prior in the starting rotation, while letting Clement go. Same in in 2006. Hendry is the person responsible for putting the garbage on the field that we've been seeing since 2005.

 

Baker is a moron. He did nothing good in 2003, they won just 89 games, and it was all on the arms of the great young pitchers. He ran those arms into the ground and he brought all this on himself. He wanted speedy players, he wanted aggressive players. When you want to play that way, and don't have a HOF player like Bonds getting on base 50% of the time, you are guaranteeing a low OBP, low Runs scored team. And when you run your young arms into the ground with the most abuse in the league, you are going to have troubles.

 

Baker was the wrong manager for this team from day 1. Just because Hendry is also a bad GM doesn't excuse Dusty from his failures.

[CUBZ99]

Dusty had a great year in 2003, when the GM provided him with a team. The Cubs were respectable, but underperformed in 2004. Could it be due to having Kerry Wood and Mark Prior for about half the year? After 2004, Hendry once again relies on having Wood and Prior in the starting rotation, while letting Clement go. Same in in 2006. Hendry is the person responsible for putting the garbage on the field that we've been seeing since 2005.

 

Baker is a moron. He did nothing good in 2003, they won just 89 games, and it was all on the arms of the great young pitchers. He ran those arms into the ground and he brought all this on himself. He wanted speedy players, he wanted aggressive players. When you want to play that way, and don't have a HOF player like Bonds getting on base 50% of the time, you are guaranteeing a low OBP, low Runs scored team. And when you run your young arms into the ground with the most abuse in the league, you are going to have troubles.

 

Baker was the wrong manager for this team from day 1. Just because Hendry is also a bad GM doesn't excuse Dusty from his failures.

 

They go hand in hand. There is no manager that could have made a difference for the Cubs this year. The good year the Cubs had under Baker were a direct relation to the team that Hendry assembled.

 

Baker had the Cubs within one game of the World Series for the first time since 1984. None of his decisions kept the Cubs from reaching the World Series in 2003.

[USSoccer]

None of his decisions kept the Cubs from reaching the World Series in 2003.

 

You're wrong. I can list you 10 decisions off the top of my head that contributed to their NLCS loss, all of which are on Baker.

[BigbadB]

There isn't a manager in the game that could have managed the Cubs to a winning season this year. You guys are giving far too much credit to the manager's position.

 

Nowhere in my post did I say that the Cubs should have had a winning season. Before the season ever started, I penciled in the Cubs as one of the worst teams in the division. That was before the Derrek Lee injury.

 

With that said, Dusty did not make the Cubs a better team. He made them even worse, IMO. He continued to support his aggressive approach even though it hasn't worked.

 

The 2003 team made the playoffs, but it was the pitching that did it for them. The offense was average to below average, and it never really got much better during his tenure. While I'm sure it's not just Baker's issue, Baker only festered the OBP problems with this team by batting horrible options at the top of the order.

 

2003:

13th in the NL in OBP

14th in the NL in BB

9th in the NL in runs scored

 

2004:

11th in the NL in OBP

14th in the NL in BB

7th in the NL in runs scored

 

2005:

11th in the NL in OBP

16th in the NL in BB

9th in the NL in runs scored

 

2006:

16th in the NL in OBP

16th in the NL in BB

15th in the NL in runs scored

 

The Cubs have not finished higher in OBP than 14th during Dusty's tenure. The Cubs will also show one of the worst OBP's in the two lead off spots over the last 3 years.

 

This organization needs to place more value on getting guys on base. This organization needs to place more value on putting guys that are good at getting on base at the top of the order.

 

I don't blame Baker entirely. I wanted everyone gone all the way up to and including MacPhail.

[USSoccer]

None of his decisions kept the Cubs from reaching the World Series in 2003.

 

You're wrong. I can list you 10 decisions off the top of my head that contributed to their NLCS loss, all of which are on Baker.

 

I'll rattle 'em off right now for you, actually, and I'll just use NLCS decisions, not regular season decisions that helped lead to the loss:

 

#1-Having Mark Guthrie pitch to Mike Lowell, eschewing the feared Lenny Harris/Alfonseca matchup. There's no universe that exists where Lowell should get picthed to for fear of Harris. Lowell promptly hits a GW homerun.

 

#2-Allowing Mark Prior to throw 2 unneccesary innings in a Game 2 blowout. Would have been nice to have those pitches back for Game 6, right? but hey, you had to protect that 10 run lead.

 

#3-Not going out to calm Prior and the IF down after the Bartman play.

 

#4-Not having Farnsworth warming up immediately after.

 

#5-Having Farnsworth come in and intentionally walk the 1st batter he faced.

 

#6-Game 7, not having someone warming up going into the 5th inning, when it was clear that Kerry Wood didn't have it.

 

#7-Leaving Matt Clement in the bullpen, rather than having him come in as a sinkerballer on short rest.

 

#8-6th inning, 2 on, 2 out, down 7-5, he taps Dave Veres to come in and try and stop the bleeding and keep the game within reach. The Cubs' 7th best reliever promptly gives up 2 runs.

 

#9-Using Troy O'Leary in a bases empty situation instead of saving him for when someone might actually be on base. O'Leary hit a solo HR, but that 1 run meant nothing.

 

#10-Ater a leadoff walk by Ramirez in the 9th, the Cubs needed a baserunner badly. He then PH Randall Simon, who has power but no patience, who struck out and effectively ended any hope of a rally.

[soccer10k]

Figured this would be the best thread to post this stat.

 

ML Out Leaders:

1. Juan Pierre 532

2. Jimmy Rollins 521

3. Michael Young 512

4. Jeff Francoeur 507

5. Alfonso Soriano 493

 

The 532 outs Pierre made this year is also tied for the eleventh most outs made in a single season as per baseball-reference

[Lefty]

Figured this would be the best thread to post this stat.

 

ML Out Leaders:

1. Juan Pierre 532

2. Jimmy Rollins 521

3. Michael Young 512

4. Jeff Francoeur 507

5. Alfonso Soriano 493

 

The 532 outs Pierre made this year is also tied for the eleventh most outs made in a single season as per baseball-reference

 

But once again, he is fast and bats leadoff. Someone has to make those outs.

[frostwyrm]

Figured this would be the best thread to post this stat.

 

ML Out Leaders:

1. Juan Pierre 532

2. Jimmy Rollins 521

3. Michael Young 512

4. Jeff Francoeur 507

5. Alfonso Soriano 493

 

Where did you find this data? Could you post a link to the exact page.

[Soul]

I will only say this: tip-toeing our CF strategy around Felix Pie would be a mistake. There's no evidence proving he will ever be a great major league ballplayer.

 

Solidify CF for the here & now. Let the Pie chip fall where it may. That's the only way it should be done. No "stop gaps" waiting for a player who may never arrive.

[goonys evil twin]

I will only say this: tip-toeing our CF strategy around Felix Pie would be a mistake. There's no evidence proving he will ever be a great major league ballplayer.

 

Solidify CF for the here & now. Let the Pie chip fall where it may. That's the only way it should be done. No "stop gaps" waiting for a player who may never arrive.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. But, I'd go with Pie in CF if they somehow ended up with guys like ARod, Cabrera, etc. If not, then CF is a place where they need to find guaranteed improvemenent in production.

[Soul]

I will only say this: tip-toeing our CF strategy around Felix Pie would be a mistake. There's no evidence proving he will ever be a great major league ballplayer.

 

Solidify CF for the here & now. Let the Pie chip fall where it may. That's the only way it should be done. No "stop gaps" waiting for a player who may never arrive.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. But, I'd go with Pie in CF if they somehow ended up with guys like ARod, Cabrera, etc. If not, then CF is a place where they need to find guaranteed improvemenent in production.

 

If you want to go with Pie, then that's fine. I admit the point I'm trying to make is a little difficult. I'm just trying to say-----you can't make policy that tries to anticipate something that can't be anticipated. We'll wind up with some bench player in CF for 1 year because we "think" Pie will be ready to be an all-star in '08. We've seen this before---the guy you have in the minors turns out to be a dud, and you're left with another gaping hole in the lineup.

 

Just make a solid decision for '07, and go with it. If that means you commit to Pie, then great. Do it. If that means you bring in a veteran on a multi-year deal, then fine go for it. But don't tip-toe around, saying Pie's not ready, and we can't sign anyone good because we're waiting for Pie-----and then you wind up with nothing.

[goonys evil twin]

I will only say this: tip-toeing our CF strategy around Felix Pie would be a mistake. There's no evidence proving he will ever be a great major league ballplayer.

 

Solidify CF for the here & now. Let the Pie chip fall where it may. That's the only way it should be done. No "stop gaps" waiting for a player who may never arrive.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. But, I'd go with Pie in CF if they somehow ended up with guys like ARod, Cabrera, etc. If not, then CF is a place where they need to find guaranteed improvemenent in production.

 

If you want to go with Pie, then that's fine. I admit the point I'm trying to make is a little difficult. I'm just trying to say-----you can't make policy that tries to anticipate something that can't be anticipated. We'll wind up with some bench player in CF for 1 year because we "think" Pie will be ready to be an all-star in '08. We've seen this before---the guy you have in the minors turns out to be a dud, and you're left with another gaping hole in the lineup.

 

Just make a solid decision for '07, and go with it. If that means you commit to Pie, then great. Do it. If that means you bring in a veteran on a multi-year deal, then fine go for it. But don't tip-toe around, saying Pie's not ready, and we can't sign anyone good because we're waiting for Pie-----and then you wind up with nothing.

 

Oh, now I get it. Yes, I agree. I hate stopgaps. But, if they can get Mike Cameron on a 2 year deal, I wouldn't complain.

[soccer10k]

Figured this would be the best thread to post this stat.

 

ML Out Leaders:

1. Juan Pierre 532

2. Jimmy Rollins 521

3. Michael Young 512

4. Jeff Francoeur 507

5. Alfonso Soriano 493

 

Where did you find this data? Could you post a link to the exact page.

 

Here is the base page with sortable stats.

 

2006 NL stats

 

2006 AL stats

 

You'll have to scroll down on the 2006 AL and NL stats pages to find the 'Outs' leaders.