A's get it done!

[Guest]

pitching prevents runs. hitting scores runs. whoever scores more wins. my point isn't so much that luck isn't a huge factor, it is, but that you can't just say a team lost because they got outpitched. they also got outhit. what you are saying is subjective.

[goonys evil twin]

pitching prevents runs. hitting scores runs. whoever scores more wins. my point isn't so much that luck isn't a huge factor, it is, but that you can't just say a team lost because they got outpitched. they also got outhit. what you are saying is subjective.

 

Subjective? The terms outpitching and outhit are subjective. They imply a group of individuals did a better job than another group of individuals, when in fact there is no proper comparison. Luck plays a huge role in whether one team beats another in any given game. An objective look at any one game could come to the conclusion that the losing team did not necessarily get outhit or outpitched.

[Guest]

no - objective would be purely fact based. if the other team scores more than you they outhit you and outpitched you (you would have to consider defense part of pitching). Your view is subjective because you are making judgements about situations and who should be better than who. from a purely objective, or statistical standpoint, the team that scores more has outhit and outpitched the other team.

[goonys evil twin]

no - objective would be purely fact based. if the other team scores more than you they outhit you and outpitched you (you would have to consider defense part of pitching).

 

What if you scored on an error?

 

Outpitch and outhit are pretty useless phrases.

[RynoRules]

no - objective would be purely fact based. if the other team scores more than you they outhit you and outpitched you (you would have to consider defense part of pitching).

 

What if you scored on an error?

 

Outpitch and outhit are pretty useless phrases.

 

Agreed. Unless they arfe understood to exclude "luck" factors, like errors or misplays not scored as errors, etc.

[Guest]

no - objective would be purely fact based. if the other team scores more than you they outhit you and outpitched you (you would have to consider defense part of pitching).

 

What if you scored on an error?

 

Outpitch and outhit are pretty useless phrases.

 

An error would be defense, no? I agree they are useless -that was my point.

[CuseCubFan69]

Leyland tells the pitcher not to worry about the runners. I thought that MLB pitchers never worry about runners, or so I've been told here, that speed or the threat of a stolen base never enters the pitchers mind and he can always concentrate on the hitters.

[Sammy Sofa]

Leyland tells the pitcher not to worry about the runners. I thought that MLB pitchers never worry about runners, or so I've been told here, that speed or the threat of a stolen base never enters the pitchers mind and he can always concentrate on the hitters.

 

Maybe I'm recalling incorrectly, but I think most of those sentiments were in reply to the idea that the very presence of Juan Pierre every time he was on base was going to drive even the most skilled pitcher to crap the bed.

 

In the right situation, ANY baserunner can possibly get the pitcher's attention. Most of the time, however, it ain't no thang.

[biittner77]

Interesting comments from Lou Piniella

 

"Sooner or later these baserunners are going to score. It might not be tonight but they will score."

and Steve Lyons

 

"Walt Hriniak never worried about runners left on base. If we keep getting men on base they're bound to score eventually."

 

If they're not careful, they're going to be labeled stat geeks.

 

Perhaps that's why they kept lamenting Oaklands lack of speed.

[Soul]

no - objective would be purely fact based. if the other team scores more than you they outhit you and outpitched you (you would have to consider defense part of pitching).

 

What if you scored on an error?

 

Outpitch and outhit are pretty useless phrases.

 

An error would be defense, no? I agree they are useless -that was my point.

 

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a manner of speaking. If you shut down the other team's hitting, then they say "see? good pitching stops good hitting." If you got blasted, then they just say your pitching stunk.

 

Still, that never stops the pundits from rolling out that particular catch phrase every playoffs. "Good pitching stops good hitting!" Well yeah----because if the other team gets hits, then your Cy Young pitcher just plain stunk.

[goonys evil twin]

no - objective would be purely fact based. if the other team scores more than you they outhit you and outpitched you (you would have to consider defense part of pitching).

 

What if you scored on an error?

 

Outpitch and outhit are pretty useless phrases.

 

An error would be defense, no? I agree they are useless -that was my point.

 

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a manner of speaking. If you shut down the other team's hitting, then they say "see? good pitching stops good hitting." If you got blasted, then they just say your pitching stunk.

 

Still, that never stops the pundits from rolling out that particular catch phrase every playoffs. "Good pitching stops good hitting!" Well yeah----because if the other team gets hits, then your Cy Young pitcher just plain stunk.

 

Exactly. It's easy to say the White Sox great pitching stopped everybody's great hitting, after they've done it. But a year later and those same great pitchers aren't great anymore. It's one thing to analyze a game that's been played, and another to analyze who you should acquire to play future games. Simply saying great pitching beats great hitting does not mean ignore your offense, stock up on pitchers. Pitching is inconsistent. The Mets have gotten a great overall year out of a staff whose only great starter coming into the season has been a huge disappointment. On the surface, without Pedro, it was a mediocre staff at best. But they've actually been very good without getting anything from him.

 

The goal should be to get the best players you can get at every position. Don't settle for mediocrity on offense because you have to concentrate on great pitching. Great pitching is not guaranteed. Get good on both sides and then hope your good pitching turns in a great year.

[Guest]

You don't have to look any further than the NLCS to see that great starters are not a requirement for success. The fifth best starter in that series has a negative VORP. Carpenter is the only great starter in the entire series. And you can't point to pedro - he is not the pitcher he used to be by any stretch.

[Magnetic Curses]

no - objective would be purely fact based. if the other team scores more than you they outhit you and outpitched you (you would have to consider defense part of pitching).

 

What if you scored on an error?

 

Outpitch and outhit are pretty useless phrases.

 

i agree, and shouldn't have posted the term "outpitched". what it all comes down to is that the playoffs are a complete crapshoot, the best team wins about as much as every other team in the playoffs.

 

all you can do, if you are a team other than the yankees, is build a team for the regular season and hope they get lucky in the playoffs.

[Magnetic Curses]

You don't have to look any further than the NLCS to see that great starters are not a requirement for success. The fifth best starter in that series has a negative VORP. Carpenter is the only great starter in the entire series. And you can't point to pedro - he is not the pitcher he used to be by any stretch.

 

again, weird things happen. an average team like the cardinals amkes the postseason due to the ineptness of every other team in the central, and then win 3 out of 4 from probably a superior team.

 

it would not surprise me to see tha cards win the series. things like this happen.

[goonys evil twin]

You don't have to look any further than the NLCS to see that great starters are not a requirement for success. The fifth best starter in that series has a negative VORP. Carpenter is the only great starter in the entire series. And you can't point to pedro - he is not the pitcher he used to be by any stretch.

 

Plus, he's inactive. :D

 

I was fearing that Hendry would fill the rotation with mediocre innings eaters, but I'm beginning to think that's not a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have lock down guys. But as long as they are not blocking the path of young guns coming up, there's nothing wrong with having a 200 IP decent pitcher. This is not in support of somebody like Trachsel, with his 87 ERA+. Rather, it's in support of a guy like Padilla, who is a good bet to give you an above average season and significant innings, and still has some upside for having a very good year. It's not in support of somebody like Kris Benson, who struggles to go many innings and is usually below average.

 

But, the only way you can do this, is if you significantly upgrade the offense. If you settle for a mediocre offense, you need a great pitching staff. And it's much more difficult to guarantee a great pitching staff than a great lineup.

[Magnetic Curses]

You don't have to look any further than the NLCS to see that great starters are not a requirement for success. The fifth best starter in that series has a negative VORP. Carpenter is the only great starter in the entire series. And you can't point to pedro - he is not the pitcher he used to be by any stretch.

 

Plus, he's inactive. :D

 

I was fearing that Hendry would fill the rotation with mediocre innings eaters, but I'm beginning to think that's not a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have lock down guys. But as long as they are not blocking the path of young guns coming up, there's nothing wrong with having a 200 IP decent pitcher. This is not in support of somebody like Trachsel, with his 87 ERA+. Rather, it's in support of a guy like Padilla, who is a good bet to give you an above average season and significant innings, and still has some upside for having a very good year. It's not in support of somebody like Kris Benson, who struggles to go many innings and is usually below average.

 

But, the only way you can do this, is if you significantly upgrade the offense. If you settle for a mediocre offense, you need a great pitching staff. And it's much more difficult to guarantee a great pitching staff than a great lineup.

 

it would be more expensive to field a great lineup. plus, as i've pointed out, it's harder to make the playoffs without at least a good pitching staff. over the last five years, it's been 33% tougher, actually.

 

significantly upgrading the lineup after 2006 will be extremely difficult, especially with the way hendry goes about things. it appears that hendry just doesn't get it when it comes to offensive players. i'd rather him stick to what he does better than to trust him to put together a "great" lineup. this is a guy who thought that juan pierre was the missing piece to a great offense.

[goonys evil twin]

it would be more expensive to field a great lineup. plus, as i've pointed out, it's harder to make the playoffs without at least a good pitching staff. over the last five years, it's been 33% tougher, actually.

 

significantly upgrading the lineup after 2006 will be extremely difficult, especially with the way hendry goes about things. it appears that hendry just doesn't get it when it comes to offensive players. i'd rather him stick to what he does better than to trust him to put together a "great" lineup. this is a guy who thought that juan pierre was the missing piece to a great offense.

 

What does he do best? It's certainly not field a great pitching staff, because he took what was a great pitching staff before he got the job, and ruined it. His lack of attention to walks has been as big a problem on the pitching side as it has on the hitting side. In fact, the best players he's acquired at the big league level have all been hitters.

 

I completely disagree about it being more expensive to significantly upgrade the 2006 lineup. Your solution to fixing the rotatin is signing 2 very expensive starting pitchers, all of whom have stability questions.

 

I want a top five run scoring team and a top 5 run preventing team. That's not asking too much. Limiting ourselves because certain teams got away with it for one year (and then got worse) doesn't make sense to me. This isn't a team that has to limit itself becasue of payroll. This should not be an either/or team.

[jmajew]

it would be more expensive to field a great lineup. plus, as i've pointed out, it's harder to make the playoffs without at least a good pitching staff. over the last five years, it's been 33% tougher, actually.

 

significantly upgrading the lineup after 2006 will be extremely difficult, especially with the way hendry goes about things. it appears that hendry just doesn't get it when it comes to offensive players. i'd rather him stick to what he does better than to trust him to put together a "great" lineup. this is a guy who thought that juan pierre was the missing piece to a great offense.

 

What does he do best? It's certainly not field a great pitching staff, because he took what was a great pitching staff before he got the job, and ruined it. His lack of attention to walks has been as big a problem on the pitching side as it has on the hitting side. In fact, the best players he's acquired at the big league level have all been hitters.

 

I completely disagree about it being more expensive to significantly upgrade the 2006 lineup. Your solution to fixing the rotatin is signing 2 very expensive starting pitchers, all of whom have stability questions.

 

I want a top five run scoring team and a top 5 run preventing team. That's not asking too much. Limiting ourselves because certain teams got away with it for one year (and then got worse) doesn't make sense to me. This isn't a team that has to limit itself becasue of payroll. This should not be an either/or team.

 

I am of the belief that pitching and defense wins Championships. However, that only rings true when you have an above average offense. The White Sox scored the 14th most runs in 2005 so their offense was above average. Yes their pitching won them the championship but their offense wasn't going to kill them. The simple fact of the matter is we either have to improve our pitching alot to make them top level and then improve the offense just enough to make them average or we need to improve the offense to top level and make the pitching atleast average. I think it will be more cost effective to make the pitching top level and the offense average. Then next offseason you tinker to get the offense into the top ten.

[Magnetic Curses]

it would be more expensive to field a great lineup. plus, as i've pointed out, it's harder to make the playoffs without at least a good pitching staff. over the last five years, it's been 33% tougher, actually.

 

significantly upgrading the lineup after 2006 will be extremely difficult, especially with the way hendry goes about things. it appears that hendry just doesn't get it when it comes to offensive players. i'd rather him stick to what he does better than to trust him to put together a "great" lineup. this is a guy who thought that juan pierre was the missing piece to a great offense.

 

What does he do best? It's certainly not field a great pitching staff, because he took what was a great pitching staff before he got the job, and ruined it. His lack of attention to walks has been as big a problem on the pitching side as it has on the hitting side. In fact, the best players he's acquired at the big league level have all been hitters.

 

notice i didn't say "best", i said "better". i have no idea what he does best because he doesn't do much very well.

 

as far as him not acquiring much pitching, he hasn't had to before this offseason. he built the minor league system based on pitching, so i would say he's a good judge of pitching talent, at least.

 

what he DID do was allow dusty baker to destroy the staff and allow rothschild to keep his job.

 

I completely disagree about it being more expensive to significantly upgrade the 2006 lineup. Your solution to fixing the rotatin is signing 2 very expensive starting pitchers, all of whom have stability questions.

 

okay, give me your plan of action as to how we can significantly upgrade our lineup without breaking the bank. and tell me again how schmidt and zito have stability questions.

 

I want a top five run scoring team and a top 5 run preventing team. That's not asking too much. Limiting ourselves because certain teams got away with it for one year (and then got worse) doesn't make sense to me. This isn't a team that has to limit itself becasue of payroll. This should not be an either/or team.

 

i don't disagree. what i'm saying is that even with assuming a 100 mil payroll next season, there's so much overpaid junk on this team already that it would be near impossible to stay under budget and field a team competitive on both sides of the diamond.

 

i would love to keep aram and trade for arod. i'd love to acquire soriano and CLee. then go out and grab matsuzaka and/or zito. i doubt it happens, and that's the only thing that could save us for next season.

 

our best bet is if hendry tries to field a great pitching staff. and vicente padilla is most certainly not the answer to any question asked, save a couple of very minor ones.

[goonys evil twin]

okay, give me your plan of action as to how we can significantly upgrade our lineup without breaking the bank. and tell me again how schmidt and zito have stability questions.

 

I hesitate to put Zito on such a list, but he has had issues with declining performance. Look at Schmidt's history. He's got a limited history of sustained greatness and innings pitched, plus he's got arm problems every year. I've put together several rosters with between a $100-105m payroll that improves both the pitching and offense. Your insistence on saying it's impossible just holds no water.

 

 

 

our best bet is if hendry tries to field a great pitching staff. and vicente padilla is most certainly not the answer to any question asked, save a couple of very minor ones.

 

Padilla is as good as anybody on the 2005 White Sox outside of Buerhle. They just had career years. Zito is actually much more similar to Padilla than you might want to think. He's an above average innings eater. But because he's a lefty and won the Cy Young, he's going to get a lot more. The biggest difference is that Padilla got hurt after his 2 years of big inning pitching that followed his relief performance. I'd really like Zito, but I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket.

 

 

Teams don't win the World Series by signinig big money free agent pitchers. The only team that has is the Arizona Diamondbacks, an expansion team that greatly increased payroll from a clean slate, and nearly bankrupted the franchise. Chasing after the big money free agent pitchers is a recipe for disaster more often than not. And that is especially true with the old ones like Mussina.

 

The Cubs can and should improve both offense and pitching.

[biittner77]

Adam Melhuse sighting. Remember when people thought he could play catcher?

 

Neifi batting 2nd- further proof that managers like Leyland never look at stats- ever.

[Magnetic Curses]

our best bet is if hendry tries to field a great pitching staff. and vicente padilla is most certainly not the answer to any question asked, save a couple of very minor ones.

 

Padilla is as good as anybody on the 2005 White Sox outside of Buerhle. They just had career years. Zito is actually much more similar to Padilla than you might want to think. He's an above average innings eater. But because he's a lefty and won the Cy Young, he's going to get a lot more. The biggest difference is that Padilla got hurt after his 2 years of big inning pitching that followed his relief performance. I'd really like Zito, but I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket.

 

not exactly a ringing endorsement. saying that they "just had career years" only confuses things. of course they had career years, i'm not advocating the acquisition of any of those pitchers, am i?

 

padilla has been unreliable healthwise over the last 3 years and to call him inconsistent would be an exaggeration. he's not good and he's not reliable, nor could he be considered an innings-eater. to put him in the same breath as zito, a guy who has never had an era+ under 105 while averaging 219 innings per year over 6 seasons is also a major insult to zito.

 

Teams don't win the World Series by signinig big money free agent pitchers. The only team that has is the Arizona Diamondbacks, an expansion team that greatly increased payroll from a clean slate, and nearly bankrupted the franchise.

 

goony, you'd be the first to point out at that bankrupting a franchise like the chicago cubs and bankrupting a franchise like the dbacks are two completely different things.

 

The Cubs can and should improve both offense and pitching.

 

it would be more expensive to chase after balance, than pitching.