Expectations

[craig]

Barrett- Expected-830, over-880, under-790

Lee- Expected-925, over-1000, under-890

DeRosa-Expected-740, over-800, under-700, contract-750

Izturis-Expected-625, over-700, under-600

Ramirez-Expected-915, over-1000, under-875

Murton-Expected-830, over-875, under-790

Jones-Expected-790, over-830, under-750

Soriano-Expected-880, over-950, under-815, contract-950

Pie-710, over-750, under-675 (if Jones is gone and he plays)

 

Zambrano-Expected-3.10, over-2.75, under-3.75

Hill-Expected-3.95, over-3.50, under-4.60

Lilly-Expected-4.25, over-3.99, under-4.70, contract-4.00

Marquis-Expected-4.95, over-4.00, under-4.96, contract-4.5

Prior-Expected-3.85, over-3.00, under-4.50 (If he pitches, I expect great results, the question is IF)

Miller-Expected-4.00, over-3.50, under-4.75 (Unlike Prior, I would not be surprised to see him pitch, but not do well)

..

 

Only a couple of posts, including the original, included specific projections. My own expectations differ some: I think Lee, Pie, Murton, Z, Hill, and Miller are all somewhat overoptimistic, and Marquis, DeRosa and Izturis are a bit pessimistic.

 

But it's interesting that goony's projection has the main players combining to OPS over .800 (the original poster's main group averaged out to .820).

 

Goony's 6 pitchers average out to 4.02 ERA; the original poster's projected starters averaged out to 3.99.

 

I don't think the "expected" numbers are way out of line. As I say, I'd adjust some of them, but these are reasonable projections.

 

If those projections were realized, you'd have a >.500 team. Last year the *lgOPS was .798, the previous year it was .770. If the Cubs produce in the .800-.820 range, scoring won't make winning impossible.

 

Last year, the league *lgERA was 4.67, the year before it was 4.27. If the Cub starters are coming in with a composite ERA around 3.99-4.01, that's going to be a substantially above-average staff. (How far will depend whether the league *lgERA is nearer 4.67 of last year or 4.27 of year before).

 

Do those projected numbers suggest a dominant rotation or a dominant lineup? Perhaps not. But they certainly project an overall team that could finish significantly above .500.

 

Obviously projecting numbers like that is, well, just for fun. For all we know Soriano will get hurt and be replaced by Pagan, and Z will get hurt and get replaced by Mateo. Perhaps injuries of some sort will have Cedeno getting 400 AB or whatever.

 

I'm just saying that using reasonable, non-whacko projection numbers, the Cubs could have a chance to have a pretty good team and win more than 80 games, perhaps well over 80.

[NoDak]

I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion.

 

I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact.

 

I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this."

[goonys evil twin]

I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion.

 

I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact.

 

I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this."

 

It's December 26. The middle of the holiday season. The board is extremely slow. The roster is not yet set, and the only topics of interest getting much attention are Bears related, or transactions. Trying to break down what each position will produce next year and therefore coming up with a final team total, is completely shot in the dark. Whenever somebody predicts anything other than every position being as good or better than last year and the team being much better, they are accused of being overly pessimistic. There isn't much of a chance for a discussion to occur.

[Yeti]

I fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07.

 

maybe i'm being optimistic, i dunno

[CubinNY]

I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion.

 

I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact.

 

I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this."

 

Not one person in this thread has written an opinon without also saying why they think the way they do.

 

As per ususal the poster is making acusations based on nothing but a fantastic sense of martyerdom.

 

To me it's unwarrented to be making specific projections when the team is far from complete. JJ will likely be traded, for whom we don't know. They may bring in Cliff Floyd, but we don't know that yet. They haven't said what they plan to do with CF and we really have no idea what the pitching staff will look like. I fully expect one of the surplus young arms to be traded before the season begins.

 

Again, I think the Cubs will be better than last year. How much better? I don't really know, but I think they have a realistic shot at being around .500.

[Garwilly]

I fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07.

 

maybe i'm being optimistic, i dunno

 

That sounds pessimistic.

[FergieJ31]

I fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07.

 

maybe i'm being optimistic, i dunno

 

Nah ... there'll be a rainout or two that won't be played cuz the Cubs will run away with the division :wink:

 

Seriously, I agree with CubinNY. .500 is a realistic expectation for this team as presently constructed. But even with that over/under, somehow it seems more likely that they'll lose 90 than win 90 ... maybe it's a skewed distribution.

 

Someone (I forget who) on NSBB did a position-by-position WARP analysis sometime back around the time Soriano was signed, and came up with a number close to .500 for the Cubs, which sounds about right to me. If I can find the thread I'll post a link - that might be the sort of argument or analysis jjgman wants to see?

 

The biggest unknown - the biggest source of variance - is Prior IMO. The extremes between late 2003 and 2006 are extraordinary. Which Prior will show up when he finally takes the mound? (i.e. will he be healthy but I hate that cliche.) There's a big difference in expected wins on him alone.

[Yeti]

I fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07.

 

maybe i'm being optimistic, i dunno

 

That sounds pessimistic.

nah, pessimistic would be "i fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07 and im going to be forced to watch them all"

[CubinNY]

I fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07.

 

maybe i'm being optimistic, i dunno

 

Nah ... there'll be a rainout or two that won't be played cuz the Cubs will run away with the division :wink:

 

Seriously, I agree with CubinNY. .500 is a realistic expectation for this team as presently constructed. But even with that over/under, somehow it seems more likely that they'll lose 90 than win 90 ... maybe it's a skewed distribution.

 

Someone (I forget who) on NSBB did a position-by-position WARP analysis sometime back around the time Soriano was signed, and came up with a number close to .500 for the Cubs, which sounds about right to me. If I can find the thread I'll post a link - that might be the sort of argument or analysis jjgman wants to see?

 

The biggest unknown - the biggest source of variance - is Prior IMO. The extremes between late 2003 and 2006 are extraordinary. Which Prior will show up when he finally takes the mound? (i.e. will he be healthy but I hate that cliche.) There's a big difference in expected wins on him alone.

Yep. Prior and Wood are the big unkowns here. Right now I don't see the Cubs becoming an offensive juggernaut so if Prior can maintain an ERA in 3 range for 25 starts I will like the Cubs chances even better.

 

If Wood can manage to pitch on consecutive days the majority of the time and be very good, the Cub could shorten a lot of games to six or seven innings.

 

Those are huge ? in themselves. As I wrote earlier, I hope the Cubs can stay in contention until the trade deadline. If so, I will like the Cubs chances even more.

[BigbadB]

I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this."

 

That's a reasonable request, but some posters may not feel inclined to back up their sentiments with much more than a blanket opinion at this point and time. Some, and I really hate using a point Goony made :D , may want to wait until the offseason is done, have more info on Prior's health, etc... before they make a more analyzed opinion. I know I'm waiting.

 

It's probably just better to dismiss an opinion that doesn't meet your expectations rather than complain about it. Otherwise, you end up getting completely off course from the original intent of the thread. This thread is a perfect example.

 

Now, to get back on topic, admittedly, I am pessimistic about this coming season. I did briefly discuss each transaction in another thread and I gave Hendry a "B" grade for the offseason moves to date. I don't find a "B" grade to be a pessimistic grade, but actually I think it is. Why? Because with the improvements this team needed to make this offseason and the available money to spend, there is no excuse for not getting an "A". This team needed to make major improvements and I don't think they've done that. They get a "B" for recognizing the biggest needs and addressing them, but I'm not sure it's enough to get them much over .500 in a division that I think will be better than last year. Pittsburgh and Milwaukee are two teams that I think will be better as their young players continue to develop. St. Louis and Houston may be taking a step back at this point, but will it be enough of a step back to continue calling the NL Central the weakest division in baseball? I'm not so sure.

[goonys evil twin]

If Wood can manage to pitch on consecutive days the majority of the time and be very good, the Cub could shorten a lot of games to six or seven innings.

 

You hoping for 120 appearances? :D

 

I'll take consecutive weeks.

If he can manage to pitch twice a week for 26 weeks we'll probably be pretty happy with the results. 50 appearances, 60-75 innings, I'm guessing we'd be ecstatic with the results of such a season.

[NoDak]

I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this."

 

That's a reasonable request, but some posters may not feel inclined to back up their sentiments with much more than a blanket opinion at this point and time. Some, and I really hate using a point Goony made :D , may want to wait until the offseason is done, have more info on Prior's health, etc... before they make a more analyzed opinion. I know I'm waiting.

 

It's probably just better to dismiss an opinion that doesn't meet your expectations rather than complain about it. Otherwise, you end up getting completely off course from the original intent of the thread. This thread is a perfect example.

 

Now, to get back on topic, admittedly, I am pessimistic about this coming season. I did briefly discuss each transaction in another thread and I gave Hendry a "B" grade for the offseason moves to date. I don't find a "B" grade to be a pessimistic grade, but actually I think it is. Why? Because with the improvements this team needed to make this offseason and the available money to spend, there is no excuse for not getting an "A". This team needed to make major improvements and I don't think they've done that. They get a "B" for recognizing the biggest needs and addressing them, but I'm not sure it's enough to get them much over .500 in a division that I think will be better than last year. Pittsburgh and Milwaukee are two teams that I think will be better as their young players continue to develop. St. Louis and Houston may be taking a step back at this point, but will it be enough of a step back to continue calling the NL Central the weakest division in baseball? I'm not so sure.

 

You are correct that there is still a lot of off-season left and that things can change dramatically before (and after for that matter) opening day. However, I do think that there have been improvements made (it would be difficult to get much worse). Honestly, I don't think that a B is really that bad of a grade at this point, but that is me. With all the problems with this team I don't think it is realistic to have them all "corrected" by this point in the off season and maybe not even this year.

[goonys evil twin]

Honestly, I don't think that a B is really that bad of a grade at this point, but that is me. With all the problems with this team I don't think it is realistic to have them all "corrected" by this point in the off season and maybe not even this year.

 

That's the problem though. Jim's been primarily responsible for this team having so many problems, and he needed an A to fix his own mistakes. He's not the new guy sorting through the mess.

[CubsWin]

Honestly, I don't think that a B is really that bad of a grade at this point, but that is me. With all the problems with this team I don't think it is realistic to have them all "corrected" by this point in the off season and maybe not even this year.

 

That's the problem though. Jim's been primarily responsible for this team having so many problems, and he needed an A to fix his own mistakes. He's not the new guy sorting through the mess.

Yes and no.

 

Jim's is primarily responsible for this team being 27 games over .500 in his first three years after having been 46 games under .500 in the three years prior to his arrival as GM. He is only partially responsible for the complete debacle last year was yet more responsible for the fact that the Cubs haven't made it to the playoffs since '03.

 

Jim is responsible for missing out on Beltran. He is responsible for not having a better bench. He is definitely responsible for not having a better back-up plan for Wood and for a poor trade for Pierre. He is responsible for taking a gamble on Prior's health last season, though it was probably a pretty safe gamble because he really didn't have much reason to think he wouldn't be okay. Prior's health history was excellent before '05 with his only injuries being flukes. I hold him responsible for not doing enough to get the Cubs into the playoffs in '04 and '05.

 

However, he is only partially responsible for the "mess" the Cubs were last season. Hendry is not responsible for Lee's injury. Or for the unexpected length of Prior's comeback and his poor performance when he did return. He's not responsible for Wood's injury. He is not responsible for Jerome Williams's or Glendon Rusch's collapse, or for the way Hill pitched in May. He's not responsible for the terrible performance of Ronny Cedeno all year long. Two rookies put up promising numbers in '05, Murton and Cedeno. One of them continued to produce, the other disappeared in a big way. He's responsible for not having a better back-up SS to take over for Cedeno, but not for the depths to which Cedeno failed and the number of losses in which that resulted. He's not responsible for the way some of the rookie pitchers failed to perform. He is responsible for having to rely on them, but if you had polled Cubs fans prior to the season, I bet many of them would have predicted better performances out of Guzman and Marshall. He's not responsible for the poor performance out of Dempster. It would have been logical to expect some regression from '05, but 1-9, 4.80? All of those things had just as much if not more impact on the mess of a season the Cubs had last year than anything Hendry did or did not do.

 

There is something else at play here also. Hendry inherited a team in '02 that wasn't great. Hundley at catcher. Stynes at 3B. A stopgap McGriff at first. Jason Bere in the rotation. An underachieving Corey in CF, and a declining Sosa in RF. Not pretty. He got lucky in his first season, '03, and the Cubs overachieved. That set expectations higher than they really should have been. When the Cubs didn't return to their previous level, everyone was disappointed, but they forgot from whence they came. Hendry took a franchise that was 46 games under .500 the 3 years prior to him taking over and was a collective 27 games over .500 in the next three despite a declining superstar and major injuries to star pitchers. That's from whence we came.

 

Last year, everything that could have gone wrong did. Some of it is definitely Hendry's fault. A lot of it is no one's in particular. It is shared by the manager, the players and freak injuries to the team's best players.

[soccer10k]

I fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07.

 

maybe i'm being optimistic, i dunno

 

That sounds pessimistic.

nah, pessimistic would be "i fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07 and im going to be forced to watch them all"

 

:lmao:

[goonys evil twin]

Honestly, I don't think that a B is really that bad of a grade at this point, but that is me. With all the problems with this team I don't think it is realistic to have them all "corrected" by this point in the off season and maybe not even this year.

 

That's the problem though. Jim's been primarily responsible for this team having so many problems, and he needed an A to fix his own mistakes. He's not the new guy sorting through the mess.

Yes and no.

 

Jim's is primarily responsible for this team being 27 games over .500 in his first three years after having been 46 games under .500 in the three years prior to his arrival as GM. He is only partially responsible for the complete debacle last year was yet more responsible for the fact that the Cubs haven't made it to the playoffs since '03.

 

That is about as convenient, and ridiculous, of an excuse as you could come up with. He's primarily responsible for the success but only partially responsible for the failures. They are under .500 with him as GM, despite having one of the top payrolls in the league during his entire run. There's no reason to sugarcoat it. It's been a disaster.

[thedaymen]

I expect the Cubs to contend within their division.

[jjgman21]

that might be the sort of argument or analysis jjgman wants to see?

 

 

no, I was just trying to be a martyr.

 

 

 

 

 

this is a 92 win team. 100+ if they get a couple breaks.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

that might be the sort of argument or analysis jjgman wants to see?

 

 

no, I was just trying to be a martyr.

 

 

 

 

 

this is a 92 win team. 100+ if they get a couple breaks.

 

I hope what you believe is true, but I don't see a 92 win team unless the Prior of 2003-2004 shows up. If that happens, maybe.

 

But right now, I think the Cubs are an 84-88 win team. We might contend in a weak division, but I don't see 90+ wins from this team.

 

It might happen if Rich Hill continues to pitch like he did in the second half and Prior returns healthy and effictive. If that's the case, this team could be very good. But those are huge "ifs" and even with those, we have to hope that Marquis is effective or if not, the Cubs are willing to cut bait and eat a lot of money while someone takes his place. I would love to see 100 wins from a Cubs team, I just don't think the current 2007 version can produce that.

[jjgman21]

that might be the sort of argument or analysis jjgman wants to see?

 

 

no, I was just trying to be a martyr.

 

 

 

 

 

this is a 92 win team. 100+ if they get a couple breaks.

 

I hope what you believe is true, but I don't see a 92 win team unless the Prior of 2003-2004 shows up. If that happens, maybe.

 

But right now, I think the Cubs are an 84-88 win team. We might contend in a weak division, but I don't see 90+ wins from this team.

 

It might happen if Rich Hill continues to pitch like he did in the second half and Prior returns healthy and effictive. If that's the case, this team could be very good. But those are huge "ifs" and even with those, we have to hope that Marquis is effective or if not, the Cubs are willing to cut bait and eat a lot of money while someone takes his place. I would love to see 100 wins from a Cubs team, I just don't think the current 2007 version can produce that.

 

I was being sarcastic. I think this is an 88 win team as it stands right now. if the two ifs you describe work out, it's probably around a 96-97 win team. that would make Z the third best pitcher on the Cubs.

[BigbadB]

I think the division will be a lot more competitive this coming year. Milwaukee could be adding a lot in the rotation with a healthy Sheets, Suppan and development of Bush.

 

Pittsburgh's rotation could be quite a bit better with experience, and I really like how their offense is shaping up.

 

Cincinnati is the only team that I think doesn't bring much to the table in 2007 in the NL Central.

 

That could pose problems for a wild card in the NL Central.

[CubsWin]

Honestly, I don't think that a B is really that bad of a grade at this point, but that is me. With all the problems with this team I don't think it is realistic to have them all "corrected" by this point in the off season and maybe not even this year.

 

That's the problem though. Jim's been primarily responsible for this team having so many problems, and he needed an A to fix his own mistakes. He's not the new guy sorting through the mess.

Yes and no.

 

Jim's is primarily responsible for this team being 27 games over .500 in his first three years after having been 46 games under .500 in the three years prior to his arrival as GM. He is only partially responsible for the complete debacle last year was yet more responsible for the fact that the Cubs haven't made it to the playoffs since '03.

 

That is about as convenient, and ridiculous, of an excuse as you could come up with. He's primarily responsible for the success but only partially responsible for the failures. They are under .500 with him as GM, despite having one of the top payrolls in the league during his entire run. There's no reason to sugarcoat it. It's been a disaster.

That is about as unfair and unbalanced a response as you could come up with.

 

Once again, a thoughtful, well supported post gets responded to in an overly simplified way where the bulk of the points made gets boiled down to just one and responded to in a closed-minded way. Poor response, goon.

 

Any team's victories are a result of good fortune and the players the GM has chosen performing well and winning, do they not? Their losses, if there are no extenuating and debilitating circumstances, are the result of a poor team having been put together.

 

However, as anyone with an open enough mind can see, the Cubs losses of the last couple of seasons are a not solely a result of the players Hendry has chosen simply not performing well enough to win. They are partially a result of some pretty horrific and debilitating injuries. To close your eyes to this fact is unfair and unbalanced.

 

You're the one who wants to boil everything down to wins and losses, but you don't want to do it in context. Why look at the three years before Hendry became GM? Because it gives us an accurate context in which to understand Hendry's performance. Why bother to look at the circumstances under which these losses happened? Because it generates fairness and accuracy. Context, accuracy and fairness make our opinions hold up under scrutiny. Your opinion of Hendry's performance in this case fails to hold up under scrutiny because it lacks any of the above three qualities.