[Amazing_Grace]

Benching Murton for Floyd...sigh. Classic Jim Hendry move. We shouldn't be surprised because we've all seen this before. Did anyone really believe Dusty was solely to blame for all the Neifi Perez, Tony Womack, Todd Hollandsworth, Freddy Bynum, at bats? The organizational philosophy that says you take a high OBP, low power, cheap and young guy and bench him for a washed out vet that has a slightly higher batting average, hits 5 more HR, and has only about a 20 to 30% chance of putting up a better OPS than said young player because the veteran is left handed is... well, a sucky philosophy.

 

I hope this means that he's trading Jones. If not, we get stuck with another washed out old player to block the ONE good position player this org has developed in the past decade. I look at this season as a win-win though. If the Cubs win and make the playoffs, that's great. If they don't, we can be rid of Captain Baseball Cliche Hendry once and for all.

[CubsWin]

Benching Murton for Floyd...sigh. Classic Jim Hendry move. We shouldn't be surprised because we've all seen this before. Did anyone really believe Dusty was solely to blame for all the Neifi Perez, Tony Womack, Todd Hollandsworth, Freddy Bynum, at bats? The organizational philosophy that says you take a high OBP, low power, cheap and young guy and bench him for a washed out vet that has a slightly higher batting average, hits 5 more HR, and has only about a 20 to 30% chance of putting up a better OPS than said young player because the veteran is left handed is... well, a sucky philosophy.

 

I hope this means that he's trading Jones. If not, we get stuck with another washed out old player to block the ONE good position player this org has developed in the past decade. I look at this season as a win-win though. If the Cubs win and make the playoffs, that's great. If they don't, we can be rid of Captain Baseball Cliche Hendry once and for all.

Mark this post down for best crow-eating candidate of the year so far.

 

Where did Hendry say he was benching Murton for Floyd? If someone mused in an article that the Cubs weren't going to resign Aramis, would you believe him, too? Oh wait, that already happened on this board. Never mind. Bad example. If some guy writes an article in which he thinks the Cubs will let Zambrano walk, would you mark it down as a done deal and bash Hendry for it before it actually happened? Oy...

 

Yes, you're right. Hendry is the guy who forced Todd Walker and Nomar Garciaparra to get injured so that Neifi Perez and Tony Womack could get all those at bats because he loves those guys soooooo much. And it was really the leprechaun that hides under Hendry's desk who pulled off the deals for Lee, Ramirez, Garciaparra and Murton without giving up much of anything. Those were just classic leprechaun-under-Jim-Hendry's-desk moves, weren't they. If we could get that leprechaun to be the Cubs GM...

[Amazing_Grace]

Benching Murton for Floyd...sigh. Classic Jim Hendry move. We shouldn't be surprised because we've all seen this before. Did anyone really believe Dusty was solely to blame for all the Neifi Perez, Tony Womack, Todd Hollandsworth, Freddy Bynum, at bats? The organizational philosophy that says you take a high OBP, low power, cheap and young guy and bench him for a washed out vet that has a slightly higher batting average, hits 5 more HR, and has only about a 20 to 30% chance of putting up a better OPS than said young player because the veteran is left handed is... well, a sucky philosophy.

 

I hope this means that he's trading Jones. If not, we get stuck with another washed out old player to block the ONE good position player this org has developed in the past decade. I look at this season as a win-win though. If the Cubs win and make the playoffs, that's great. If they don't, we can be rid of Captain Baseball Cliche Hendry once and for all.

Mark this post down for best crow-eating candidate of the year so far.

 

Where did Hendry say he was benching Murton for Floyd? If someone mused in an article that the Cubs weren't going to resign Aramis, would you believe him, too? Oh wait, that already happened on this board. Never mind. Bad example. If some guy writes an article in which he thinks the Cubs will let Zambrano walk, would you mark it down as a done deal and bash Hendry for it before it actually happened? Oy...

 

Yes, you're right. Hendry is the guy who forced Todd Walker and Nomar Garciaparra to get injured so that Neifi Perez and Tony Womack could get all those at bats because he loves those guys soooooo much. And it was really the leprechaun that hides under Hendry's desk who pulled off the deals for Lee, Ramirez, Garciaparra and Murton without giving up much of anything. Those were just classic leprechaun-under-Jim-Hendry's-desk moves, weren't they. If we could get that leprechaun to be the Cubs GM...

 

You're not going to convince me Hendry is a good GM, because he isn't. The Cubs record has gotten worse every year he's been here, and had he not gotten an extra 20 million to spend this offseason, the team would be just as bad off or worse off than we were at the start of last year. His baseball philosophy is wrong. He doesn't understand the importance of OBP and patience at the plate.

 

Now, it may be that it was really Dusty and not Jim that decided to go with Hollandsworth over Dubois, Bynum over Theriot, Perez over Todd Walker (who should have played every day). Piniella may actually use a very different philosophy and play Murton over Floyd. If so, I'm wrong and I'll be glad that I was. But, given their track record, I'm not holding my breath. It does seem odd that a bench player gets a vesting option based on PAs.

[Garwilly]

Benching Murton for Floyd...sigh. Classic Jim Hendry move. We shouldn't be surprised because we've all seen this before. Did anyone really believe Dusty was solely to blame for all the Neifi Perez, Tony Womack, Todd Hollandsworth, Freddy Bynum, at bats? The organizational philosophy that says you take a high OBP, low power, cheap and young guy and bench him for a washed out vet that has a slightly higher batting average, hits 5 more HR, and has only about a 20 to 30% chance of putting up a better OPS than said young player because the veteran is left handed is... well, a sucky philosophy.

 

I hope this means that he's trading Jones. If not, we get stuck with another washed out old player to block the ONE good position player this org has developed in the past decade. I look at this season as a win-win though. If the Cubs win and make the playoffs, that's great. If they don't, we can be rid of Captain Baseball Cliche Hendry once and for all.

Mark this post down for best crow-eating candidate of the year so far.

 

Where did Hendry say he was benching Murton for Floyd? If someone mused in an article that the Cubs weren't going to resign Aramis, would you believe him, too? Oh wait, that already happened on this board. Never mind. Bad example. If some guy writes an article in which he thinks the Cubs will let Zambrano walk, would you mark it down as a done deal and bash Hendry for it before it actually happened? Oy...

 

Yes, you're right. Hendry is the guy who forced Todd Walker and Nomar Garciaparra to get injured so that Neifi Perez and Tony Womack could get all those at bats because he loves those guys soooooo much. And it was really the leprechaun that hides under Hendry's desk who pulled off the deals for Lee, Ramirez, Garciaparra and Murton without giving up much of anything. Those were just classic leprechaun-under-Jim-Hendry's-desk moves, weren't they. If we could get that leprechaun to be the Cubs GM...

 

You're not going to convince me Hendry is a good GM, because he isn't. The Cubs record has gotten worse every year he's been here, and had he not gotten an extra 20 million to spend this offseason, the team would be just as bad off or worse off than we were at the start of last year. His baseball philosophy is wrong. He doesn't understand the importance of OBP and patience at the plate.

 

Now, it may be that it was really Dusty and not Jim that decided to go with Hollandsworth over Dubois, Bynum over Theriot, Perez over Todd Walker (who should have played every day). Piniella may actually use a very different philosophy and play Murton over Floyd. If so, I'm wrong and I'll be glad that I was. But, given their track record, I'm not holding my breath. It does seem odd that a bench player gets a vesting option based on PAs.

 

Why bother with being accurate when we can just make crap up?

[soapy]

 

Why bother with being accurate when we can just make crap up?

It's not like he was that far off. They got one game better between 03 and 04 but have declined since then.

 

Having said that, as someone else stated, whether or not this is a good deal depends entirely on how Floyd is used which is of course yet to be determined.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Why bother with being accurate when we can just make crap up?

It's not like he was that far off. They got one game better between 03 and 04 but have declined since then.

 

Having said that, as someone else stated, whether or not this is a good deal depends entirely on how Floyd is used which is of course yet to be determined.

 

True, but they also got better between 02 and 03-so it was 2 years of ascending records, and then 2 years of descending records, and 07 promises to go back up.

 

I agree there could be some cause for concern with Floyd in the way he's used, but right now, this is a very good deal to get another solid bat off the bench, something which the Cubs have not had for a long time now.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I've been as critical of Hendry as anyone else, but it is not true to say the team has gotten worse every year he's been here.

 

In 2002, the team won 67 games. It improved to 88 wins in 2003 and then 89 wins in 2004. At that point, I was happy with the job Hendry had done. The 2004 team should have been a 92-94 win team. The last two seasons have been disasterous, as we slipped to 79 wins in 2005 and then 66 wins last season.

 

The team is about where it was when Hendry took over. He improved it immensely in his first two years and has presided over it as it returned to its dismal levels of his first season.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Jim's work over the past two seasons, let's not be dishonest in an effort to do so.

[CubinNY]

I've been as critical of Hendry as anyone else, but it is not true to say the team has gotten worse every year he's been here.

 

In 2002, the team won 67 games. It improved to 88 wins in 2003 and then 89 wins in 2004. At that point, I was happy with the job Hendry had done. The 2004 team should have been a 92-94 win team. The last two seasons have been disasterous, as we slipped to 79 wins in 2005 and then 66 wins last season.

 

The team is about where it was when Hendry took over. He improved it immensely in his first two years and has presided over it as it returned to its dismal levels of his first season.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Jim's work over the past two seasons, let's not be dishonest in an effort to do so.

 

The status que of pre and post Hendry is as much an indictment of Hendry's tenure as any I can think of. In four years the team has gone nowhere. The overall trend is flat.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I've been as critical of Hendry as anyone else, but it is not true to say the team has gotten worse every year he's been here.

 

In 2002, the team won 67 games. It improved to 88 wins in 2003 and then 89 wins in 2004. At that point, I was happy with the job Hendry had done. The 2004 team should have been a 92-94 win team. The last two seasons have been disasterous, as we slipped to 79 wins in 2005 and then 66 wins last season.

 

The team is about where it was when Hendry took over. He improved it immensely in his first two years and has presided over it as it returned to its dismal levels of his first season.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Jim's work over the past two seasons, let's not be dishonest in an effort to do so.

 

The status que of pre and post Hendry is as much an indictment of Hendry's tenure as any I can think of. In four years the team has gone nowhere. The overall trend is flat.

 

And that is a fair argument. The argument that the team has gotten worse every year he's been here is not.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I've been as critical of Hendry as anyone else, but it is not true to say the team has gotten worse every year he's been here.

 

In 2002, the team won 67 games. It improved to 88 wins in 2003 and then 89 wins in 2004. At that point, I was happy with the job Hendry had done. The 2004 team should have been a 92-94 win team. The last two seasons have been disasterous, as we slipped to 79 wins in 2005 and then 66 wins last season.

 

The team is about where it was when Hendry took over. He improved it immensely in his first two years and has presided over it as it returned to its dismal levels of his first season.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Jim's work over the past two seasons, let's not be dishonest in an effort to do so.

 

The status que of pre and post Hendry is as much an indictment of Hendry's tenure as any I can think of. In four years the team has gone nowhere. The overall trend is flat.

 

peaking and then dipping into a valley is "flat?"

[CubinNY]

I've been as critical of Hendry as anyone else, but it is not true to say the team has gotten worse every year he's been here.

 

In 2002, the team won 67 games. It improved to 88 wins in 2003 and then 89 wins in 2004. At that point, I was happy with the job Hendry had done. The 2004 team should have been a 92-94 win team. The last two seasons have been disasterous, as we slipped to 79 wins in 2005 and then 66 wins last season.

 

The team is about where it was when Hendry took over. He improved it immensely in his first two years and has presided over it as it returned to its dismal levels of his first season.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Jim's work over the past two seasons, let's not be dishonest in an effort to do so.

 

The status que of pre and post Hendry is as much an indictment of Hendry's tenure as any I can think of. In four years the team has gone nowhere. The overall trend is flat.

 

peaking and then dipping into a valley is "flat?"

 

Yes. If you plot the number of wins the Cubs have achieved since Hendry took over and draw a line down the middle (known in science as a trend line) the line would be flat. The team has averaged 78 wins per season. In four years the Cubs have a losing record. In the four years before Hendry took over the Cubs average 77.5 wins. That is a flat trend

 

             
               89
           88     

                   79
  ------------------------
      67
                       66

Hendry wins/year

66/2006

79/2005

89/2004

88/2003

67/2002

Pre Hendry wins/year

88/2001

65/2000

67/1999

90/1998

[RichHillIsABeast]

I've been as critical of Hendry as anyone else, but it is not true to say the team has gotten worse every year he's been here.

 

In 2002, the team won 67 games. It improved to 88 wins in 2003 and then 89 wins in 2004. At that point, I was happy with the job Hendry had done. The 2004 team should have been a 92-94 win team. The last two seasons have been disasterous, as we slipped to 79 wins in 2005 and then 66 wins last season.

 

The team is about where it was when Hendry took over. He improved it immensely in his first two years and has presided over it as it returned to its dismal levels of his first season.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Jim's work over the past two seasons, let's not be dishonest in an effort to do so.

 

The status que of pre and post Hendry is as much an indictment of Hendry's tenure as any I can think of. In four years the team has gone nowhere. The overall trend is flat.

 

peaking and then dipping into a valley is "flat?"

 

Yes. If you plot the number of wins the Cubs have achieved since Hendry took over and draw a line down the middle (known in science as a trend line) the line would be flat. The team has averaged 78 wins per season. In four years the Cubs have a losing record. In the four years before Hendry took over the Cubs average 77.5 wins. That is a flat trend

 

             
               89
           88     

                   79
  ------------------------
      67
                       66

Hendry wins/year

66/2006

79/2005

89/2004

88/2003

67/2002

Pre Hendry wins/year

88/2001

65/2000

67/1999

90/1998

 

That's not how you draw a trend line. :wink:

[Amazing_Grace]

Well I stand corrected about the record getting worse every year. Thanks for the correction. Sometimes I tend to get ahead of myself. I had forgotten he took over in 02 and not 03 so I was thinking we made the playoffs in his first year then got worse after.

 

Hendry's offensive philosophy still stinks and if he shoudn't have signed Floyd if there was any chance of him taking Murton's playing time.

[CubinNY]

I've been as critical of Hendry as anyone else, but it is not true to say the team has gotten worse every year he's been here.

 

In 2002, the team won 67 games. It improved to 88 wins in 2003 and then 89 wins in 2004. At that point, I was happy with the job Hendry had done. The 2004 team should have been a 92-94 win team. The last two seasons have been disasterous, as we slipped to 79 wins in 2005 and then 66 wins last season.

 

The team is about where it was when Hendry took over. He improved it immensely in his first two years and has presided over it as it returned to its dismal levels of his first season.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Jim's work over the past two seasons, let's not be dishonest in an effort to do so.

 

The status que of pre and post Hendry is as much an indictment of Hendry's tenure as any I can think of. In four years the team has gone nowhere. The overall trend is flat.

 

peaking and then dipping into a valley is "flat?"

 

Yes. If you plot the number of wins the Cubs have achieved since Hendry took over and draw a line down the middle (known in science as a trend line) the line would be flat. The team has averaged 78 wins per season. In four years the Cubs have a losing record. In the four years before Hendry took over the Cubs average 77.5 wins. That is a flat trend

 

             
               89
           88     

                   79
  ------------------------
      67
                       66

Hendry wins/year

66/2006

79/2005

89/2004

88/2003

67/2002

Pre Hendry wins/year

88/2001

65/2000

67/1999

90/1998

 

That's not how you draw a trend line. :wink:

 

Yes that is how you draw a trend line. Peaks and Valley don't matter when you are looking a long(er) term data.

 

What is the wink for?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not a statistics expert, but don't trend lines need to have the same amount of data points on either side of them? That would mean the trend line leads straight through the 79 win season, sloping upward.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I'm not a statistics expert, but don't trend lines need to have the same amount of data points on either side of them? That would mean the trend line leads straight through the 79 win season, sloping upward.

 

I didn't bother to do a linear regression (most primitive form of trend line), but it's not a straight line with 0 slope.

 

You don't just draw a horizontal line at the average value and call it a trend line.

[CubsWin]

I've been as critical of Hendry as anyone else, but it is not true to say the team has gotten worse every year he's been here.

 

In 2002, the team won 67 games. It improved to 88 wins in 2003 and then 89 wins in 2004. At that point, I was happy with the job Hendry had done. The 2004 team should have been a 92-94 win team. The last two seasons have been disasterous, as we slipped to 79 wins in 2005 and then 66 wins last season.

 

The team is about where it was when Hendry took over. He improved it immensely in his first two years and has presided over it as it returned to its dismal levels of his first season.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Jim's work over the past two seasons, let's not be dishonest in an effort to do so.

I couldn't agree more.

 

There is plenty that is worthy of criticism. Signing reserves to bigger contracts than they deserve. Having a weak bench. Not having a good enough back up plan for Wood. I hold Hendry responsible for not doing enough to get the Cubs into the playoffs in '04.

 

So there shouldn't be any reason to make stuff up like AmazingGrace did. And just as there are things to criticize him for, there are also many things to praise him for. In any assessment of an GM, it is important to include both sides.

[BigbadB]

So there shouldn't be any reason to make stuff up like AmazingGrace did. And just as there are things to criticize him for, there are also many things to praise him for. In any assessment of an GM, it is important to include both sides.

 

Some of you are acting like AmazingGrace's comment was way off base. I don't see it that way. Okay, yes, the Cubs have not gotten progressively worse each year of his tenure. However, I do not count 2002 as a year of his tenure since he was taking over the position and the mess someone else made mid season.

 

Yes, the Cubs won one more game in 2004 than they did in 2003. Short of that one win, they have gotten progressively worse. However, they went from 1st, to 3rd, to 4th to 6th since 2003 in the standings. Many will argue that the final standings have more significance than the final win count. Getting to the playoffs is definitely significant.

 

Regardless of his past, he really can't get much worse than he was this past year, and I'm actually fairly pleased with his offseason. I still have some concerns about the direction of this club, but I'll hold off judgment until the season starts and I actually see that direction.

[CubColtPacer]

So there shouldn't be any reason to make stuff up like AmazingGrace did. And just as there are things to criticize him for, there are also many things to praise him for. In any assessment of an GM, it is important to include both sides.

 

Some of you are acting like AmazingGrace's comment was way off base. I don't see it that way. Okay, yes, the Cubs have not gotten progressively worse each year of his tenure. However, I do not count 2002 as a year of his tenure since he was taking over the position and the mess someone else made mid season.

 

Yes, the Cubs won one more game in 2004 than they did in 2003. Short of that one win, they have gotten progressively worse. However, they went from 1st, to 3rd, to 4th to 6th since 2003 in the standings. Many will argue that the final standings have more significance than the final win count. Getting to the playoffs is definitely significant.

 

Regardless of his past, he really can't get much worse than he was this past year, and I'm actually fairly pleased with his offseason. I still have some concerns about the direction of this club, but I'll hold off judgment until the season starts and I actually see that direction.

 

I don't count the 2002 season either, but when you count 2003 as his first year, the improvement from the team that was there in 2002 has to be counted, since Hendry was there the entire 2002 offseason and improved that team into the 2003 version.

[CubsWin]

Hendry wins/year

66/2006

79/2005

89/2004

88/2003

67/2002

Pre Hendry wins/year

88/2001

65/2000

67/1999

90/1998

There are two big problems with your graph. One is that you are calling 2002 a "Hendry year" and its totally not. He was signed as GM in July of that year and had little time to alter the make up of the team for the 2nd half of the season. It is really unfair to hold Hendry responsible for any of the team's results in '02. That roster was fully set before he took control. The first chance he really had to put his stamp on the team was the '02-'03 off season, and we all know what happened the following year. But I don't hold him solely responsible for getting the Cubs in the playoffs that year. A lot of things went right that he couldn't possibly have been directly responsible for.

 

Which brings us to the second problem with your graph. It uses the win/loss record as the sole judge of a GM. So many other factors go into whether a team wins or not than just the make up of the 40-man roster. A GM could put together the greatest roster ever and if enough season-ending injuries happen to enough great players, that team will also finish with 66 wins. Extenuating circumstances must be factored in.

 

Last season was a disaster, not so much because of the decisions Hendry made, (the Pierre trade wasn't good) but because of the onslaught of major injuries to the team's best players and some really poor performances by others who had previously performed much better. It's wrong to blame him for everything that happened in '06. Just like it would be wrong to fully credit him for getting the Cubs into the playoffs in '03. The Cubs got on a roll, got some good luck, had guys stay healthy all year. Hendry helped bring about the result in '03, but I think he actually did more in '04 with the additions of Lee and Garciaparra along with a full season from Ramirez. Those moves allowed the Cubs to stay in contention even with Sosa declining sharply in the middle of their line-up.

 

To be fair and accurate, Hendry's win/loss record looks more like this:

 

4 years prior to Hendry:

67 wins in '99

65 wins in '00

88 wins in '01

67 wins in '02

 

4 years with Hendry:

88 wins in '03

89 wins in '04

79 wins in '05

66 wins in '06

 

And to better understand those win totals, one must also include the extenuating factors each year, both the good (like career years) and the bad (like major injuries to major players).

[CubColtPacer]

Hendry wins/year

66/2006

79/2005

89/2004

88/2003

67/2002

Pre Hendry wins/year

88/2001

65/2000

67/1999

90/1998

There are two big problems with your graph. One is that you are calling 2002 a "Hendry year" and its totally not. He was signed as GM in July of that year and had little time to alter the make up of the team for the 2nd half of the season. It is really unfair to hold Hendry responsible for any of the team's results in '02. That roster was fully set before he took control. The first chance he really had to put his stamp on the team was the '02-'03 off season, and we all know what happened the following year. But I don't hold him solely responsible for getting the Cubs in the playoffs that year. A lot of things went right that he couldn't possibly have been directly responsible for.

 

Which brings us to the second problem with your graph. It uses the win/loss record as the sole judge of a GM. So many other factors go into whether a team wins or not than just the make up of the 40-man roster. A GM could put together the greatest roster ever and if enough season-ending injuries happen to enough great players, that team will also finish with 66 wins. Extenuating circumstances must be factored in.

 

Last season was a disaster, not so much because of the decisions Hendry made, (the Pierre trade wasn't good) but because of the onslaught of major injuries to the team's best players and some really poor performances by others who had previously performed much better. It's wrong to blame him for everything that happened in '06. Just like it would be wrong to fully credit him for getting the Cubs into the playoffs in '03. The Cubs got on a roll, got some good luck, had guys stay healthy all year. Hendry helped bring about the result in '03, but I think he actually did more in '04 with the additions of Lee and Garciaparra along with a full season from Ramirez. Those moves allowed the Cubs to stay in contention even with Sosa declining sharply in the middle of their line-up.

 

To be fair and accurate, Hendry's win/loss record looks more like this:

 

4 years prior to Hendry:

67 wins in '99

65 wins in '00

88 wins in '01

67 wins in '02

 

4 years with Hendry:

88 wins in '03

89 wins in '04

79 wins in '05

66 wins in '06

 

And to better understand those win totals, one must also include the extenuating factors each year, both the good (like career years) and the bad (like major injuries to major players).

 

Agreed completely. Hendry has built 1 good team and 3 average teams during his tenure here. The 1 good team underachieved and won 89 games. 1 of the average teams did much better than expected and went to the NLCS, 1 of them remained a perfectly average team, and 1 of them had big struggles including problems with injuries, gave up on the season in August, and were a bad team that gave up and lost games down the stretch with a makeshift lineup (if that team had tried, they could have won 70-75 games-I'm glad they sacrificed the wins for the extra experience they gave to the young players, but that team was not quite a 66 win team).

 

The question is-can Hendry build a more consistent good team, instead of a .500 team that requires luck to make the playoffs? That remains to be seen-if not, then he needs to go, because .500 is not a goal. Hopefully he has learned from his most major mistake (trusting in Prior and Wood) and can have teams that are expected to win consistently.

[BigbadB]

I don't count the 2002 season either, but when you count 2003 as his first year, the improvement from the team that was there in 2002 has to be counted, since Hendry was there the entire 2002 offseason and improved that team into the 2003 version.

 

I think the point AmazingGrace was trying to make is that Hendry has progressively gotten worse. So, if you discount 2002 and call 2003 Hendry's first real season, he has progressively gotten worse.

 

2003 was an amazing season. However, ANY GM could have improved upon the 2002 season.

 

The trend will end this year. There is no way Hendry could end up worse than they were last year.

[frostwyrm]

Hendry wins/year

66/2006

79/2005

89/2004

88/2003

67/2002

Pre Hendry wins/year

88/2001

65/2000

67/1999

90/1998

There are two big problems with your graph. One is that you are calling 2002 a "Hendry year" and its totally not. He was signed as GM in July of that year and had little time to alter the make up of the team for the 2nd half of the season. It is really unfair to hold Hendry responsible for any of the team's results in '02. That roster was fully set before he took control. The first chance he really had to put his stamp on the team was the '02-'03 off season, and we all know what happened the following year. But I don't hold him solely responsible for getting the Cubs in the playoffs that year. A lot of things went right that he couldn't possibly have been directly responsible for.

 

Which brings us to the second problem with your graph. It uses the win/loss record as the sole judge of a GM. So many other factors go into whether a team wins or not than just the make up of the 40-man roster. A GM could put together the greatest roster ever and if enough season-ending injuries happen to enough great players, that team will also finish with 66 wins. Extenuating circumstances must be factored in.

 

Last season was a disaster, not so much because of the decisions Hendry made, (the Pierre trade wasn't good) but because of the onslaught of major injuries to the team's best players and some really poor performances by others who had previously performed much better. It's wrong to blame him for everything that happened in '06. Just like it would be wrong to fully credit him for getting the Cubs into the playoffs in '03. The Cubs got on a roll, got some good luck, had guys stay healthy all year. Hendry helped bring about the result in '03, but I think he actually did more in '04 with the additions of Lee and Garciaparra along with a full season from Ramirez. Those moves allowed the Cubs to stay in contention even with Sosa declining sharply in the middle of their line-up.

 

To be fair and accurate, Hendry's win/loss record looks more like this:

 

4 years prior to Hendry:

67 wins in '99

65 wins in '00

88 wins in '01

67 wins in '02

 

4 years with Hendry:

88 wins in '03

89 wins in '04

79 wins in '05

66 wins in '06

 

And to better understand those win totals, one must also include the extenuating factors each year, both the good (like career years) and the bad (like major injuries to major players).

 

Extenuating factors? Hendry has had a boatload more cash to work with than his predecessors, which has given him a far greater safety margin for bad luck, so IMO he doesn't deserve any sympathy. Fact is, if the Cubs had stood pat on their $95M payroll, or even increased it to "only" $100M, the Cubs wouldn't have a prayer of contending in 2007. It's a pretty pathetic GM who can't field a contender with a $100M heavily backloaded payroll.

[CubinNY]

I'm not a statistics expert, but don't trend lines need to have the same amount of data points on either side of them? That would mean the trend line leads straight through the 79 win season, sloping upward.

 

I didn't bother to do a linear regression (most primitive form of trend line), but it's not a straight line with 0 slope.

 

You don't just draw a horizontal line at the average value and call it a trend line.

 

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. Four data points make a trend. Any four. Obviously, the more data one has the better one can make predictions. However, when looking at any set of data it is possible to look at the trend. One method is called a split-middle trend line. Leaner regression has nothing to do with it. Regression is a measure of central tendency. A trend shows the overall path of any data set and has very little to do with the mean.

 

I discussed the mean in the four years prior to Hendry and the four years since Hendry took over as just more evidence that this team has gone nowhere.

 

http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/specconn/main.php?cat=assessment&section=main&subsection=cbm/usingdata

 

Here is one of the dozens of studies that detail the use of a split middle trend line.

 

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ450911&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b80032c69

 

Edit: Admittedly using a split-middle trend line is a bit of a rough estimate. So I just graphed the years since 1998 and using a least squared method the slope of the trend is -.02 (FLAT). From 1998 to 2002 the trend was -2.5. From 2003 to 2006 the trend was -7.6.

 

Anyway you cut it the Cubs are going in the wrong direction

Edited January 26, 2007 by CubinNY

[CubsWin]

Some of you are acting like AmazingGrace's comment was way off base. I don't see it that way. Okay, yes, the Cubs have not gotten progressively worse each year of his tenure. However, I do not count 2002 as a year of his tenure since he was taking over the position and the mess someone else made mid season.

I consider his post way off base because it is so completely unbalanced. First, he assumes that the Cubs are going to sit Murton and start Floyd based on absolutely no hard evidence. Then he criticizes Hendry for it before it even happens. And finally he calls sitting Murton & starting Floyd a "classic Hendry move". Clearly, Hendry has made some terrible moves. But AmazingGrace completely forgets that Hendry has made many great moves making his post and opinion unbalanced.

 

Yes, the Cubs won one more game in 2004 than they did in 2003. Short of that one win, they have gotten progressively worse. However, they went from 1st, to 3rd, to 4th to 6th since 2003 in the standings. Many will argue that the final standings have more significance than the final win count. Getting to the playoffs is definitely significant.

Didn't Hendry preside over the Cubs getting into 1st place in the first place? I think that counts as an up year, don't you?

 

Regardless of his past, he really can't get much worse than he was this past year, and I'm actually fairly pleased with his offseason. I still have some concerns about the direction of this club, but I'll hold off judgment until the season starts and I actually see that direction.

I'm fairly pleased with this off season, too, though I would have liked to see a different starting pitcher and possibly a different starting 2B. I also would have preferred he spend the money on Beltran instead of Soriano, but it seems like he didn't have the green light to do so back then. But to say the Cubs won only 66 games because Hendry did such a bad job that he couldn't have done much worse is unfounded.

 

The Jones signing turned out well. Pierre was an improvement in CF, but he gave up way too much for him. He failed to have a viable back-up plan for Prior and Wood and that really hurt the Cubs. But its important to remember, the Cubs were 4 games over .500 the night Lee broke his wrist. Ramirez had a horrible first several weeks to the season as did Pierre and Jones. Cedeno was slumping far worse than most anyone had predicted. Dempster was pitching terribly. Lots of things went wrong that contributed to the Cubs winning only 66 games besides Hendry's 40-man roster. Did he do a good job last season? No, not really. But to hold him fully responsible for the results of the Cubs last season is unsupportable.