Lou Piniella veering into Dusty Baker Territory

[sunnydoo]

so the actual physical structure the cubs play in (like the wood, metal, dirt, cement and stuff) is more to blame for their failures than the guy who manages the team? whatever.

 

I will say this yet again. With the wind the way it is in the summer time it may cause an effect like the altitude in Colorado. By building the team one way, we may be causing ourselves problems another.

 

I am saying it could be the ballpark which has been around since 1914. We have never won in it. So can you say looking into your crystal ball that is absolutely 100% not the ballpark, and the wind, and the elements in April or October? I cant say with even 75% certaintity that it is.

 

And i dont really have to tell you about the lines around the foul area..say LCS game 6?

[seanimal]

so the actual physical structure the cubs play in (like the wood, metal, dirt, cement and stuff) is more to blame for their failures than the guy who manages the team? whatever.

 

I will say this yet again. With the wind the way it is in the summer time it may cause an effect like the altitude in Colorado. By building the team one way, we may be causing ourselves problems another.

 

I am saying it could be the ballpark which has been around since 1914. We have never won in it. So can you say looking into your crystal ball that is absolutely 100% not the ballpark, and the wind, and the elements in April or October? I cant say with even 75% certaintity that it is.

 

And i dont really have to tell you about the lines around the foul area..say LCS game 6?

 

Both teams play in the Field. Therefore, any advantages or disadvantages are shared by both the Cubs and their opponents. In regards to the historical record of futility in Wrigley, you're confusing result with causality. The Cubs don't suck because of Wrigley Field. Wrigley Field sucks because it is the Cubs who play in it.

[SouthSideRyan]

so the actual physical structure the cubs play in (like the wood, metal, dirt, cement and stuff) is more to blame for their failures than the guy who manages the team? whatever.

 

I will say this yet again. With the wind the way it is in the summer time it may cause an effect like the altitude in Colorado. By building the team one way, we may be causing ourselves problems another.

 

I am saying it could be the ballpark which has been around since 1914. We have never won in it. So can you say looking into your crystal ball that is absolutely 100% not the ballpark, and the wind, and the elements in April or October? I cant say with even 75% certaintity that it is.

 

And i dont really have to tell you about the lines around the foul area..say LCS game 6?

 

Please don't remind of game 6. It brings back horrible memories.

 

Of those long delays of changing the field dimensions and weather every half inning. Cause they were playing in 2 different dimensioned ballparks.

 

Get it?

[Rob]

so the actual physical structure the cubs play in (like the wood, metal, dirt, cement and stuff) is more to blame for their failures than the guy who manages the team? whatever.

 

I will say this yet again. With the wind the way it is in the summer time it may cause an effect like the altitude in Colorado. By building the team one way, we may be causing ourselves problems another.

 

I am saying it could be the ballpark which has been around since 1914. We have never won in it. So can you say looking into your crystal ball that is absolutely 100% not the ballpark, and the wind, and the elements in April or October? I cant say with even 75% certaintity that it is.

 

And i dont really have to tell you about the lines around the foul area..say LCS game 6?

 

Both teams play in the Field. Therefore, any advantages or disadvantages are shared by both the Cubs and their opponents. In regards to the historical record of futility in Wrigley, you're confusing result with causality. The Cubs don't suck because of Wrigley Field. Wrigley Field sucks because it is the Cubs who play in it.

 

Exactly.

 

Correlation != Causation

 

That includes win totals and winning % for managers.

[abuck1220]

 

I am saying it could be the ballpark which has been around since 1914. We have never won in it. So can you say looking into your crystal ball that is absolutely 100% not the ballpark, and the wind, and the elements in April or October? I cant say with even 75% certaintity that it is.

 

 

that is just laughable logic. i don't even know how to respond.

[seanimal]

 

I am saying it could be the ballpark which has been around since 1914. We have never won in it. So can you say looking into your crystal ball that is absolutely 100% not the ballpark, and the wind, and the elements in April or October? I cant say with even 75% certaintity that it is.

 

 

that is just laughable logic. i don't even know how to respond.

 

Both teams play in the Field. Therefore, any advantages or disadvantages are shared by both the Cubs and their opponents. In regards to the historical record of futility in Wrigley, you're confusing result with causality. The Cubs don't suck because of Wrigley Field. Wrigley Field sucks because it is the Cubs who play in it.

 

:D

[sunnydoo]

Both teams play in the Field. Therefore, any advantages or disadvantages are shared by both the Cubs and their opponents. In regards to the historical record of futility in Wrigley, you're confusing result with causality. The Cubs don't suck because of Wrigley Field. Wrigley Field sucks because it is the Cubs who play in it.

 

No.

 

You construct your team around 81 games at home. You should build it so that you have a better advantage in those games. But this may effect the way you play on the road.

 

In colorado they tried sinkerball pitchers and people who didnt rely on the curve...and it hasnt worked.

 

I am not saying that the field gives one team an advantage over the other you rubes, saying that it makes a difference in the way you set your roster.

 

Do you really want a fly ball pitcher pitching in Wrigley in August with the damn wind blowing out at 40 MPH? Gimme a break.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Do you really want a fly ball pitcher pitching in Wrigley in August with the damn wind blowing out at 40 MPH? Gimme a break.

 

Yep, let's build the rotation based on the 1 game every 5 years where the wind blows out at 40 MPH.

 

The wind blows in more than it blows out. It's stupid to build your team around your park no matter how extreme the park is. Teams have better records at home because they don't have to deal with travel and they're familiar with the park, not because they're designed to the park's specifications.

[sunnydoo]

The wind blows in more than it blows out. It's stupid to build your team around your park no matter how extreme the park is. Teams have better records at home because they don't have to deal with travel and they're familiar with the park, not because they're designed to the park's specifications.

 

Nope- you are wrong.

 

Its one of the reasons the cubs were pushing the sinkerballers and hard throwers in the late 70s and early 80s.

 

Its also the reason the Cardinals were so successful in the 80s. They built their team on speed and defense which killed people in Busch. That also happened to translate to the road where a lot of the games were on turf.

 

But for the Cubs just like the RedSux, they have to deal with a place that isnt like most other places. They have purposely not signed some pitchers based on their fly ball ratios. God only knows whats going to happen to Marquis this year in August. Its going to be ugly if Rothschild does convince him that he isnt a sinkerballer.

 

And make no mistake about it, the Cubs have always tried to take advantage of the situation with hitters like Kingman or Sosa. Guys who hit the ball a long way, but strike out with frequency trying to capitalize on the old wind currents with fly ball hitters. Could you imagine a team like the 80s Cardinals in Wrigley...they would get fried.

Edited May 25, 2007 by sunnydoo

[sunnydoo]

I wonder if John Olerud and Bret Boone getting old had anything to do with them doing poorly. And I wonder if Mike Cameron had as good a year as ever as recently as last year when Piniella was notably not managing the Padres.

 

Olerud was 32 when Piniella left and played 4 more years before hanging it up last season. That is not really that old in baseball terms. Lots of guys play well into there late 30s at high levels. Franco is still kicking it at 48. But he never had another season like any when he played for Lou.

 

Boone was 33 when Piniella left. He had one good year in 2003 and then declined into nonexistence.

 

Cameron was 29 when Lou left. He had 110 RBIs in 2001, the most of his career. The highest since that time was 83. But you are right he did have a year last season like 2001 in terms of OPS. 1 season in 5 after playing for Lou.

[sunnydoo]

And my favorite part, commending Lou for averaging 67 wins a season in Tampa. Something Rothschild did.

 

Ya, take a look at the teams though. Larry's team had talent, albeit somewhat aged. Lou's had kids. Which did a better job? The one who had more to work with or the one who didnt?

 

Thats what i thought.

[Drew Doughty]

But for the Cubs just like the RedSux, they have to deal with a place that isnt like most other places. They have purposely not signed some pitchers based on their fly ball ratios. God only knows whats going to happen to Marquis this year in August. Its going to be ugly if Rothschild does convince him that he isnt a sinkerballer.

 

Huh? Marquis has the second best GB% on the staff.

 

I'd be far more worried about Rich Hill or Ted Lilly (in relation to home runs/fly balls at least) than Marquis. Then again, I'm more worried about Marquis because he most likely isn't going to have as good of a season as either of the other two guys mentioned.

[sunnydoo]

I'd be far more worried about Rich Hill or Ted Lilly (in relation to home runs/fly balls at least) than Marquis. Then again, I'm more worried about Marquis because he most likely isn't going to have as good of a season as either of the other two guys mentioned.

 

Marquis led the NL last year with 35 gopher balls in 194 innings.

 

Ortiz and Arroyo tied for 2nd with 31. Jorge Sosa was 4th with 30.

[Drew Doughty]

I'd be far more worried about Rich Hill or Ted Lilly (in relation to home runs/fly balls at least) than Marquis. Then again, I'm more worried about Marquis because he most likely isn't going to have as good of a season as either of the other two guys mentioned.

 

Marquis led the NL last year with 35 gopher balls in 194 innings.

 

Ortiz and Arroyo tied for 2nd with 31. Jorge Sosa was 4th with 30.

 

great. i don't care. it's pretty clear that he's doing something differently this year at this point. he's getting more groundballs, fewer line drives, and more pop ups this year over last year.

 

he'll regress, but i doubt it will be because he plays at wrigley.

[SouthSideRyan]

Re: Better on the road because of the all the astroturf. You'll have to excuse my memory on which fields had astroturf, but off the top of my head I've got Cincy, Philly, Montreal, Pittsburgh, and Houston.

 

The Cards record in those cities was 119-115, worse than their record on grass road games of 132-115.

 

EDIT: This was for the '82-'87 seasons, the Cardinals world series runs.

Edited May 25, 2007 by SouthSideRyan

[SouthSideRyan]

And my favorite part, commending Lou for averaging 67 wins a season in Tampa. Something Rothschild did.

 

Ya, take a look at the teams though. Larry's team had talent, albeit somewhat aged. Lou's had kids. Which did a better job? The one who had more to work with or the one who didnt?

 

Thats what i thought.

 

I think Lou's team had more talent. Older doesn't = more talented.

[Rob]

And my favorite part, commending Lou for averaging 67 wins a season in Tampa. Something Rothschild did.

 

Ya, take a look at the teams though. Larry's team had talent, albeit somewhat aged. Lou's had kids. Which did a better job? The one who had more to work with or the one who didnt?

 

Thats what i thought.

 

I think Lou's team had more talent. Older doesn't = more talented.

 

But, but... if you're in the league more than eight years you're already better than everybody who isn't, just because of your savvy veteran presence.

[Rob]

I wonder if John Olerud and Bret Boone getting old had anything to do with them doing poorly. And I wonder if Mike Cameron had as good a year as ever as recently as last year when Piniella was notably not managing the Padres.

 

Olerud was 32 when Piniella left and played 4 more years before hanging it up last season. That is not really that old in baseball terms. Lots of guys play well into there late 30s at high levels. Franco is still kicking it at 48. But he never had another season like any when he played for Lou.

 

Boone was 33 when Piniella left. He had one good year in 2003 and then declined into nonexistence.

 

Cameron was 29 when Lou left. He had 110 RBIs in 2001, the most of his career. The highest since that time was 83. But you are right he did have a year last season like 2001 in terms of OPS. 1 season in 5 after playing for Lou.

 

Typical peak seasons for position players fall in the 26-29 range. Once you fall out of that, the Julio Franco's of the world are the exception, not the rule. Lou doesn't get credit for offensive performance because people started declining in production after they left their peak years... that's preposterous.

[SouthSideRyan]

It begs the question how the hell did the Red Sox(who you said suffer the same problems as the Cubs) and the White Sox(higher HR factor than Wrigley) manage to win World Serieses recently?

[SouthSideRyan]

Sunny, could I just clarify what you're arguing.

 

Is it that Wrigley is such an extreme park that the Cubs front office focuses too much on building a team to fit that park and thus it hurts the team on the road, or is it that the front office does a poor job of using the home park to its advantage and thus doesn't gain from its home games as much as they should.

[sunnydoo]

Sunny, could I just clarify what you're arguing.

 

Is it that Wrigley is such an extreme park that the Cubs front office focuses too much on building a team to fit that park and thus it hurts the team on the road, or is it that the front office does a poor job of using the home park to its advantage and thus doesn't gain from its home games as much as they should.

 

They have been guilty of both in my opinion over the years. Sometimes its just maddening to see them do so well for so long, then just bust everything up and try again with a different approach.

 

And one of the key problems i have always felt has been the lack of a solid left hitting power hitter.

 

1914 to 2007 just seems like forever. dumb luck should have kicked in by now, but no, not the case. And i am by no means arguing that it is soley the effect of Wrigley Field (which i think is better terminology). We have had some really awful management, poor decisions, and egos get in the way as well.

[sunnydoo]

I think Lou's team had more talent. Older doesn't = more talented.

 

Ya but take a look at this:

• 
  Larry's Best Team in 2000:
  C John Flaherty
  1B *Fred McGriff
  2B Miguel Cairo
  3B Vinny Castilla
  SS #Felix Martinez
  LF Greg Vaughn
  CF Gerald Williams
  RF Jose Guillen
  DH Jose Canseco
   
  SP Bryan Rekar
  SP Albie Lopez
  SP Steve Trachsel
  SP Ryan Rupe
  SP Dave Eiland
   
  CL Roberto Hernandez
  RP *Doug Creek
  RP Rick White
  RP Jim Mecir
  RP *Mark Guthrie
   
  vs. Lou's Best in 2004:
   
  C Toby Hall
  1B *Tino Martinez
  2B Rey Sanchez
  3B *Aubrey Huff
  SS Julio Lugo
  LF *Carl Crawford
  CF Rocco Baldelli
  RF #Jose Cruz
  DH *Robert Fick
   
  SP *Mark Hendrickson
  SP Victor Zambrano
  SP Dewon Brazelton
  SP Rob Bell
  SP Doug Waechter
   
  CL Danys Baez
  RP *Trever Miller
  RP Lance Carter
  RP Travis Harper
  RP Jorge Sosa
  

[sunnydoo]

Sunny, could I just clarify what you're arguing.

 

Is it that Wrigley is such an extreme park that the Cubs front office focuses too much on building a team to fit that park and thus it hurts the team on the road, or is it that the front office does a poor job of using the home park to its advantage and thus doesn't gain from its home games as much as they should.

 

Decided to put up or shut up and get some numbers...so for the last 50 years of Wrigley Field, here is the sad sad truth. Interestingly enough our next game in Wrigley will be our 2000 loss since 1956 there.

 

• 
  Year Home Away
  1956-1959 143-165 .464 125-183 .406
  1960-1969 405-399 .504 330-470 .413
  1970-1979 428-377 .532 357-450 .442
  1980-1989 406-376 .519 329-445 .425
  1990-1999 395-387 .505 344-426 .447
  2000-2007 295-295 .500 267-321 .454
  Total 2072-1999 .509 1752-2295 .432

 

Now some may suppose that the numbers between the 2 just show the difference in playing away vs. home and indeed that is the case for most of the discrepancy.

 

However, I would like to highlight the shift from 1990 on to pre 1990. As the Cubs got worse at home, they seemingly got better on the road showing what i would say is the more balanced approach of not gearing the roster for Wrigley.

 

Pre 1990 i would say just the opposite that the Cubs were gearing for Home as opposed to the Road.

 

The Years since 1956 that we have had a winning road record are: 1969, 1984, 1989, 1993-1995, and 2003-2005. Some of those are because they were superior teams and rightly made the playoffs. But there are some interesting connotations for those mid 90 teams and the 2004/2005 squads including a few with losing home records.

 

Again, I am not saying its all the effect of Wrigley, i am just attributing some of the problem to playing in Wrigley and the effect on the roster.

 

And oh god, i thought i had it bad seeing some of the mid 70 Cub teams growing up....my dad is a Saint for what he had to put up with in the mid to late 50s early 60s...just awful awful baseball teams.

[SouthSideRyan]

But the Cubs haven't been much different than the rest of the majors. In that '56-07 span, teams won 53.9% of their home games and (obviously) won 46.1% of their road games. A 7.8% difference not unlike the Cubs's 7.7% difference.

[jersey cubs fan]

But the Cubs haven't been much different than the rest of the majors. In that '56-07 span, teams won 53.9% of their home games and (obviously) won 46.1% of their road games. A 7.8% difference not unlike the Cubs's 7.7% difference.

 

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be any merit to this theory.

 

 

The Cubs problem is, as it's always been, bad, personel.

 

It's not the wrong personel for Wrigley. It's not Wrigley itself. It's not cheap owners, dumb fans, wind, luck, curses or anything else. They've simply come up short in the personel department, and for the past 10 years, at least, refused to come to grips with the emerging value of objective analysis, which has changed the way many have built their teams (but not the Cubs).