Suntimes: Cubs seek righty bat

[rocket]

I feel the need to illustrate this again:

 

Jones

2007: .233/.294/.335 (215 ABs)

2006: .285/.334/.499

 

Murton

2007: .252/.331/.336 (119 ABs)

2006: .297/.365/.444

 

Murton= sent down to the minors because he's "not ready" and he "hasn't produced" in his mere 119 ABs this season.

 

Jones= we better give him another chance despite his numbers being equal to or worse than Murton's last year, and worse this year in almost twice as many ABs

 

Yes, I understand Jones has the ability to play CF (sort of). I don't think it justifies the difference in treatment. Factor in the their respective ages and Jones' poor 2005 and it's a no-brainer.

 

according to soapy's stats jacque jones is just as good as murton

[imb]

I feel the need to illustrate this again:

 

Jones

2007: .233/.294/.335 (215 ABs)

2006: .285/.334/.499

 

Murton

2007: .252/.331/.336 (119 ABs)

2006: .297/.365/.444

 

Murton= sent down to the minors because he's "not ready" and he "hasn't produced" in his mere 119 ABs this season.

 

Jones= we better give him another chance despite his numbers being equal to or worse than Murton's last year, and worse this year in almost twice as many ABs

 

Yes, I understand Jones has the ability to play CF (sort of). I don't think it justifies the difference in treatment. Factor in the their respective ages and Jones' poor 2005 and it's a no-brainer.

 

according to soapy's stats jacque jones is just as good as murton

 

mhuber stole rocket's account

[jersey cubs fan]

I feel the need to illustrate this again:

 

Jones

2007: .233/.294/.335 (215 ABs)

2006: .285/.334/.499

 

Murton

2007: .252/.331/.336 (119 ABs)

2006: .297/.365/.444

 

Murton= sent down to the minors because he's "not ready" and he "hasn't produced" in his mere 119 ABs this season.

 

Jones= we better give him another chance despite his numbers being equal to or worse than Murton's last year, and worse this year in almost twice as many ABs

 

Yes, I understand Jones has the ability to play CF (sort of). I don't think it justifies the difference in treatment. Factor in the their respective ages and Jones' poor 2005 and it's a no-brainer.

 

according to soapy's stats jacque jones is just as good as murton

 

Not really. Murton has the edge in the most important category, OBP, and he's got the edge in location along career path. Neither is great. But Murton is better and can get even better.

[soapy]

I feel the need to illustrate this again:

 

Jones

2007: .233/.294/.335 (215 ABs)

2006: .285/.334/.499

 

Murton

2007: .252/.331/.336 (119 ABs)

2006: .297/.365/.444

 

Murton= sent down to the minors because he's "not ready" and he "hasn't produced" in his mere 119 ABs this season.

 

Jones= we better give him another chance despite his numbers being equal to or worse than Murton's last year, and worse this year in almost twice as many ABs

 

Yes, I understand Jones has the ability to play CF (sort of). I don't think it justifies the difference in treatment. Factor in the their respective ages and Jones' poor 2005 and it's a no-brainer.

 

You don't think Jones's ability to play center changes things significantly? If Murton could play center, he would be on the MLB roster and at least platooning with Jones and possibly starting. If Jones can only play right, there is no way that he's getting back off the bench. Jones is only getting another chance because the Cubs are not happy with their production in center, while they are at least decently happy with a Floyd/DeRosa platoon in right.

 

Second is MLB economics as Craig stated. If the Cubs could have gotten Jones off the major league roster easily like they did with Murton, they would have done so a long time ago.

 

No becuase I don't think Jones will provide much (if any) more than Pie/Pagan in CF. However, if Murton were up and at least platooning with Floyd, I believe he would produce more than Jones. Basically, the production in RF would be much better.

 

Regardless, even if you call it a wash (which I don't think it is), Murton provides what the Cubs need more than Jones which is a) someone who can hit LHP and; b) OBP

[CUBZ99]

I feel the need to illustrate this again:

 

Jones

2007: .233/.294/.335 (215 ABs)

2006: .285/.334/.499

 

Murton

2007: .252/.331/.336 (119 ABs)

2006: .297/.365/.444

 

Murton= sent down to the minors because he's "not ready" and he "hasn't produced" in his mere 119 ABs this season.

 

Jones= we better give him another chance despite his numbers being equal to or worse than Murton's last year, and worse this year in almost twice as many ABs

 

Yes, I understand Jones has the ability to play CF (sort of). I don't think it justifies the difference in treatment. Factor in the their respective ages and Jones' poor 2005 and it's a no-brainer.

 

You don't think Jones's ability to play center changes things significantly? If Murton could play center, he would be on the MLB roster and at least platooning with Jones and possibly starting. If Jones can only play right, there is no way that he's getting back off the bench. Jones is only getting another chance because the Cubs are not happy with their production in center, while they are at least decently happy with a Floyd/DeRosa platoon in right.

 

Second is MLB economics as Craig stated. If the Cubs could have gotten Jones off the major league roster easily like they did with Murton, they would have done so a long time ago.

 

No becuase I don't think Jones will provide much (if any) more than Pie/Pagan in CF. However, if Murton were up and at least platooning with Floyd, I believe he would produce more than Jones. Basically, the production in RF would be much better.

 

Regardless, even if you call it a wash (which I don't think it is), Murton provides what the Cubs need more than Jones which is a) someone who can hit LHP and; b) OBP

 

Do the Cubs even believe that Murton is capable of playing RF adequately at the major league level? Murton's chance at starting for the Cubs took a huge hit when Soriano got moved to LF. Unless there is an injury I don't see how Murton would figure into their long term plans. Which makes Hendry's position on not trading him ridiculous (unless its just a ploy to drive up his value).

[soapy]

 

Do the Cubs even believe that Murton is capable of playing RF adequately at the major league level? Murton's chance at starting for the Cubs took a huge hit when Soriano got moved to LF. Unless there is an injury I don't see how Murton would figure into their long term plans. Which makes Hendry's position on not trading him ridiculous (unless its just a ploy to drive up his value).

 

I don't know. He didn't do himself any favors by mis-playing some balls out there early this year. There are a couple of options: 1) Live with the poor defense in exchange for an productive bat (which they are already doing with Floyd); or 2) Move Soriano to RF. Option 2 seems unlikely mid-season, but I think Murton can adjust enough to be adequate in RF for at least the rest of this season. I'd be surprised if he'd be any worse than Floyd after some adjustment and they seem perfectly content with Floyd's defense in RF.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Murton had never really played RF before, and his introduction to the position wasn't exactly consistent PT. I'd be interested to see if he's made any improvements now that he's been able to play the position everyday for a while.

[craig]

I don't know. He didn't do himself any favors by mis-playing some balls out there early this year. There are a couple of options: 1) Live with the poor defense in exchange for an productive bat (which they are already doing with Floyd); or 2) Move Soriano to RF. Option 2 seems unlikely mid-season, but I think Murton can adjust enough to be adequate in RF for at least the rest of this season. I'd be surprised if he'd be any worse than Floyd after some adjustment and they seem perfectly content with Floyd's defense in RF.

 

I think Murton played a significant amount of RF in the minors. I don't think it was totally new. I do understand that given his weak arm, even in the minors people used him mostly in left.

 

Floyd is poor defensively in right. I don't think they are "perfectly content with Floyd's defense in right", that's why they pull him in the 6th or 7th inning every time they have a lead. And I don't think they'be very content to plan to have somebody as bad as Floyd in right long-term. But for now, and Floyd's offense has been enough to make him the preferred overall package. For the moment.

 

I agree that Murton's defense, now that he's gotten refreshed in right field with Iowa, is unlikely to be appreciably worse than Floyd's.

 

I think it's a different question whether long term you'd want to plan on somebody with Murton's RF limitations being the long-term guy.

 

For now, Murton could provide a RH pinch-hitter, a RH bat bench, and he could provide an alternative to Fontenot or Floyd in the lineup. DeRosa plays RF vs LHP, but that means Fonty starts vs LHP. Not sure how he splits Perhaps Murton could do much better. I could see a deal where vs LHP, Murton plays right, DeRosa 2nd, Theriot SS, and we don't need to either start Izzy or a LH player at any of those three spots. That might help.

 

Long-term, I'd still at least think about trying to move Soriano to rightnext year. He's got the speed and the arm, and I'd be much more comfortable planning in guys like Murton into LF than RF. Even if Murton was to work his way to the top of the current RF pile, I think with his wea arm and outfielding limitations, GM's would be perpetually wanting to move him and get somebody better defensivley out there.

 

But in left, if he could get back to the place where he was a professional .800+ OPS guy in left, then he might be able to settle in for a long time and be a solid contributor.

[Derwood]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

[E.J.]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

 

Since we're lacking in offense from a couple different positions, I'd like a RF who is good at both.

[UBlink]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

 

Since we're lacking in offense from a couple different positions, I'd like a RF who is good at both.

 

There is RH RF making the league minimum playing for a team out of contention with an OPS over 1.000 against LHP if anyone would be interested.

[DesMoinesCub]

All right...I'll bite.

 

I am interested, but who the heck is it?

[E.J.]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

 

Since we're lacking in offense from a couple different positions, I'd like a RF who is good at both.

 

There is RH RF making the league minimum playing for a team out of contention with an OPS over 1.000 against LHP if anyone would be interested.

 

And there's the problem. Teams don't like to trade productive players who are making league minimum (well-run teams anyway).

[UBlink]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

 

Since we're lacking in offense from a couple different positions, I'd like a RF who is good at both.

 

There is RH RF making the league minimum playing for a team out of contention with an OPS over 1.000 against LHP if anyone would be interested.

 

And there's the problem. Teams don't like to trade productive players who are making league minimum (well-run teams anyway).

 

But he's only under contract through this year so it would be a rental. And I cheated a little on the league minimum because it's minimum for someone with his experience.

 

Link

[JeffH]

All right...I'll bite.

 

I am interested, but who the heck is it?

 

Sammy!

[E.J.]

Ugh. No Sammy please. There's no way Hendry would bring him back.

[UBlink]

Ugh. No Sammy please. There's no way Hendry would bring him back.

 

Well, he's probably going somewhere. Admittedly it's more likely he goes to an AL team, but now we're looking for an inexpensive RF that hits lefties well for both OBP and power playing for a non-contender who also is not in Hendry's doghouse.

[CyHawk_Cub]

Ugh. No Sammy please. There's no way Hendry would bring him back.

 

Well, he's probably going somewhere. Admittedly it's more likely he goes to an AL team, but now we're looking for an inexpensive RF that hits lefties well for both OBP and power playing for a non-contender who also is not in Hendry's doghouse.

 

LOL...Yeah, we're gonna keep adding qualifiers until we come full circle & end up w/ Murton back in a platoon...

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It would be so awesome if the Cubs brought Sammy back.

[davearm]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

That'd be one ridiculous argument.

 

a) Studies consistently show OBP to be more important than SLG. Depending on who you ask, the multiplier is anywhere from 1.5x more important to 3x more important.

 

b) The importance of SLG in proportion to OBP is going to be the same no matter where you stand when you've got your fielder's glove on. The notion that your LF and RF have to slug and your CF and SS need to get onbase is complete and utter nonsense. What's needed is lineup balance, regardless of defensive position.

[Sarcastic]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

That'd be one ridiculous argument.

 

a) Studies consistently show OBP to be more important than SLG. Depending on who you ask, the multiplier is anywhere from 1.5x more important to 3x more important.

 

b) The importance of SLG in proportion to OBP is going to be the same no matter where you stand when you've got your fielder's glove on. The notion that your LF and RF have to slug and your CF and SS need to get onbase is complete and utter nonsense. What's needed is lineup balance, regardless of defensive position.

 

I agree with B. I find A slightly misleading, since the implication is that OBP is up to 3 times as important as SLG, when the multiplier is usually used in the context of what multiplier creates an adjusted version of OPS that best correlates with run production. I think everyone would agree that both OBP and SLG are important.

[Mephistopheles]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

 

i would argue that you need a CAT scan. To say connect offensive production to the position a player plays deciding what he should be able to do is not only stupid, it's downright a complete logical nightmare. Im going to say this one time and only one time: "OFFENSE AND DEFENSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. TO CONNECT THEM IS TO BE STUPID."

 

You get the best hitter you can get at the position and that's the answer for EVERY position. Whether the offense comes from SLG or OBP makes no difference.

[Jazz]

i would argue that SLG is more important than OBP for a corner outfielder

 

i would argue that you need a CAT scan. To say connect offensive production to the position a player plays deciding what he should be able to do is not only stupid, it's downright a complete logical nightmare. Im going to say this one time and only one time: "OFFENSE AND DEFENSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. TO CONNECT THEM IS TO BE STUPID."

 

You get the best hitter you can get at the position and that's the answer for EVERY position. Whether the offense comes from SLG or OBP makes no difference.

 

1. calm down with the insulting posts. Not making friends quickly that way.

 

2. The idea that you connect offensive production to the position a player plays is largely because of the fact the kind of defensive player you are as far as physical tools usually impact the kind of offensive player you are. For example, shortstop is not really a position loaded with power players (only 6 players with SLG % near or over .475).

Since it is more likely that you are one of the other 26 teams with light hitting SS's, youre going to want them to be OBP machines, or base running specialists that can field at an above average or better level. There's a reason that Miguel Cabrera came up as a shortstop only to be switched to 3B (generally a power hitting position)

[davearm]

2. The idea that you connect offensive production to the position a player plays is largely because of the fact the kind of defensive player you are as far as physical tools usually impact the kind of offensive player you are. For example, shortstop is not really a position loaded with power players (only 6 players with SLG % near or over .475).

Since it is more likely that you are one of the other 26 teams with light hitting SS's, youre going to want them to be OBP machines, or base running specialists that can field at an above average or better level. There's a reason that Miguel Cabrera came up as a shortstop only to be switched to 3B (generally a power hitting position)

Miguel Cabrera was switched off of SS because he was hitting for too much power, huh?

 

Fascinating. I did not know that.

[SouthSideRyan]

2. The idea that you connect offensive production to the position a player plays is largely because of the fact the kind of defensive player you are as far as physical tools usually impact the kind of offensive player you are. For example, shortstop is not really a position loaded with power players (only 6 players with SLG % near or over .475).

Since it is more likely that you are one of the other 26 teams with light hitting SS's, youre going to want them to be OBP machines, or base running specialists that can field at an above average or better level. There's a reason that Miguel Cabrera came up as a shortstop only to be switched to 3B (generally a power hitting position)

Miguel Cabrera was switched off of SS because he was hitting for too much power, huh?

 

Fascinating. I did not know that.

 

Well in a roudnabout way, sort of but not really. He bulked up to add power and thus became immobile enough that he could no longer handle SS. And now he's eating his way out of 3rd, though fat doesn't quite work the same way when it comes to power.