It's time for me to give credit to Hendry for the offseason.

[Keener98]

no it just proves an idiot can get lucky

 

when did you get lucky?

[Jazz]

durham was a better bet. again all it shows is an idiot can get lucky

 

Obviously not, or he would be performing this year.

 

probabilistic outcomes.

 

so weighing the probability that a Derosa having good year vs. Durham having a good year is not a skill, but a crapshoot? give me a break.

 

lucky you aren't the gm or we'd have the awesome tandem of lugo and durham maning the Middle Infield!

 

Yeah, what our arrogant friend doesn't understand is that it's not all about projected numbers. Yeah, PECOTA is a nice tool, but if a player has really made a breakthrough due to a change in his approach at the plate, the PECOTA numbers are going to be biased w.r.t. his previous performance. Ray Durham has suddently gotten old, and Marcus Giles is off steroids now. That's why scouting is also a part of the game.

 

you dont need pecota to see durhams career norms were derosa's career year. i cant believe some of you are saying derosa was the right signing.

 

well there is a difference when you compare durham to derosa. One is middle of his career, and following up on his 1st year as a starter, the other is nearing the end of his career. It is more "probable" (see i can use it to) that durham is washed up, and won't produce very much for the rest of his career, than it is that derosa is having a flukish year and a half, and will revert to his numbers as a platoon player.

[CubColtPacer]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

 

but, at the same time, all that other stuff is rather flukish. if derosa continues to outperform durham for the entire season, then i think you have to give some credit to hendry for preferring derosa to durham.

 

i dont think so. because if durham plays like he normally does the rest of the year and derosa plays like his career avg the rest of the year, derosa will barely outperform him. Durham is having the worst year of his career and has the lowest obp since his rookie season.

 

We can all agree that DeRosa has exceeded expectations this year. DeRosa's numbers are the expected numbers for Durham. If Durham crashes and burns next year again, then Ill say good job hendry.

 

This really isnt that big of a difference. DeRosa wasnt too expensive like Soriano. It just probably wasnt the best move.

 

If DeRosa even matches Durham offensively, he'll be way more valuable than him for 2 big reasons.

1) DeRosa is making a couple million less than him

2) DeRosa's ability to play 3B and RF has allowed the Cubs now to get better lineups in every day by getting both DeRosa and Fontenot in the lineup when either Ramirez or Floyd gets a day off.

 

Durham would have to be significantly better offensively in order to offset those advantages, and considering his age/DeRosa starting to prove last year wasn't a career year, that becomes less and less likely.

[Drew Doughty]

well there is a difference when you compare durham to derosa. One is middle of his career, and following up on his 1st year as a starter, the other is nearing the end of his career. It is more "probable" (see i can use it to) that durham is washed up, and won't produce very much for the rest of his career, than it is that derosa is having a flukish year and a half, and will revert to his numbers as a platoon player.

 

it might be now, but it certainly wasn't at the time. why in the world would someone think that durham was washed up in winter 06?

[Jazz]

well there is a difference when you compare durham to derosa. One is middle of his career, and following up on his 1st year as a starter, the other is nearing the end of his career. It is more "probable" (see i can use it to) that durham is washed up, and won't produce very much for the rest of his career, than it is that derosa is having a flukish year and a half, and will revert to his numbers as a platoon player.

 

it might be now, but it certainly wasn't at the time. why in the world would someone think that durham was washed up in winter 06?

 

I never said that one would think that while comparing the two in the offseason, i was saying the chances of durham reverting to career norms, and derosa reverting to his platooning numbers in the 2nd half of 07.

[Bruno7481]

well there is a difference when you compare durham to derosa. One is middle of his career, and following up on his 1st year as a starter, the other is nearing the end of his career. It is more "probable" (see i can use it to) that durham is washed up, and won't produce very much for the rest of his career, than it is that derosa is having a flukish year and a half, and will revert to his numbers as a platoon player.

 

it might be now, but it certainly wasn't at the time. why in the world would someone think that durham was washed up in winter 06?

 

And you said I was using 20/20 hindsight?

 

For reasons mentioned above, versatilty, age, and salary, It was the better move.

[Drew Doughty]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

 

but, at the same time, all that other stuff is rather flukish. if derosa continues to outperform durham for the entire season, then i think you have to give some credit to hendry for preferring derosa to durham.

 

i dont think so. because if durham plays like he normally does the rest of the year and derosa plays like his career avg the rest of the year, derosa will barely outperform him. Durham is having the worst year of his career and has the lowest obp since his rookie season.

 

We can all agree that DeRosa has exceeded expectations this year. DeRosa's numbers are the expected numbers for Durham. If Durham crashes and burns next year again, then Ill say good job hendry.

 

This really isnt that big of a difference. DeRosa wasnt too expensive like Soriano. It just probably wasnt the best move.

 

If DeRosa even matches Durham offensively, he'll be way more valuable than him for 2 big reasons.

1) DeRosa is making a couple million less than him

2) DeRosa's ability to play 3B and RF has allowed the Cubs now to get better lineups in every day by getting both DeRosa and Fontenot in the lineup when either Ramirez or Floyd gets a day off.

 

Durham would have to be significantly better offensively in order to offset those advantages, and considering his age/DeRosa starting to prove last year wasn't a career year, that becomes less and less likely.

 

again, that's dealing with now, not when Derosa was signed. Of course the Derosa signing looks good now that we know he can play several positions well defensively and has proven that last year was probably not a fluke.

[abuck1220]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

 

but, at the same time, all that other stuff is rather flukish. if derosa continues to outperform durham for the entire season, then i think you have to give some credit to hendry for preferring derosa to durham.

 

i dont think so. because if durham plays like he normally does the rest of the year and derosa plays like his career avg the rest of the year, derosa will barely outperform him. Durham is having the worst year of his career and has the lowest obp since his rookie season.

 

We can all agree that DeRosa has exceeded expectations this year. DeRosa's numbers are the expected numbers for Durham. If Durham crashes and burns next year again, then Ill say good job hendry.

 

This really isnt that big of a difference. DeRosa wasnt too expensive like Soriano. It just probably wasnt the best move.

 

i think the durham versus derosa decision is a closer one than you're making it out to be. for one, durham is three years older than derosa. also, while it's true derosa was coming off a career year, it was his first season of full-time play, and i suppose it's possible that something clicked for him...and it's not like the extra ab's exposed him or anything.

 

i mean, i would have preferred durham too, but it's not like hendry opted for a 39 year old derosa over a 26 year old chase utley or some other indefensible decision.

[Mephistopheles]

you dont need pecota to see durhams career norms were derosa's career year. i cant believe some of you are saying derosa was the right signing.

 

Durham is three years older, and more likely to decline, plus he was coming off a career-type year. And regardless of that, there was a big money difference (more than $3M per) between their price tags.

 

no he wasnt more likely to decline. thats the whole point. a lot of durhams value was in his ability to draw 70 walks a full season. walk rates dont slip as much as other things do in a career. his walk rate hasnt faltered at all this season. As bad as Durhams has been this season, hes a league average hitter and has down as well as the expected level of production from derosa. THATS WHEN HE BOTTOMS OUT! DeRosa's career crap line pointed to a lower expected production level.

[Mephistopheles]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

 

but, at the same time, all that other stuff is rather flukish. if derosa continues to outperform durham for the entire season, then i think you have to give some credit to hendry for preferring derosa to durham.

 

i dont think so. because if durham plays like he normally does the rest of the year and derosa plays like his career avg the rest of the year, derosa will barely outperform him. Durham is having the worst year of his career and has the lowest obp since his rookie season.

 

We can all agree that DeRosa has exceeded expectations this year. DeRosa's numbers are the expected numbers for Durham. If Durham crashes and burns next year again, then Ill say good job hendry.

 

This really isnt that big of a difference. DeRosa wasnt too expensive like Soriano. It just probably wasnt the best move.

 

i think the durham versus derosa decision is a closer one than you're making it out to be. for one, durham is three years older than derosa. also, while it's true derosa was coming off a career year, it was his first season of full-time play, and i suppose it's possible that something clicked for him...and it's not like the extra ab's exposed him or anything.

 

i mean, i would have preferred durham too, but it's not like hendry opted for a 39 year old derosa over a 26 year old chase utley or some other indefensible decision.

i didnt say it was that big of a difference, just 20 runs or so

[CubColtPacer]

i think i see what meph is saying w/ the durham/derosa stuff.

 

just because baker bats macias leadoff and he gets three hits, it doesn't mean it was the right decision. or just because he brings remlinger in to face a lefty and he gets him out, that doesn't mean it was the right move. if the cubs trade aramis ramirez for a lefty reliever and ramirez breaks both his arms the next day and is never able to play again, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

i don't know if you can apply that logic to durham/derosa, though.

thanks for putting in cubspeak

 

 

but, at the same time, all that other stuff is rather flukish. if derosa continues to outperform durham for the entire season, then i think you have to give some credit to hendry for preferring derosa to durham.

 

i dont think so. because if durham plays like he normally does the rest of the year and derosa plays like his career avg the rest of the year, derosa will barely outperform him. Durham is having the worst year of his career and has the lowest obp since his rookie season.

 

We can all agree that DeRosa has exceeded expectations this year. DeRosa's numbers are the expected numbers for Durham. If Durham crashes and burns next year again, then Ill say good job hendry.

 

This really isnt that big of a difference. DeRosa wasnt too expensive like Soriano. It just probably wasnt the best move.

 

If DeRosa even matches Durham offensively, he'll be way more valuable than him for 2 big reasons.

1) DeRosa is making a couple million less than him

2) DeRosa's ability to play 3B and RF has allowed the Cubs now to get better lineups in every day by getting both DeRosa and Fontenot in the lineup when either Ramirez or Floyd gets a day off.

 

Durham would have to be significantly better offensively in order to offset those advantages, and considering his age/DeRosa starting to prove last year wasn't a career year, that becomes less and less likely.

 

again, that's dealing with now, not when Derosa was signed. Of course the Derosa signing looks good now that we know he can play several positions well defensively and has proven that last year was probably not a fluke.

 

Everybody already knew he could play several positions well defensively. That was no secret.

 

As far as last year being a fluke, it's Hendry's job (and his assistants and scouts) to go over the tape and determine if DeRosa's performance was a fluke or a legitimate change at the plate that helped him improve his numbers. They determined it was legitimate, and it looks like they were right.

[Drew Doughty]

for what it's worth, i'm leaning more toward abuck on this one. i don't think the derosa signing was indefensibly bad at the time (though i may have said something else otherwise, and probably did in an overreactionary way), but I do think Durham was a better fit for the Cubs.

[Guest]

I can't believe nobody has picked on Ray Durham for reasons of his durability. That alone made him a risky move and much less likely to be 20 runs better than DeRosa even if each performed at their career years.

 

btw - iirc DeRosa was much, much better in the first half last year and then was pretty much at career norms in the second half. Let's see where things finish up before going crazy with praise.

[Bruno7481]

for what it's worth, i'm leaning more toward abuck on this one. i don't think the derosa signing was indefensibly bad at the time (though i may have said something else otherwise, and probably did in an overreactionary way), but I do think Durham was a better fit for the Cubs.

 

The only issue that hasnt been brought into this but I can't let go is who knows if Durham even wanted to come here? He may love SF and wanted to stay there. Maybe Hendry was interested and Durham said "thanks but no thanks."

 

If that is the case, obviously hypothetical, DeRosa might have been his best option.

[Mephistopheles]

for what it's worth i also said it wasn't bad. i said it was useless and overkill. if we're going to upgrade spend the extra few million and do it right. the expected difference between theriot and derosa was about 10 runs. the expected difference between derosa and durham was about 20 runs. the upgrade from derosa to durham wasnt expensive. ss was the big glaring hole and we did nothing to close it. not one damn thing.

[mspcanes1]

it also helps that everyone pitches to him rather than the big man behind him. let's see, do i give durham or bonds something to hit...

[Guest]

for what it's worth i also said it wasn't bad. i said it was useless and overkill. if we're going to upgrade spend the extra few million and do it right. the expected difference between theriot and derosa was about 10 runs. the expected difference between derosa and durham was about 20 runs. the upgrade from derosa to durham wasnt expensive. ss was the big glaring hole and we did nothing to close it. not one damn thing.

Duh, we traded Maddux for Izturis. How much more do you want?!?

[Mephistopheles]

for what it's worth, i'm leaning more toward abuck on this one. i don't think the derosa signing was indefensibly bad at the time (though i may have said something else otherwise, and probably did in an overreactionary way), but I do think Durham was a better fit for the Cubs.

 

The only issue that hasnt been brought into this but I can't let go is who knows if Durham even wanted to come here? He may love SF and wanted to stay there. Maybe Hendry was interested and Durham said "thanks but no thanks."

 

If that is the case, obviously hypothetical, DeRosa might have been his best option.

 

ill agree with that but with a lot of durhams value being hidden in walks. im not sure its a good assumption. sure hendry could have tried and was rejected. if thats the case then theres little wrong with the signing.

[Guest]

it also helps that everyone pitches to him rather than the big man behind him. let's see, do i give durham or bonds something to hit...

In the vast majority of circumstances, "protection" has been shown to have an effect small enough that it doesn't show through the noise.

[Guest]

for what it's worth, i'm leaning more toward abuck on this one. i don't think the derosa signing was indefensibly bad at the time (though i may have said something else otherwise, and probably did in an overreactionary way), but I do think Durham was a better fit for the Cubs.

 

The only issue that hasnt been brought into this but I can't let go is who knows if Durham even wanted to come here? He may love SF and wanted to stay there. Maybe Hendry was interested and Durham said "thanks but no thanks."

 

If that is the case, obviously hypothetical, DeRosa might have been his best option.

 

ill agree with that but with a lot of durhams value being hidden in walks. im not sure its a good assumption. sure hendry could have tried and was rejected. if thats the case then theres little wrong with the signing.

Still not responding to the durability issue, eh?

[mspcanes1]

for what it's worth i also said it wasn't bad. i said it was useless and overkill. if we're going to upgrade spend the extra few million and do it right. the expected difference between theriot and derosa was about 10 runs. the expected difference between derosa and durham was about 20 runs. the upgrade from derosa to durham wasnt expensive. ss was the big glaring hole and we did nothing to close it. not one damn thing.

Duh, we traded Maddux for Izturis. How much more do you want?!?

 

what izturis isn't good...what about his tremendous defensive value, lol

[TruffleShuffle]

btw - iirc DeRosa was much, much better in the first half last year and then was pretty much at career norms in the second half. Let's see where things finish up before going crazy with praise.

 

Actually, August was a great month for him (927 OPS), and he ended August with a 319/371/500 line on the year. But then he completely tanked in September, with a 590 OPS. I'm not sure if there was an injury... more likely, it was just a matter of being worn down from having easy career highs in games and ABs.

[Jazz]

for what it's worth i also said it wasn't bad. i said it was useless and overkill. if we're going to upgrade spend the extra few million and do it right. the expected difference between theriot and derosa was about 10 runs. the expected difference between derosa and durham was about 20 runs. the upgrade from derosa to durham wasnt expensive. ss was the big glaring hole and we did nothing to close it. not one damn thing.

 

well your kind of being narrow in that assumption. Derosa wasn't simply a value at the time for his offense at 2B, he was also valuable for being able to backup at multiple positions, and do it well I might add.

[Mephistopheles]

it also helps that everyone pitches to him rather than the big man behind him. let's see, do i give durham or bonds something to hit...

In the vast majority of circumstances, "protection" has been shown to have an effect small enough that it doesn't show through the noise.

 

and durhams pre and post giants stats are identical. his results were exactly the same. durham actually spent most of 2006 protecting bonds.

Edited July 15, 2007 by Mephistopheles

[Mephistopheles]

for what it's worth i also said it wasn't bad. i said it was useless and overkill. if we're going to upgrade spend the extra few million and do it right. the expected difference between theriot and derosa was about 10 runs. the expected difference between derosa and durham was about 20 runs. the upgrade from derosa to durham wasnt expensive. ss was the big glaring hole and we did nothing to close it. not one damn thing.

 

well your kind of being narrow in that assumption. Derosa wasn't simply a value at the time for his offense at 2B, he was also valuable for being able to backup at multiple positions, and do it well I might add.

yeah and those few outings don't amount to much. not even close to 20 runs. no where close.