White Sox wanted Marmol for Dye

[Soul]

Daily Southtown[/url]"]Given the lack of durability of Cliff Floyd in right field, the Cubs may want Dye as an insurance policy. They could offer a package that includes outfielder Matt Murton, who doesn't appear to fit their future plans, although the Sox may be reluctant to deal with their crosstown rivals.

 

They weren't reluctant in the Garland-Karchner trade.

 

But yeah, I'd be shocked if we got Dye.

 

I hope this doesn't wind up being another Palmiero situation, where the Cubs come back years later after Murton's a monster and say "we never thought he would develop power"

 

Of course in retrospect, now that we know why Palmiero developed power (i.e. roids), it makes a little more sense, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Murton would develop more power. I'm still a little confused why the Cubs are sour on Murton now -- a bad April and suddenly everything he did last year means nothing?

 

Something's not quite right with this situation.

[CubColtPacer]

Daily Southtown[/url]"]Given the lack of durability of Cliff Floyd in right field, the Cubs may want Dye as an insurance policy. They could offer a package that includes outfielder Matt Murton, who doesn't appear to fit their future plans, although the Sox may be reluctant to deal with their crosstown rivals.

 

They weren't reluctant in the Garland-Karchner trade.

 

But yeah, I'd be shocked if we got Dye.

 

I hope this doesn't wind up being another Palmiero situation, where the Cubs come back years later after Murton's a monster and say "we never thought he would develop power"

 

Of course in retrospect, now that we know why Palmiero developed power (i.e. roids), it makes a little more sense, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Murton would develop more power. I'm still a little confused why the Cubs are sour on Murton now -- a bad April and suddenly everything he did last year means nothing?

 

Something's not quite right with this situation.

 

I don't necessarily think the Cubs organization is sour on Murton. They might not think that he can contribute this year (which is false) but at the same time there have been several reports that the Cubs have a very high trade value on him. When other teams have come calling to take him off the Cubs hands, the Cubs have said no way. It sounds to me that this paper is just speculating that the Cubs could offer Murton, not that they actually would.

[erik316wttn]

Daily Southtown[/url]"]Given the lack of durability of Cliff Floyd in right field, the Cubs may want Dye as an insurance policy. They could offer a package that includes outfielder Matt Murton, who doesn't appear to fit their future plans, although the Sox may be reluctant to deal with their crosstown rivals.

 

They weren't reluctant in the Garland-Karchner trade.

 

But yeah, I'd be shocked if we got Dye.

 

I hope this doesn't wind up being another Palmiero situation, where the Cubs come back years later after Murton's a monster and say "we never thought he would develop power"

 

Of course in retrospect, now that we know why Palmiero developed power (i.e. roids), it makes a little more sense, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Murton would develop more power. I'm still a little confused why the Cubs are sour on Murton now -- a bad April and suddenly everything he did last year means nothing?

 

Something's not quite right with this situation.

 

I don't necessarily think the Cubs organization is sour on Murton. They might not think that he can contribute this year (which is false) but at the same time there have been several reports that the Cubs have a very high trade value on him. When other teams have come calling to take him off the Cubs hands, the Cubs have said no way. It sounds to me that this paper is just speculating that the Cubs could offer Murton, not that they actually would.

 

If they're high on him they sure have a funny way of showing it.

 

Has he even played since he got called up?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not saying the pen hasn't pitched better. What I am saying is that they are not the sole, or even main, reason for the streak.

 

I know, you are attributing it to luck. hitting got worse. starting pitching got worse. pen got better. must be luck. (shhh, don't tell anyone that while the hitting and pitching got worse, the pythag record got better too).

 

I don't even know what you're trying to say. The pythagorean is an argument in favor of variance/luck/unknown. They were way underperforming their pythag record when they were losing, it was them in the Yankees for most under expected wins. Many people said that this would likely straighten itself out, and it has for the most part. Obviously in order for that to happen performance has to occur. Maybe it was partially the bullpen, with Dempster and Howry getting straightened out plus the addition of Marmol, or maybe the offense getting more timely hits and hitting better on the whole. Obviously it's a combination.

 

And I really don't understand the extrapolation to the "stats movement" as a whole. I understand and agree with the need to continue to explore, but there is an enormous difference between a debate on whether clutch exists, and talking about a team having good fortune for a span of <50 games. Sample size matters, and in a sample as small as the Cubs' season or current run, ignoring the role variance plays would be foolish.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Transmogrified Tiger

[davearm]

I don't necessarily think the Cubs organization is sour on Murton. They might not think that he can contribute this year (which is false) but at the same time there have been several reports that the Cubs have a very high trade value on him. When other teams have come calling to take him off the Cubs hands, the Cubs have said no way. It sounds to me that this paper is just speculating that the Cubs could offer Murton, not that they actually would.

Well said CCP.

 

People are quick to observe Murton's sparse playing time and immediately jump to the conclusion that the Cubs don't like the guy and/or don't see much value in him.

 

That's certainly a plausible explanation, but it's hardly the only one. And as you note, Hendry's made some comments that indicate they still place a high value on the guy.

[CubColtPacer]

Daily Southtown[/url]"]Given the lack of durability of Cliff Floyd in right field, the Cubs may want Dye as an insurance policy. They could offer a package that includes outfielder Matt Murton, who doesn't appear to fit their future plans, although the Sox may be reluctant to deal with their crosstown rivals.

 

They weren't reluctant in the Garland-Karchner trade.

 

But yeah, I'd be shocked if we got Dye.

 

I hope this doesn't wind up being another Palmiero situation, where the Cubs come back years later after Murton's a monster and say "we never thought he would develop power"

 

Of course in retrospect, now that we know why Palmiero developed power (i.e. roids), it makes a little more sense, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Murton would develop more power. I'm still a little confused why the Cubs are sour on Murton now -- a bad April and suddenly everything he did last year means nothing?

 

Something's not quite right with this situation.

 

I don't necessarily think the Cubs organization is sour on Murton. They might not think that he can contribute this year (which is false) but at the same time there have been several reports that the Cubs have a very high trade value on him. When other teams have come calling to take him off the Cubs hands, the Cubs have said no way. It sounds to me that this paper is just speculating that the Cubs could offer Murton, not that they actually would.

 

If they're high on him they sure have a funny way of showing it.

 

Has he even played since he got called up?

 

He has pinch-hit twice in the three games since he got called up. My guess is that he'll get a start in RF tonight. Plus, like I said, being high on him for the future and thinking he can contribute right now are two very different things, and the Cubs seem to believe in the former but not so much the latter.

[Peoriaman]

all threads lead to Murton.

[nilodnayr]

well said jjig. The stats guys are as unbending and stubborn now as they claimed the old-timers were a few years ago.

 

Hmm, I didnt get the memo that James, Tango and others decided to retire. I was under the impression that they were still out there working on trying to explain this stuff and dig deeper.

[RynoRules]

well said jjig. The stats guys are as unbending and stubborn now as they claimed the old-timers were a few years ago.

 

Hmm, I didnt get the memo that James, Tango and others decided to retire. I was under the impression that they were still out there working on trying to explain this stuff and dig deeper.

 

They are, and that's a good thing for the reasons I stated above. I think what Peoria meant to say is that there is more work to be done, though his message could have been stated in a less visceral way.

[RynoRules]

TT wrote:

Maybe it was partially the bullpen, with Dempster and Howry getting straightened out plus the addition of Marmol, or maybe the offense getting more timely hits and hitting better on the whole. Obviously it's a combination.

 

 

I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

TT wrote:

Maybe it was partially the bullpen, with Dempster and Howry getting straightened out plus the addition of Marmol, or maybe the offense getting more timely hits and hitting better on the whole. Obviously it's a combination.

 

 

I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way.

 

Luck is just a different way of saying variance. Players who hit .250 don't go 1 for 4 every day, and pitchers with a 4.50 ERA don't give up 3 ER over 6 IP every start. In the same way(or, "as a result" works better I guess), .500 teams don't alternate win-loss-win-loss all year. A different way to say it without using "luck", is that they "played to their potential". People say luck because the close games that make and break teams' records have a LOT of variance.

[Backtobanks]

Interestingly enough, on Chicago Tribune Live Gail Fischer asked Sox beat writer Mark Gonzalez (Chicago Tribune) if he would trade Dye for Marmol. He said it was "not enough". She looked at him as if he was crazy.

 

They quickly segued to their next topic, but she was shaking her head in disbelief.

 

That Kenny Williams Kool-Aide is potent stuff.

[RynoRules]

TT wrote:

Maybe it was partially the bullpen, with Dempster and Howry getting straightened out plus the addition of Marmol, or maybe the offense getting more timely hits and hitting better on the whole. Obviously it's a combination.

 

 

I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way.

 

 

Luck is just a different way of saying variance. Players who hit .250 don't go 1 for 4 every day, and pitchers with a 4.50 ERA don't give up 3 ER over 6 IP every start. In the same way(or, "as a result" works better I guess), .500 teams don't alternate win-loss-win-loss all year. A different way to say it without using "luck", is that they "played to their potential". People say luck because the close games that make and break teams' records have a LOT of variance.

 

 

I am not sure that is what everyone means when they use the term, but I'll play along.

 

Assuming you are correct, do we have a way of quantifying or predicting this variance? What about for middle relievrs, which is the topic the hand?

 

Also, would you be willing to concede that baseball in general is to a great extent influenced by this "variance", or do you think certain teams get "luckier" than others? And if it is the case that some get luckier, isn't it true that there is only so much you can do to build a team that wins the WS?

[Magnetic Curses]

TT wrote:

Maybe it was partially the bullpen, with Dempster and Howry getting straightened out plus the addition of Marmol, or maybe the offense getting more timely hits and hitting better on the whole. Obviously it's a combination.

 

 

I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way.

 

Luck is just a different way of saying variance. Players who hit .250 don't go 1 for 4 every day, and pitchers with a 4.50 ERA don't give up 3 ER over 6 IP every start. In the same way(or, "as a result" works better I guess), .500 teams don't alternate win-loss-win-loss all year. A different way to say it without using "luck", is that they "played to their potential". People say luck because the close games that make and break teams' records have a LOT of variance.

 

well put, moddy.

 

luck is a much bigger part of baseball than team chemistry and possibly even skill.

 

"variance" is a good way to look at it. some people may not want to face it, but baseball is one of those games that is significantly effected by circumstances completely out of a player's control. which is why a long season is necessary.

[jersey cubs fan]

And if it is the case that some get luckier, isn't it true that there is only so much you can do to build a team that wins the WS?

 

That's definitely true. All you can really do is build a team that makes the playoffs. And all you can do to build a team that makes the playoffs is have a team that scores more and gives up less than most of the rest of the league. I would say it's possible to build a team that could and should win 90+ games, without relying on luck. And that is what GMs should be striving for. Give yourself the best possible chance, so that, if you are a team that "should" win 98, but if you hit some bad luck you can still win 90-92 and have a chance to make it.

[RynoRules]

TT wrote:

Maybe it was partially the bullpen, with Dempster and Howry getting straightened out plus the addition of Marmol, or maybe the offense getting more timely hits and hitting better on the whole. Obviously it's a combination.

 

 

I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way.

 

Luck is just a different way of saying variance. Players who hit .250 don't go 1 for 4 every day, and pitchers with a 4.50 ERA don't give up 3 ER over 6 IP every start. In the same way(or, "as a result" works better I guess), .500 teams don't alternate win-loss-win-loss all year. A different way to say it without using "luck", is that they "played to their potential". People say luck because the close games that make and break teams' records have a LOT of variance.

 

well put, moddy.

 

luck is a much bigger part of baseball than team chemistry and possibly even skill.

 

"variance" is a good way to look at it. some people may not want to face it, but baseball is one of those games that is significantly effected by circumstances completely out of a player's control. which is why a long season is necessary.

 

That pretty much answers the questions I posed above, and I happen to agree. There is a great degree of luck / variance involved in baseball as a whole. I get annoyed when I read comments stating that the 07' Cubs are "just lucky". Well hell, you could say that about a lot of winning teams.

[RynoRules]

And if it is the case that some get luckier, isn't it true that there is only so much you can do to build a team that wins the WS?

 

That's definitely true. All you can really do is build a team that makes the playoffs. And all you can do to build a team that makes the playoffs is have a team that scores more and gives up less than most of the rest of the league. I would say it's possible to build a team that could and should win 90+ games, without relying on luck. And that is what GMs should be striving for. Give yourself the best possible chance, so that, if you are a team that "should" win 98, but if you hit some bad luck you can still win 90-92 and have a chance to make it.

 

That's exactly where I was headed.

[jersey cubs fan]

I get annoyed when I read comments stating that the 07' Cubs are "just lucky".

 

Are people really saying this? I haven't noticed people saying this Cubs team is just lucky.

[RynoRules]

I get annoyed when I read comments stating that the 07' Cubs are "just lucky".

 

Are people really saying this? I haven't noticed people saying this Cubs team is just lucky.

 

To be honest I can't quantify it (pun intended), but I have seen it in several places on this bd.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

TT wrote:

Maybe it was partially the bullpen, with Dempster and Howry getting straightened out plus the addition of Marmol, or maybe the offense getting more timely hits and hitting better on the whole. Obviously it's a combination.

 

 

I think what he meant is that we don't have a good way of objectively dentifying what caused the Cubs to begin to play up to their "pytg. potential", if you know what I mean. Therefore we wind up attributing everything to "luck", a sort of catch-all phrase we fallback on when we can't explain the reason for or meaning behind certain phenomanon. I think the hope is that we can find a way to objectify that analysis in the future rather than saying "they just got lucky", which is demeaning in its own way.

 

 

Luck is just a different way of saying variance. Players who hit .250 don't go 1 for 4 every day, and pitchers with a 4.50 ERA don't give up 3 ER over 6 IP every start. In the same way(or, "as a result" works better I guess), .500 teams don't alternate win-loss-win-loss all year. A different way to say it without using "luck", is that they "played to their potential". People say luck because the close games that make and break teams' records have a LOT of variance.

 

 

I am not sure that is what everyone means when they use the term, but I'll play along.

 

Assuming you are correct, do we have a way of quantifying or predicting this variance? What about for middle relievrs, which is the topic the hand?

 

Also, would you be willing to concede that baseball in general is to a great extent influenced by this "variance", or do you think certain teams get "luckier" than others? And if it is the case that some get luckier, isn't it true that there is only so much you can do to build a team that wins the WS?

 

I'll try to relate it to middle relievers. Variance comes because you can't predict when Marmol or Wuertz is going to have a bad outing. Obviously managers have some sway over this, and may be able to sniff out when a guy may have stayed out too late, or looked really good in his last side session. But even then, sometimes the guy makes his pitch and the hitter makes a play on it. All of a sudden you've lost that one run game. Over the course of a long season(kinda tying in what Sulley just said), these things tend to even out(although no one is saying it's guaranteed), hence the value of pythagorean.

 

On a macro scale, it's a little easier to make distinctions like this. For example, Les Walrond is a bad pitcher, calling him up and letting him pitch in a bunch of close games is a bad idea. But over the course of less than 1/3rd of a season there's a near infinite amount of noise that can distort. That also ties in to how I feel about the playoffs. There may be a common denominator in successful playoff teams, but even isolating it and building upon it may not do much for your chances of playoff success given the short amount of games(at most it's half of the sample I was just talking about). That's why my objective would be to build the best team possible, with maybe small differences to an ideal roster to account for the slightly different dynamic of postseason team construction(i.e. having 2-3 studs and 1-2 lesser pitchers in the rotation instead of 1 stud and 4 decent-solid guys).

[Magnetic Curses]

I get annoyed when I read comments stating that the 07' Cubs are "just lucky".

 

Are people really saying this? I haven't noticed people saying this Cubs team is just lucky.

 

To be honest I can't quantify it (pun intended), but I have seen it in several places on this bd.

 

i think the cubs aere very unlucky earlier this season and that luck has been evening out a tad over the last month and a half, which wasn't necessairly inevitable, but likely. the cubs are a pretty good team that scores more runs than they allow. their skill is definitely the deciding factor right now, and it's shining through.

 

i just wish they were hitting home runs on a more consistent basis, that would make me feel a lot better. home runs are really the ultimate way of negating luck. just hit the ball out of the park and there's nothing variance can do about it.

[Magnetic Curses]

And if it is the case that some get luckier, isn't it true that there is only so much you can do to build a team that wins the WS?

 

That's definitely true. All you can really do is build a team that makes the playoffs. And all you can do to build a team that makes the playoffs is have a team that scores more and gives up less than most of the rest of the league. I would say it's possible to build a team that could and should win 90+ games, without relying on luck. And that is what GMs should be striving for. Give yourself the best possible chance, so that, if you are a team that "should" win 98, but if you hit some bad luck you can still win 90-92 and have a chance to make it.

 

i think this accurately sums up the feelings of people who try to think rationally about baseball and how teams win the world series.

 

of course teams with more skill are more likely to win in the playoffs, but it's very hard to quanitfy with such a small sample size. look at the cards last season, this may sound blasphemous, but i was kind of hoping that they would win, just to prove a point about randomness in sample size.

[Cubfan_N_nebraska]

Trading Marmol for Dye would be worse then Garland for Kartchner pulled off by Ed Lynch! I'm sure He was mastermind behind that horrible trade.

[Magnetic Curses]

i'd trade wuertz + fontenot for dye + brian anderson.

 

fontenot is expendable with the call-up of cedeno, and the acquisition of dye. that puts derosa permanently at 2nd base and gives us a backup option in center if pie is floated around this offseason. i still like anderson and think he could be a very good player.

 

and call me crazy, but i don't think that richard is the answer for the sox at second. a free swinging 2nd baseman that will be exposed in the majors.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Stannis

[C.C.]

i'd trade wuertz + fontenot for dye + brian anderson.

 

 

If you're the Cubs you would.