Man-Love for Uncle Cliffy

[Warren Brusstar]

Can you explain what you mean by "shown signs"?

 

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd.

 

Seriously, you didn't need that explained.

 

What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive."

 

Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS.

 

What a stupid post.

 

Nice laydown.

 

Seriously, you're asking me to explain something I never said.

 

Murton was productive last year and is at an age where you can reasonably expect improvement. Floyd wasn't productive last year and is clearly broken down.

 

It's just asinine to try and pretend the two are in the same boat.

 

1. The odds that Murton will get better are reasonably good. Floyd will only get worse. So far this year, they've both been utterly terrible.

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

[Warren Brusstar]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

[Warpticon]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

 

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

 

Good Lord.

[CUBZ99]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

 

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

 

Good Lord.

 

I'm going to take a guess, and say that he is pointing out that you should take into consideration the players usage, instead of issuing a blanket statement that player A is superior to player B.

[Warren Brusstar]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

 

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

 

Good Lord.

 

We should either be mindful of splits or we shouldn't. But you can't have it both ways.

[brinoch]

How, exactly, is Jacque Jones relevant to a Murton vs. Floyd discussion?

[Warpticon]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

 

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

 

Good Lord.

 

We should either be mindful of splits or we shouldn't. But you can't have it both ways.

 

What in the bright orange squeaky hell are you talking about? The statement you're calling into question is that Murton has been productive recently and is more likely to perform productively in the futire, and that Floyd isn't. That has absolutely nothing to do with splits. Floyd is 1.8 bajilion years old. his power is gone, he's injury prone, and he's not very valuable. Murton has struggled, but he put up a .800+ OPS in close to a full season last year, and he's in his prime years. That's the point. Splits have jack to do with that, yet for some reason you keep bringing up splits. Have you even read anything you're responding to?

 

And then you bring up Jacque Jones. Why did I even ask? Of course you're not actually reading what people are saying.

[Warren Brusstar]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

 

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

 

Good Lord.

 

We should either be mindful of splits or we shouldn't. But you can't have it both ways.

 

What in the bright orange squeaky hell are you talking about? The statement you're calling into question is that Murton has been productive recently and is more likely to perform productively in the futire, and that Floyd isn't. That has absolutely nothing to do with splits. Floyd is 1.8 bajilion years old. his power is gone, he's injury prone, and he's not very valuable. Murton has struggled, but he put up a .800+ OPS in close to a full season last year, and he's in his prime years. That's the point. Splits have jack to do with that, yet for some reason you keep bringing up splits. Have you even read anything you're responding to?

 

And then you bring up Jacque Jones. Why did I even ask? Of course you're not actually reading what people are saying.

 

I think it's you that's not reading what's being posted. Please see my enumerate point No. 1 above.

 

I'm calling into question how anyone can say with a straight face that Murton has been productive over the last two years against RHP but Floyd has not.

[Warpticon]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

 

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

 

Good Lord.

 

We should either be mindful of splits or we shouldn't. But you can't have it both ways.

 

What in the bright orange squeaky hell are you talking about? The statement you're calling into question is that Murton has been productive recently and is more likely to perform productively in the futire, and that Floyd isn't. That has absolutely nothing to do with splits. Floyd is 1.8 bajilion years old. his power is gone, he's injury prone, and he's not very valuable. Murton has struggled, but he put up a .800+ OPS in close to a full season last year, and he's in his prime years. That's the point. Splits have jack to do with that, yet for some reason you keep bringing up splits. Have you even read anything you're responding to?

 

And then you bring up Jacque Jones. Why did I even ask? Of course you're not actually reading what people are saying.

 

I think it's you that's not reading what's being posted. Please see my enumerate point No. 1 above.

 

I'm calling into question how anyone can say with a straight face that Murton has been productive over the last two years against RHP but Floyd has not.

 

NOBODY SAID THAT. THAT'S MY POINT.

 

Holy crap.

[RynoRules]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

 

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

 

Good Lord.

 

We should either be mindful of splits or we shouldn't. But you can't have it both ways.

 

What in the bright orange squeaky hell are you talking about? The statement you're calling into question is that Murton has been productive recently and is more likely to perform productively in the futire, and that Floyd isn't. That has absolutely nothing to do with splits. Floyd is 1.8 bajilion years old. his power is gone, he's injury prone, and he's not very valuable. Murton has struggled, but he put up a .800+ OPS in close to a full season last year, and he's in his prime years. That's the point. Splits have jack to do with that, yet for some reason you keep bringing up splits. Have you even read anything you're responding to?

 

And then you bring up Jacque Jones. Why did I even ask? Of course you're not actually reading what people are saying.

 

I think it's you that's not reading what's being posted. Please see my enumerate point No. 1 above.

 

I'm calling into question how anyone can say with a straight face that Murton has been productive over the last two years against RHP but Floyd has not.

 

NOBODY SAID THAT. THAT'S MY POINT.

 

Holy crap.

 

Nobody said exactly that, but it was strongly implied via the statement that Murton has been productive and Floyd has not. I don't think that the splits bear that out.

[CubColtPacer]

I think what Warren is trying to say is that Murton has already been decided as the OF against left-handers.

 

The question becomes-who do you play against right-handers, Murton or Floyd? The best way to figure that out is to look against their splits against right-handers. How they hit against left-handers isn't really relevant to the discussion, so there's no reason to look at their total numbers when deciding who to play against RHP. They've been identical against right-handers the last two years combined, so putting Floyd in against right-handers is not going to give you any different results then Murton.

 

At the same time, being that the results are identical, Murton is younger, faster, and every at-bat he goes up there gives the Cubs a better picture of what to do with him in the next few years. Therefore he should be given the at-bats even if the only expectation is that he'll continue to be about the same to what Floyd would do.

 

So I understand Warren's point, but I believe that the Cubs should give the at-bats to Murton unless Floyd has proven to be significantly better against right-handers, and he has not done that this year.

[soapy]

Can you explain what you mean by "shown signs"?

 

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd.

 

Seriously, you didn't need that explained.

 

What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive."

 

Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS.

 

The difference is, you're using splits against RHP only. Once you factor in what each player does against LHP, Murton is clearly the better option. Not to mention the fact that he's far more likely to improve on that than Floyd is at this point.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.

 

Why the hell are you breaking out splits?

 

Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification.........................

 

So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

 

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

 

Good Lord.

 

We should either be mindful of splits or we shouldn't. But you can't have it both ways.

 

What in the bright orange squeaky hell are you talking about? The statement you're calling into question is that Murton has been productive recently and is more likely to perform productively in the futire, and that Floyd isn't. That has absolutely nothing to do with splits. Floyd is 1.8 bajilion years old. his power is gone, he's injury prone, and he's not very valuable. Murton has struggled, but he put up a .800+ OPS in close to a full season last year, and he's in his prime years. That's the point. Splits have jack to do with that, yet for some reason you keep bringing up splits. Have you even read anything you're responding to?

 

And then you bring up Jacque Jones. Why did I even ask? Of course you're not actually reading what people are saying.

 

I think it's you that's not reading what's being posted. Please see my enumerate point No. 1 above.

 

I'm calling into question how anyone can say with a straight face that Murton has been productive over the last two years against RHP but Floyd has not.

 

NOBODY SAID THAT. THAT'S MY POINT.

 

Holy crap.

 

Nobody said exactly that, but it was strongly implied via the statement that Murton has been productive and Floyd has not. I don't think that the splits bear that out.

 

It wasn't strongly implied. It's just a fact. Murton has been productive in the recent past, and Floyd has not.

 

It's freaking stupid to bring up splits vs RHP when we are talking about overall performance. It has nothing to do with the conversation.

[Warren Brusstar]

Can you explain what you mean by "shown signs"?

 

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd.

 

Seriously, you didn't need that explained.

 

What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive."

 

Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS.

 

The difference is, you're using splits against RHP only. Once you factor in what each player does against LHP, Murton is clearly the better option. Not to mention the fact that he's far more likely to improve on that than Floyd is at this point.

 

There's is no dispute - at all - that Murton is the better option against LHP. None. Zippo.

 

The question is who should play against RHP. Murton and Floyd have basically been indistinguishable against RHP over the last two years. That's a fact. And while it's true that Murton is likely to get better over the next few years and Floyd is absolutely going to get worse, it's an open question who is likely to produce at a higher clip over the last 6 weeks. And in any event, they both suck.

[Banedon]

Can you explain what you mean by "shown signs"?

 

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd.

 

Seriously, you didn't need that explained.

 

What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive."

 

Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS.

 

The difference is, you're using splits against RHP only. Once you factor in what each player does against LHP, Murton is clearly the better option. Not to mention the fact that he's far more likely to improve on that than Floyd is at this point.

 

There's is no dispute - at all - that Murton is the better option against LHP. None. Zippo.

 

The question is who should play against RHP. Murton and Floyd have basically been indistinguishable against RHP over the last two years. That's a fact. And while it's true that Murton is likely to get better over the next few years and Floyd is absolutely going to get worse, it's an open question who is likely to produce at a higher clip over the last 6 weeks. And in any event, they both suck.

 

For the sake of argument...if they're both identical...and we agree Murton is more likely to get better...why is there a debate? There's no benefit to playing Cliff. At least in playing Murton you get him some experience.

[Warren Brusstar]

Can you explain what you mean by "shown signs"?

 

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd.

 

Seriously, you didn't need that explained.

 

What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive."

 

Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS.

 

The difference is, you're using splits against RHP only. Once you factor in what each player does against LHP, Murton is clearly the better option. Not to mention the fact that he's far more likely to improve on that than Floyd is at this point.

 

There's is no dispute - at all - that Murton is the better option against LHP. None. Zippo.

 

The question is who should play against RHP. Murton and Floyd have basically been indistinguishable against RHP over the last two years. That's a fact. And while it's true that Murton is likely to get better over the next few years and Floyd is absolutely going to get worse, it's an open question who is likely to produce at a higher clip over the last 6 weeks. And in any event, they both suck.

 

For the sake of argument...if they're both identical...and we agree Murton is more likely to get better...why is there a debate? There's no benefit to playing Cliff. At least in playing Murton you get him some experience.

 

I'd rather they play Murton and haven't contended otherwise. The point is that the difference between Murton and Floyd at this point isn't even half a win. Indeed, on the list of managerial choices that will or will not make a difference down the stretch, the decision to play Murton or Floyd ranks about 20th. They both stink.

[Banedon]

I'd rather they play Murton and haven't contended otherwise. The point is that the difference between Murton and Floyd at this point isn't even half a win. Indeed, on the list of managerial choices that will or will not make a difference down the stretch, the decision to play Murton or Floyd ranks about 20th. They both stink.

 

Fine...so playing Murton won't help this year...but it might help next...or the year after that.

 

I guess I feel like we're getting on some crappy plane, and there's only two seats left. They're both just as semi-comfortable...both recline only half of about what they should...but one is newer and has some better upholstry. When all else is the same, why would you sit in the older, beat up, and maybe slightly lumpier chair?

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd rather they play Murton and haven't contended otherwise. The point is that the difference between Murton and Floyd at this point isn't even half a win. Indeed, on the list of managerial choices that will or will not make a difference down the stretch, the decision to play Murton or Floyd ranks about 20th. They both stink.

 

Fine...so playing Murton won't help this year...but it might help next...or the year after that.

 

I guess I feel like we're getting on some crappy plane, and there's only two seats left. They're both just as semi-comfortable...both recline only half of about what they should...but one is newer and has some better upholstry. When all else is the same, why would you sit in the older, beat up, and maybe slightly lumpier chair?

 

You should have checked in on-line 24 hours in advance and gotten a better seat.

[RynoRules]

This thread got de-railed a bit. I am just hoping Cliff can be productive for the rest of the season, knowing that he will be getting mcuh of the PT. I'd rather see Murt play in general, but if Cliff get's hot and the Cubs win I don't care.

[Soul]

We should just play Murton and leave Cliff as a bench PH. I thought that was the whole point with Cliff from the beginning anyway. He's old, prone to break down -- the more playtime he gets the more likely he'll just wind up on the DL anyway, what good will he do us there?

 

I didn't know Murton was being knocked down from future starter to LHP specialist anyway. He's not going to get better against RHP by watching Cliff suck against RHP every day either. Is Lou saying we're no longer projecting Murton as a future starter? If so, I'd like to know...and I suspect Matt would like to know that, too.

 

The more I listen to Lou and look at this thing, the more I think it's just a case where Lou cannot accept that Cliff is finished as a primary starter. But regardless, I think we can all agree that he is. He could still be an asset off the bench, why not just let him do what he can still do?

[RynoRules]

We should just play Murton and leave Cliff as a bench PH. I thought that was the whole point with Cliff from the beginning anyway. He's old, prone to break down -- the more playtime he gets the more likely he'll just wind up on the DL anyway, what good will he do us there?

 

I didn't know Murton was being knocked down from future starter to LHP specialist anyway. He's not going to get better against RHP by watching Cliff suck against RHP every day either. Is Lou saying we're no longer projecting Murton as a future starter? If so, I'd like to know...and I suspect Matt would like to know that, too.

 

The more I listen to Lou and look at this thing, the more I think it's just a case where Lou cannot accept that Cliff is finished as a primary starter. But regardless, I think we can all agree that he is. He could still be an asset off the bench, why not just let him do what he can still do?

 

I agree - being able to go to Floyd and Ward off the bench would be great.

[Derwood]

I pretty much don't like anyone in our OF outside of Soriano. If we have an OF of Soriano/Pie/Murton next year, we better have A-Rod at SS, or else we'll have a rough lineup

[CUBZ99]

I pretty much don't like anyone in our OF outside of Soriano. If we have an OF of Soriano/Pie/Murton next year, we better have A-Rod at SS, or else we'll have a rough lineup

 

I agree, there are no real good options in the OF outside of Soriano. Hendry has his work cut out for him this offseason.

[KyHen]

I really thought Floyd was a good signing. I thought in limited duty he would have a lot of success.