Why are people in such a hurry to get Theriot out of town?

[Guest]

no, but they have the best chance to win. sub 90 win teams have not won very many world series.

 

 

That's because not many sub 90 win teams make the playoffs due to the fact there wasn't always an extended playoff format. It'll still be a rare occurrence but Going forward I expect it'll happen more often.

 

probably true. I would like to believe there is some correlation between regular season wins and world series wins . . . maybe not though.

[cbbryan]

no, but they have the best chance to win. sub 90 win teams have not won very many world series.

 

 

That's because not many sub 90 win teams make the playoffs due to the fact there wasn't always an extended playoff format. It'll still be a rare occurrence but Going forward I expect it'll happen more often.

 

probably true. I would like to believe there is some correlation between regular season wins and world series wins . . . maybe not though.

 

I still think it has more to do w/ who happens to get hot in the playoffs. Like someone said earlier, the 2006 Cardinals were not the best team. Of course, had Detroit Tiger pitchers been able to go the series without an error they would probably be the 2006 Champs.

 

Colorado is a perfect example this year. While they're talented I don't think I would have expected them to do so well in the playoffs.

 

On the flip side, the Yankees where one of the best teams the second half and couldn't win a series!

[Garage Party]

Man, I thought this board loved Ryan Theriot once. Did I miss something?

[Yeti]

i for one would love to see Theriot reamain on this team...guy seems to get on base when we need a baserunner....granted i dont necessarily want to see him as our starting SS, but this kid can help this team

 

EDIT: holy crap, did i just actually post in "baseball discussions?"

[SouthSideRyan]

Great example with David Kelton btw.

 

Kelton in AAA

 

2003: .269 .338 .446

2004: 248 .302 .450

2005: 283 .329 .420

2006: 216 .284 .288

 

This as a corner OF.

 

Dubois at the age of 22 was in A ball.

 

I've already said this is pretty much Cedeno's last chance this season, and everyone's saying that if it comes down to Theriot or Cedeno, they'll go with Cedeno cause he could actually stand a chance to be a mediocre starting SS unlike Theriot. Nobody's saying don't worry about SS, give Cedeno a chance. Nobody's saying don't worry about RF give Murton a chance. People are saying if we have to stick with status quo(which we likely will at one of these positions), that these are the guys that should get the chances not the proven quantities of suck.

 

I responded after reaidng up to about page 3 and see much of my post was already addressed. I just don't understand what's so hard to grasp about the differences in age between the 2. Does anyone really think a 23 year old Ryan Theriot does better than Cedeno for that one season? He was struggling at A/AA ball. He would've been a bigger mess than Cedeno was in '06. But because he was actually at an age appropriate level he's not being written off.

[David]

I don't care what he has done in the minors. He can dominate and hit 400 home runs per year, but if he sucks at the major league level, then who cares? Yes, he went back to Iowa this year and tore it up. He then returned to Chicago and looked awful. Like he did all of last year. So he's great in the minors and terrible in the majors. Does that sum it up pretty accurately?

 

Um, I'm not about small sample sizes at all, but this statement couldn't be more wrong.

 

 

Ronny in Sept

 

.391/.417/.696

 

 

Again, the sample size makes these numbers pretty much completely insignificant, but to say he looked awful after his call up is pretty much totally wrong.

[Rob]

2008 projections courtesy of baseball prospectus.

 

Theriot: .274/.333/.361

 

Cedeno: .276/.316/.413

 

Before this season, they were projected to have about equal numbers. Cedeno has a higher ceiling, and pretty much mashed the ball at AAA this season. Theriot's ceiling is being league average (which he isn't even close to now), and he was pretty horrible with the bat all season at the major league level.

 

Next year's projections are going to start reflecting the big difference between their bats, a bad season in 2006 for Cedeno is not going to be enough to make Theriot the better option.

 

I'd prefer ARod, Renteria, or Tejada... but failing at that, Cedeno should get first crack at the starting gig... and I mean a real chance. Not just a short leash based on who does better in spring training.

[wvcbxl]

Because he is white. He wore down in the summer heat. We need to replace him with a darker player who can handle the heat better.

 

In that case, there's no point in trading him to the Reds.

[Tracer Bullet]

I really don't get the Ronny Cedeno love here. The guy mashed AAA pitching... big deal, a lot of people do. Jason Dubois did. David Kelton did.

 

David Kelton mashed AAA pitching? Kelton's AAA OPS is in the mid .700s in just under 1400 at-bats. His best single-season OPS at AAA was .784.

 

I don't think mizzou is concerned with facts or reality.

Great post. Thanks for contributing. I assumed Kelton hit minor league pitching well and didn't bother to look it up. That's neither here nor there though. This is about Ronny Cedeno's inability to hit a baseball at the major league level.

 

 

This is too good to pass up. Your made up stats about Kelton are relevant when they support your point (good AAA hitters suck at the ML level), but when they are found out to be wrong and no longer supportive, they are irrelevant. Was Kelton's performance at AAA or the majors every really relevant to a discussion of Cedeno?

 

That's just fantastic.

 

EDIT (after reading davhern's post above): are Ronny's actual stats relevant to this discussion? Not unless they make for good sound bites (like "an OPS higher than Jose Macias"), I suppose. The ones that completely contradict your argument (which is allegedly based on reality) are likely "not here nor there" - just like Kelton's AAA #s, huh?

[CubColtPacer]

Cedeno had his shot, a couple of times. To say he is superior to what Ryan Theriot did for the Cubs with his chances is ignoring the facts.

 

 

Please...list these "facts" for me.

 

* Offensive and defensive statistics (you can look them up).

 

* The Cubs winning percentages with Theriot starting/Cedeno starting.

 

All the "mathmeticians" that want to say that Theriot "sucked" in 2007 - I don't really know what to say. I am sure he will improve, and I am sure there was a reason why he started at SS most of the year. I know he was inconsistant at best offensively, and didn't play SS like Ozzie Smith.

 

I can appreciate that the 2007 Chicago Cubs were a hell of a lot better than the 06 Cubs - and they got almost all the plays from SS because of Theriot. I watched a hell of a lot of games this season, and we definately had a better team when he was in the lineup. I love players like Theriot, and hope he is our SS/2B for as long as he plays like he did in 07.

 

I'll bet you if you asked any member of the team they would agree with me too.

 

The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start.

 

They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season.

 

If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's.

 

The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started.

They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start.

They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

[Keener98]

Cedeno had his shot, a couple of times. To say he is superior to what Ryan Theriot did for the Cubs with his chances is ignoring the facts.

 

 

Please...list these "facts" for me.

 

* Offensive and defensive statistics (you can look them up).

 

* The Cubs winning percentages with Theriot starting/Cedeno starting.

 

All the "mathmeticians" that want to say that Theriot "sucked" in 2007 - I don't really know what to say. I am sure he will improve, and I am sure there was a reason why he started at SS most of the year. I know he was inconsistant at best offensively, and didn't play SS like Ozzie Smith.

 

I can appreciate that the 2007 Chicago Cubs were a hell of a lot better than the 06 Cubs - and they got almost all the plays from SS because of Theriot. I watched a hell of a lot of games this season, and we definately had a better team when he was in the lineup. I love players like Theriot, and hope he is our SS/2B for as long as he plays like he did in 07.

 

I'll bet you if you asked any member of the team they would agree with me too.

 

The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start.

 

They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season.

 

If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's.

 

The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started.

They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start.

They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

 

But but but but........good job CCP

[Have a seat, Neifi]

I think they should battle it out paper / rock /scissors style.

 

That'll learn 'em!

I vote for a walk-off.

[Abe Frohman]

The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start.

 

They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season.

 

If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's.

 

The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started.

They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start.

They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

 

How about factoring in the 2006 season as well - I hardly think that the numbers mean anything considering he hardly played at all in 2007.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Cedeno had his shot, a couple of times. To say he is superior to what Ryan Theriot did for the Cubs with his chances is ignoring the facts.

 

 

Please...list these "facts" for me.

 

* Offensive and defensive statistics (you can look them up).

 

* The Cubs winning percentages with Theriot starting/Cedeno starting.

 

All the "mathmeticians" that want to say that Theriot "sucked" in 2007 - I don't really know what to say. I am sure he will improve, and I am sure there was a reason why he started at SS most of the year. I know he was inconsistant at best offensively, and didn't play SS like Ozzie Smith.

 

I can appreciate that the 2007 Chicago Cubs were a hell of a lot better than the 06 Cubs - and they got almost all the plays from SS because of Theriot. I watched a hell of a lot of games this season, and we definately had a better team when he was in the lineup. I love players like Theriot, and hope he is our SS/2B for as long as he plays like he did in 07.

 

I'll bet you if you asked any member of the team they would agree with me too.

 

The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start.

 

They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season.

 

If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's.

 

The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started.

They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start.

They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

 

Great job, CCP..... but you did miss the effect of Cedeno's superior defensive skills.................

 

pos    Theriot  Cedeno
SS       54-47     6-4
2b        9-12     1-2
3b        2- 2     1-0
RF        0- 1     0-0

Total    65-62     8-6

 

note: there were 8 overlap games, where both Cedeno & Theriot started. The CUBS went 3-5. In the 29 games where neither man started, the CUBS went 15-14.

 

                           - overall -      - Theriot -      - Cedeno  -
                          CUBS   Oppt      CUBS   Oppt      CUBS   Oppt
% baserunners driven in    .189   .180      .186   .179      .188   .145
runs per baserunner        .364   .351      .360   .347      .357   .288
runs scored per game       4.64   4.26      4.50   4.17      5.07   3.50
1st inning runs scored     .704   .451      .622   .323      .786   .214
P/PA                       3.74   3.80      3.75   3.81      3.80   3.84
Extra base hit %           .341   .354      .332   .352      .417   .309
HR per game                .932  1.019      .937  1.031     1.000   .643

 

Cedeno started 14 of the teams' 162 games, or 8.64%. The CUBS shutout their opponents 10 times during the season..... Cedeno started 5 of those 10 games.

[abuck1220]

based on shortstop win %, ryan theriot is a better ss than ernie banks.

[Fred Hornkohl]

The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start.

 

They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season.

 

If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's.

 

The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started.

They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start.

They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

 

How about factoring in the 2006 season as well - I hardly think that the numbers mean anything considering he hardly played at all in 2007.

 

CUBS were 66-96 in 2006; 58-87 when Cedeno started, 8-9 when he didn't.

 

                           - overall -      w/Cedeno         w/o Cedeno
                          CUBS   Oppt      CUBS   Oppt      CUBS   Oppt
% baserunners driven in    .200   .200      .202   .202      .191   .188
runs per baserunner        .370   .388      .373   .393      .347   .347
runs scored per game       4.42   5.15      4.42   5.17      4.41   5.00
1st inning runs scored     .710   .710      .717   .703      .647   .765
P/PA                       3.68   3.88      3.67   3.88      3.72   3.87
Extra base hit %           .323   .370      .326   .380      .293   .288
HR per game               1.025  1.296     1.048  1.324      .823  1.059

[Fred Hornkohl]

based on shortstop win %, ryan theriot is a better ss than ernie banks.

 

Well..... they have the same number of WS rings, no? :wink:

[Tracer Bullet]

The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start.

 

They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season.

 

If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's.

 

The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started.

They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start.

They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

 

How about factoring in the 2006 season as well - I hardly think that the numbers mean anything considering he hardly played at all in 2007.

 

Funny - I hardly think any of these win % numbers based on which SS is playing mean anything, regardless of which year you're discussing.

[USSoccer]

This is insane. Are people really using winning % as a SS to try and prop Theriot's below replacement level numbers up?

 

Come on. Think more critically that this. Ryan Theriot should not stand in between this team and an upgrade at SS. Ever, ever, ever. Even if that upgrade is a higher ceiling player like Cedeno.

[David]

Cedeno had his shot, a couple of times. To say he is superior to what Ryan Theriot did for the Cubs with his chances is ignoring the facts.

 

 

Please...list these "facts" for me.

 

* Offensive and defensive statistics (you can look them up).

 

* The Cubs winning percentages with Theriot starting/Cedeno starting.

 

All the "mathmeticians" that want to say that Theriot "sucked" in 2007 - I don't really know what to say. I am sure he will improve, and I am sure there was a reason why he started at SS most of the year. I know he was inconsistant at best offensively, and didn't play SS like Ozzie Smith.

 

I can appreciate that the 2007 Chicago Cubs were a hell of a lot better than the 06 Cubs - and they got almost all the plays from SS because of Theriot. I watched a hell of a lot of games this season, and we definately had a better team when he was in the lineup. I love players like Theriot, and hope he is our SS/2B for as long as he plays like he did in 07.

 

I'll bet you if you asked any member of the team they would agree with me too.

 

The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start.

 

They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season.

 

If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's.

 

The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started.

They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start.

They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

 

 

hahahah I love it.

[abuck1220]

The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start.

 

They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season.

 

If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's.

 

The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started.

They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start.

They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

 

How about factoring in the 2006 season as well - I hardly think that the numbers mean anything considering he hardly played at all in 2007.

 

yes. clearly sample size is the biggest problem with your "shortstop winning %" argument.

[jersey cubs fan]

I just don't get it. The Cubs had the worst SS production in the NL this year. The worst. Theriot was the SS for the majority of the year, and his numbers at SS almost mirror exactly the poor overall SS numbers by the Cubs. He was awful. Plain and simple. You have to try and improve wherever you can, and this is one of the most glaringly obvious places where that can happen.

 

 

Meanwhile, some people throw Matt Murton's name out there, even though the guy's numbers dwarf Theriot's, and he actually provides some glimmer of hope for acceptable production.

 

How does this debate exist?

[Garage Party]

I agree that the Cubs should upgrade at shortstop if possible, but come on, you guys, you're trying to argue that Ronny Cedeno is an upgrade? Whenever I think of Ronny Cedeno, his name is prefaced with "Effing." Theriot did his job well enough this year, and he was an improvement over Izturis, but if we can get a better shortstop, I have no reservations about him moving to utility infielder.

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree that the Cubs should upgrade at shortstop if possible, but come on, you guys, you're trying to argue that Ronny Cedeno is an upgrade? Whenever I think of Ronny Cedeno, his name is prefaced with "Effing." Theriot did his job well enough this year, and he was an improvement over Izturis, but if we can get a better shortstop, I have no reservations about him moving to utility infielder.

 

How can somebody call worst in the league "well enough". Cedeno may or may not be an upgrade. He's younger, with considerably higher upside. Ronny may do the job well enough, he may not. I'd prefer to get something closer to a guaranteed upgrade. But we know Theriot did not, and will not, do the job well enough.

[Garage Party]

If Ronny Cedeno is the answer, I don't want to know the question.

 

I still maintain that you guys really turned on Theriot. At least Matt Murton will always be loved for being a generic white guy. Probably because he came out of Boston, where Bill James is employed, so sabermetrics and stuff! Murton underachieved too. Nobody's calling for his head.