please don't trade Sean and Kevin

[nilodnayr]

It would take a lot more than Jones for Kemp

[JeffH]

It would take a lot more than Jones for Kemp

 

I doubt you could get Shawn Kemp for Jacque.

[bukie]

it is proven over again that pitching and defense win games

 

where is the proof and why isn't everyone convinced?

 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, and am honestly just curious as to the answer to this question...

 

When was the last time what was considered a "bad" defensive team (however that is officially measured) won the World Series?

 

2004

 

Actually, in 2004 Boston was 8th in baseball in team defensive efficiency. But in 2003, Florida was 23rd.

[wvcbxl]

It would take a lot more than Jones for Kemp

 

The Cubs already have Dwayne Kemp signed; Jones can be put to some other use. 8-)

[MSG T]

It would take a lot more than Jones for Kemp

 

I doubt you could get Shawn Kemp for Jacque.

 

I realize that, I stated it probably wouldn't happen, I doubt Hendry would even try to acquire him. Like I said it was an example of something that could be done without adding a ton of payroll. That was the point I was trying to make. The only reason I mentioned Kemp is because he was discussed quite a bit on here a week or two ago, and from the sounds of it he can be had.

 

I wasn't trying to say he was the best option or only option.

[YearofDaCubs]

I wonder if the dodgers would give us Kemp for Pie?

[fromthestretch]

it's fine talking about another bat but it is proven over again that pitching and defense win games, when you have Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, as the big bats, with DeRosa, Jones as lesser bats but still good, that is 5 solid bats, add defense from Blanco-Soto, Theriot, and it is not a bad team, lets say Cedeno beats out Theriot and he shows more punch, now if you can pick up a free agent or two?????

Our pitching is the most important thing to protect and/or improve.

Boston who has some of the most feared bats are down 3-1, beaten by pitching and defense

 

I would argue that when you give up 13 runs in one loss and seven in another, it's not necessarily the opponent's pitching and defense that's beating you. The one Boston loss you could attribute to Cleveland's pitching was Game 3, which was 4-2. Jake Westbrook started that game for Cleveland. He's no more of a dominating pitcher than Ted Lilly or Rich Hill. He just happened to have a good game.

[Magnetic Curses]

it is proven over again that pitching and defense win games

 

where is the proof and why isn't everyone convinced?

 

pitching i'd agree with. i'd consider pitching 33% more valuable than hitting, just based on some simple statistical research that i've done. however, good pitching makes defenses look good. a pitcher who can consistently strike hitters out or induce ground balls also decreases error amounts.

 

defense can definitely save you a few games here and there over the course of 162 games, but it's more important to have starting pitching, that is, pitchers who strike hitters out or consistently have high g/f ratios--or hitter who get on base and drive the ball.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Stannis

[SouthSideRyan]

it is proven over again that pitching and defense win games

 

where is the proof and why isn't everyone convinced?

 

pitching i'd agree with. i'd consider pitching 33% more valuable than hitting, just based on some simple statistical research that i've done. however, good pitching makes defense's look good. a pitcher who can consistently strike hitters out or induce ground balls also decreases error amounts.

 

And vice versa. This is probably what I find most annoying about "pitching and defense wins championships" They're connected. They're the same thing. You can't have pitching without defense, you can't have defense without pitching. A horrible defense can make even the highest K pitchers look bad.

[Magnetic Curses]

it is proven over again that pitching and defense win games

 

where is the proof and why isn't everyone convinced?

 

pitching i'd agree with. i'd consider pitching 33% more valuable than hitting, just based on some simple statistical research that i've done. however, good pitching makes defense's look good. a pitcher who can consistently strike hitters out or induce ground balls also decreases error amounts.

 

And vice versa. This is probably what I find most annoying about "pitching and defense wins championships" They're connected. They're the same thing. You can't have pitching without defense, you can't have defense without pitching. A horrible defense can make even the highest K pitchers look bad.

 

defense is not the same as pitching. bad pitchers do not become good because of good defense. if you give up a lot of line drives, no defense will make you look good.

 

however, good pitchers can cover up a bad defense.

[Magnetic Curses]

it's fine talking about another bat but it is proven over again that pitching and defense win games, when you have Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, as the big bats, with DeRosa, Jones as lesser bats but still good, that is 5 solid bats, add defense from Blanco-Soto, Theriot, and it is not a bad team, lets say Cedeno beats out Theriot and he shows more punch, now if you can pick up a free agent or two?????

Our pitching is the most important thing to protect and/or improve.

Boston who has some of the most feared bats are down 3-1, beaten by pitching and defense

 

Colorado ranks 2nd in OPS and 8th in ERA in the NL... going to World Series.

 

San Diego ranks 1st in ERA and 14th in OPS...didn't make the playoffs.

 

 

I won't disagree that pitching and D are important, but you win by scoring more than your opponent. You need a good offense to do that.

 

And of all the names you listed there, the only good( or better) hitters are Lee, ARam, Sori and DeRosa. Soto may be, but I still want to see him behind the plate for a full season before I make a call. Jones is bad and Theriot and Blanco are nearly craptacular. Throw Murton in there and that's one more good hitter.

 

I'd prefer 5 good( or slightly better) and 3 mashers. That's a good offense, and if done properly, not overly costly.

 

at the begiining of the 2006 season, i did some quick research on pitching and it's relation to making the playoffs.

 

teams in the top 4 in their respective leagues in era were 33% more likely to have made the playoffs than teams in the top 4 in ops.

 

once the playoffs hit, it's anybody's guess what will happen, but as far as the regular season, or the true test of excellence, goes, pitching is king--that is to say, starting pitching.

[SouthSideRyan]

Obviously a team full of Ozzie Smiths and Willie Mayses aren't going to turn Les Walrond into anything good, but a great defense did turn Josh Fogg into a competent major leaguer at the age of 30 while a horrible defense has helped put Dave Bush a year away from minor league free agent of the week.

[Skyballer]

Pitching and defense are NOT the same thing. A good pitcher or ground ball pitcher can look bad because of a bad defense where as if he tends to k more guys he would look alot better. The one ting that goes without argument imo is that a good defense will make the pitching look better. Also a good pitcher doesn't necessarily make his d look better, so no they're not the same.

[badnews]

Trading Sean Gallagher will be a mistake. Tejada is not going to fix the Cubs. Continually adding these righthanded mashers who don't walk isn't going to fix the offense. You could add Torii Hunter and Tejada and the offense wouldn't be fixed. At the end of the year we'll just be saying okay, who among the 2008 free agents can fix the offense?

[jersey cubs fan]

Trading Sean Gallagher will be a mistake. Tejada is not going to fix the Cubs. Continually adding these righthanded mashers who don't walk isn't going to fix the offense. You could add Torii Hunter and Tejada and the offense wouldn't be fixed. At the end of the year we'll just be saying okay, who among the 2008 free agents can fix the offense?

 

Tejada isn't ARod, but it's not like he doesn't walk. The way the Cubs can fix their offense is by getting significant improvements at their worst positions, and SS was their worst position, along with C, last year. Tejada and Soto could easily eclipse the production from their respective positions, and, barring major setbacks elsewhere, that would significantly improve the offense. You'd probably be able to talk about a top 5 lineup at that point. If you are getting top 5 pitching and top 5 hitting, you are going to have some nice success.

[MSG T]

Trading Sean Gallagher will be a mistake. Tejada is not going to fix the Cubs. Continually adding these righthanded mashers who don't walk isn't going to fix the offense. You could add Torii Hunter and Tejada and the offense wouldn't be fixed. At the end of the year we'll just be saying okay, who among the 2008 free agents can fix the offense?

 

Tejada isn't ARod, but it's not like he doesn't walk. The way the Cubs can fix their offense is by getting significant improvements at their worst positions, and SS was their worst position, along with C, last year. Tejada and Soto could easily eclipse the production from their respective positions, and, barring major setbacks elsewhere, that would significantly improve the offense. You'd probably be able to talk about a top 5 lineup at that point. If you are getting top 5 pitching and top 5 hitting, you are going to have some nice success.

 

I agree. If Tejada can rebound even a little, which he should, his numbers will destroy what you would expect from Theriot or Cedeno. Keep in mind, he did miss a month with a broken wrist. Even if he doesn't regain all of his power, he should still be able to put up an .820-.830 OPS, will Theriot or Cedeno do that, or even come close?

 

I'm not saying I think the Cubs should do whatever it takes to get Tejada. But, if he can be had( or Rentaria for that matter), at a good deal, it would be ridiculous for the Cubs to not at least consider it. Especially when SS is that glaring of a hole in the lineup.

 

If you're worried about his D, it's not like you'd be going from a GG'er to the worst in the league. There's certainly not a big enough difference to warrant not getting him for that reason.

[nilodnayr]

Trading Sean Gallagher will be a mistake. Tejada is not going to fix the Cubs. Continually adding these righthanded mashers who don't walk isn't going to fix the offense. You could add Torii Hunter and Tejada and the offense wouldn't be fixed. At the end of the year we'll just be saying okay, who among the 2008 free agents can fix the offense?

 

Tejada isn't ARod, but it's not like he doesn't walk. The way the Cubs can fix their offense is by getting significant improvements at their worst positions, and SS was their worst position, along with C, last year. Tejada and Soto could easily eclipse the production from their respective positions, and, barring major setbacks elsewhere, that would significantly improve the offense. You'd probably be able to talk about a top 5 lineup at that point. If you are getting top 5 pitching and top 5 hitting, you are going to have some nice success.

 

I agree. If Tejada can rebound even a little, which he should, his numbers will destroy what you would expect from Theriot or Cedeno. Keep in mind, he did miss a month with a broken wrist. Even if he doesn't regain all of his power, he should still be able to put up an .820-.830 OPS, will Theriot or Cedeno do that, or even come close?

 

I'm not saying I think the Cubs should do whatever it takes to get Tejada. But, if he can be had( or Rentaria for that matter), at a good deal, it would be ridiculous for the Cubs to not at least consider it. Especially when SS is that glaring of a hole in the lineup.

 

If you're worried about his D, it's not like you'd be going from a GG'er to the worst in the league. There's certainly not a big enough difference to warrant not getting him for that reason.

 

Actually, Tejada's power was fine after he came back from the injury. His IsoP was just 116 before and 183 after. He was fairly consistanly slightly above 200 during his peak. I look at that as a positive.

[badnews]

Trading Sean Gallagher will be a mistake. Tejada is not going to fix the Cubs. Continually adding these righthanded mashers who don't walk isn't going to fix the offense. You could add Torii Hunter and Tejada and the offense wouldn't be fixed. At the end of the year we'll just be saying okay, who among the 2008 free agents can fix the offense?

 

Tejada isn't ARod, but it's not like he doesn't walk. The way the Cubs can fix their offense is by getting significant improvements at their worst positions, and SS was their worst position, along with C, last year. Tejada and Soto could easily eclipse the production from their respective positions, and, barring major setbacks elsewhere, that would significantly improve the offense. You'd probably be able to talk about a top 5 lineup at that point. If you are getting top 5 pitching and top 5 hitting, you are going to have some nice success.

 

I don't agree. People said we would have a Top 5 lineup last year too. We're not going to have a Top 5 lineup by continually adding the same type of players, I think. What do you mean Tejada walks? 40 walks in 654 ABs, 46 walks in 648 ABs, 41 walks in 514 ABs, I think that qualifies as another righty masher who doesn't walk enough. I don't know why I should assume he'll rebound just because it's nice to think in a scenario where the Cubs get him.

 

I'm not saying your argument doesn't have some merit, but I don't agree with it. I see it like the 2004 Cubs. They were virtually tied for 4th in the NL in OPS but they were 16th in runs. They had the same OPS as the Phillies that year but scored way fewer runs than them.

 

I think this "Top 5 lineup" bit people trod out year after year is just a red herring. The 2004 Cubs were not a top team in runs, and every regular in the lineup had an OPS over .800 except Patterson, who had a .780 OPS I believe. You had five guys with an OPS over .830 and they were 1st in the NL in home runs by an enormous margin.

 

I don't like this game where we hype guys up just because they're available. Tejada doesn't even get us back to the 2004 level, much less a Top 5 lineup. How many Top 5 lineups have no one who walks 90+ times, or how many Top 5 lineups are in the bottom 10 of walks?

[CubColtPacer]

Trading Sean Gallagher will be a mistake. Tejada is not going to fix the Cubs. Continually adding these righthanded mashers who don't walk isn't going to fix the offense. You could add Torii Hunter and Tejada and the offense wouldn't be fixed. At the end of the year we'll just be saying okay, who among the 2008 free agents can fix the offense?

 

Tejada isn't ARod, but it's not like he doesn't walk. The way the Cubs can fix their offense is by getting significant improvements at their worst positions, and SS was their worst position, along with C, last year. Tejada and Soto could easily eclipse the production from their respective positions, and, barring major setbacks elsewhere, that would significantly improve the offense. You'd probably be able to talk about a top 5 lineup at that point. If you are getting top 5 pitching and top 5 hitting, you are going to have some nice success.

 

I don't agree. People said we would have a Top 5 lineup last year too. We're not going to have a Top 5 lineup by continually adding the same type of players, I think. What do you mean Tejada walks? 40 walks in 654 ABs, 46 walks in 648 ABs, 41 walks in 514 ABs, I think that qualifies as another righty masher who doesn't walk enough. I don't know why I should assume he'll rebound just because it's nice to think in a scenario where the Cubs get him.

 

I'm not saying your argument doesn't have some merit, but I don't agree with it. I see it like the 2004 Cubs. They were virtually tied for 4th in the NL in OPS but they were 16th in runs. They had the same OPS as the Phillies that year but scored way fewer runs than them.

 

I think this "Top 5 lineup" bit people trod out year after year is just a red herring. The 2004 Cubs were not a top team in runs, and every regular in the lineup had an OPS over .800 except Patterson, who had a .780 OPS I believe. You had five guys with an OPS over .830 and they were 1st in the NL in home runs by an enormous margin.

 

I don't like this game where we hype guys up just because they're available. Tejada doesn't even get us back to the 2004 level, much less a Top 5 lineup. How many Top 5 lineups have no one who walks 90+ times, or how many Top 5 lineups are in the bottom 10 of walks?

 

The Cubs were 5th in the NL in OPS in 2004 (although as you said, they were close to 4th) and they were 7th in runs, not 16th.

 

Let's restrict this to NL. How many bottom 5 walk teams can be top 5 in RS?

 

2007: Milwaukee. 5th in RS, 14th in BB's

2006: none. closest was Atlanta at 10th

2005: none. closest was Colorado at 10th

2004: none. closest was St. Louis at 8th despite being 1st in RS

2003: none. closest was Atlanta at 8th despite being 1st in RS

2002: Colorado. 4th in RS, 14th in BB's. St. Louis also just missed being 2nd in RS and 11th in BB's.

2001: none. closest was Colorado at 10th despite being 1st in RS for the 2nd straight year.

2000: Cincy finished 5th in runs and 13th in BB's. Colorado just missed finishing 10th in walks and 1st in RS.

 

Now let's look at OPS correlation:

 

In 2000, all 5 top teams in OPS finished in the top 5 of runs

In 2001, all 5 " "

In 2002, Houston was 5th in runs but only finished 6th in OPS

Philadelphia was 4th in OPS but only 8th in runs. They finished 2nd in BB's that year.

In 2003, Philadelphia was 5th in runs but only finished 6th in OPS

San Francisco finished 5th in OPS but only 6th in runs. They were 3rd in BB's that year.

In 2004, Atlanta finished 5th in runs but only 7th in OPS

Cubs were 5th in OPS but only 7th in runs. They finished 14th in BB's

In 2005, Colorado finished 5th in runs but only 9th in OPS

Cubs were 4th in OPS but only 9th in runs. They finished 16th in BB's.

In 2006, all 5 " "

In 2007, Atlanta finished 3rd in runs but only 6th in OPS

Florida was 4th in OPS but only 6th in runs. They finished 11th in BB's.

 

So here it is. Bottom 5 teams in walks can survive occasionally, but they have to have great power and average hitters spread throughout the lineup (which the Cubs would theoretically have if they added Tejada to this lineup). I don't think Tejada would put the Cubs in the top 5 unless he bounced back and had a year like 2005-2006 though.

 

What I find interesting is how many teams that led the league in runs that were average or worse at drawing walks. 4 out of the last 8 years the team who finished 1st in runs was 8th or worse in walks.

 

The data also shows that putting your team in top 5 OPS gives you a great shot of being in the top 5 of runs. Only 5 teams didn't do it over the last 8 years, and only 2 of those were signifigant differences between runs and OPS ( 2002 Phillies and 2005 Cubs).

 

The Phillies and Giants underperformed their OPS's while being great walking teams while the two Cubs teams and the Florida team had poor walk totals. I don't see enough correlation to say that it was the Cubs poor walk totals that caused them to under perform their OPS in 04 and 05. Why could they not still survive to put up top 5 in runs but teams like Milwaukee this year and Colorado in 2002 could? Why would top 5 BB teams like Philly in 2002 and San Fran in 2003 still under perform their OPS?

 

To close, let me say that I'm not saying the Cubs inability to walk in the last 4 years hasn't been their biggest weakness. It is the thing that is keeping them from being in the top few of OPS and kept them from ever being an elite offense. There's just not any great data to support that a Cubs team in 2008 will score less runs than their OPS would indicate simply because of their walk totals.

[badnews]

The Cubs were 16th in the majors in runs scored. The Brewers being 14th in walks is still not the same as the Cubs being 26th in walks and so forth. I wasn't talking about not being in the top 10 in walks. What I said was, how many Murderer's Row lineups like people keep mentioning don't have anyone who walks 90+ times, and how many of them are in the bottom 10 in walks?

[CubColtPacer]

The Cubs were 16th in the majors in runs scored. The Brewers being 14th in walks is still not the same as the Cubs being 26th in walks and so forth. I wasn't talking about not being in the top 10 in walks. What I said was, how many Murderer's Row lineups like people keep mentioning don't have anyone who walks 90+ times, and how many of them are in the bottom 10 in walks?

 

First off, when people talk about being a top 5 offense, they almost always mean in the NL. AL offenses are typically going to be better beacuse of the DH and so when most people here say that adding this or that player makes them a top 5 offense, they are referring to in the NL (jersey was certainly talking about NL ranks when he mentioned that adding Tejada would make the Cubs a top 5 offense). So using the ML rank for the Cubs in runs in 2004 doesn't really refute their argument because they really don't care what the American league teams are doing.

 

If you want to look at major league ranks though, Milwaukee was 24th in walks this year.

Detroit was 3rd in the major leagues in runs this year, and 27th in walks.

Angels were 6th in the major league in runs this year and were 21st in walks.

Texas was 7th in runs, 23rd in walks.

 

In 2006, Detroit finshed 8th in runs, 28th in walks.

 

In 2004, the White Sox finished 3rd in runs, 21st in walks.

The Angels finished 10th in runs, 28th in walks.

 

In 2003, Kansas City finished 7th in runs, 25th in walks.

Texas was 8th in runs, 23rd in walks.

 

In 2002, Angels finished 4th in runs, 26th in walks.

Toronto finished 8th in runs, 21st in walks.

 

In 2000, Kansas City finished 9th in runs, 29th in walks.

 

 

Besides, even if the Cubs do add Tejada, it's not guaranteed that the Cubs will finish in the bottom 10 in the major leagues in walks which would make the premise invalid anyway. They were tied for 25th in walks this year, but they were only 12 walks away from being tied for 19th, which is a lot closer than even the team directly behind them in the standings was (27th place was 26 walks behind the Cubs). Tejada's not a real big downgrade in walks at short because the Cubs only had 51 walks in 631 AB's at short this year. That small loss at short could easily be overcome by a myriad of other factors, including Soto taking over at catcher and walking more than the catcher position did this year.

 

Plus, the Cubs total of 500 walks would have put them at 20th or better in the majors 3 out of the last 4 years. If they got Tejada, and they put up the same amount of walks as this year, they likely wouldn't be in the bottom 10 of the majors in walks next year.

[badnews]

I haven't looked up the numbers of those teams to find out what's going on, but just eyeballing them some of them have other factors. Adding Tejada isn't going to make the Cubs lineup Milwaukee-esque.

 

I'll just conveniently blame Texas's success on their park.

 

The Angels steal more bases than I think the Cubs have a chance to do. That probably goes for the 2004 White Sox. I don't think the Cubs properly utilize their basestealing talent even when they have it.

[Guest]

Really reaching, now.