Rogers: Cubs Could Be #1 in NL IF They Acquired a #2 Starter

[wrigley23]

so striking out 25% of the time & not moving runners is a good thing?

[tfarks]

Blanton

 

This I agree with. I think a move to the NL brings him back to 120 ERA+

[DenverCubs]

so striking out 25% of the time & not moving runners is a good thing?

No. But, as everyone has said, an out is an out. Plus if every out you make is a K you never hit into double plays. That goes for something (not much).

[rocket]

i never said juan pierre was a good leadoff hitter either. I want a guy that gets on base & does not waste outs by striking out 25% of the time like alfonso does.

 

oh, i thought you were being sarcastic in your previous post.

[DenverCubs]

Blanton

 

This I agree with. I think a move to the NL brings him back to 120 ERA+

Did you just make this Joe Blanton thing up as a hypothetical or is he being shopped?

[98navigator]

so striking out 25% of the time & not moving runners is a good thing?

 

An out is an out. You do realize that DLee also strikes out over 100 times per season on average? Anyway, getting back to your original point, you talk about "leadoff hitter" like it's a position on the team. One could make the argument that someone with a high OBP could/should be at the top of the lineup but Soriano isn't going to kill the Cubs there. The Cubs got good production from that spot last season.

 

BTW, what is a traditional leadoff hitter?

[CubColtPacer]

so striking out 25% of the time & not moving runners is a good thing?

 

If you're worried about a strikeout not moving runners, Soriano is best served in the leadoff spot. A leadoff hitter is going to come up more often with the bases empty than a middle of the order hitter, so Soriano's strikeouts are actually least damaging in the #1 spot, not most damaging.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

so striking out 25% of the time & not moving runners is a good thing?

extrapolation

 

how many times did Soriano strike out instead of moving along a runner? 30 (25 with a man on 1st, 5 with guys on 1st and 2nd)

I'll assume roughly a third of those came with 2 outs, so 20 times he failed to move the runner

how many double plays did Soriano hit into? 9

 

what's this all mean? he made about the same number of outs for the team by striking out with guys on base

[Geech]

Did you just make this Joe Blanton thing up as a hypothetical or is he being shopped?

 

Oakland basically committed to being in rebuilding mode, so I think people are assuming that Blanton will be available for the right price.

 

A SF area writer speculated before the Haren trade that Blanton might be traded if, and only if, Haren was traded. In other words, that Beane wouldn't trade Blanton without entering a full-fledged rebuilding mode. However, other writers have speculated since the Haren trade that Beane won't want to trade Blanton now because he has to have somebody in the rotation.

 

I'm not sure which to believe, but even if Blanton is traded I'm not sure the Cobs are a good talent match. I don't think Beane would be interested in Pie since he has several young outfield options himself, and I don't think he would be interested in Patterson unless he believes Patterson can stick at second.

[David]

so striking out 25% of the time & not moving runners is a good thing?

 

Things even out. Contact brings double plays too.

 

The stigma associated with strikeouts is inexplicable to me. Hell, the more patient hitters strike out more because they're willing to take more pitches and thus find themselves deeper in counts more often.

 

I'll never understand the love for guys who will make weak contact for the sake of making contact. Strikeouts (for batters) are up there with pitcher wins and losses as statistics I hate to hear cited the most.

 

On top of all that, how often do leadoff hitters come up with runners on to move?

Edited December 19, 2007 by David

[wrigley23]

this reverse thinking makes very little sense IMO which is what a message board is by the way. saying a k is better than a ground ball double play is like saying a running back that only gets 2 yards/carry is great because the back never fumbles. why should we have to settle for either? soriano should be hitting down in the order driving in runs. lee is not a leadoff hitter so he swings more aggressively which results in more k's. that's more accepted than in the leadoff position. leadoff hitters should take pitches...definitely take more walks than k's. i never said anything about ground balls being a good thing. they should get on base....however it takes to do it...and don't make outs...ground outs, k's or otherwise. they also need to be a good baserunner. a base stealing threat is a bonus. soriano swings like a middle of the order guy. he does not take the mental approach to the plate as a leadoff hitter.

[DenverCubs]

this reverse thinking makes very little sense IMO which is what a message board is by the way. saying a k is better than a ground ball double play is like saying a running back that only gets 2 yards/carry is great because the back never fumbles. why should we have to settle for either? soriano should be hitting down in the order driving in runs. lee is not a leadoff hitter so he swings more aggressively which results in more k's. that's more accepted than in the leadoff position. leadoff hitters should take pitches...definitely take more walks than k's. i never said anything about ground balls being a good thing. they should get on base....however it takes to do it...and don't make outs...ground outs, k's or otherwise. they also need to be a good baserunner. a base stealing threat is a bonus. soriano swings like a middle of the order guy. he does not take the mental approach to the plate as a leadoff hitter.

No one ever said that...a K is no worse than any out...

Edited December 19, 2007 by DenverCubs

[David]

this reverse thinking makes very little sense IMO which is what a message board is by the way. saying a k is better than a ground ball double play is like saying a running back that only gets 2 yards/carry is great because the back never fumbles. why should we have to settle for either? soriano should be hitting down in the order driving in runs. lee is not a leadoff hitter so he swings more aggressively which results in more k's. that's more accepted than in the leadoff position. leadoff hitters should take pitches...definitely take more walks than k's. i never said anything about ground balls being a good thing. they should get on base....however it takes to do it...and don't make outs...ground outs, k's or otherwise. they also need to be a good baserunner. a base stealing threat is a bonus. soriano swings like a middle of the order guy. he does not take the mental approach to the plate as a leadoff hitter.

 

You're missing the point. K's are just like any other out and are often a byproduct of a patient approach at the plate (obviously not in Soriano's case).

Edited December 19, 2007 by David

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Maybe I should title this article, "Rogers Could Be #1 If He Acquired Half-a-Clue". Nah, forget it. that wouldn't help him either.

[rawaction]

The only thing a leadoff hitter needs to do is get on base. I don't understand the point of seeing pitches for the rest of the lineup. It's not like 9 pitches to the leadoff hitter is gonna make every other hitter hit the pitcher better. With all the scouting reports and video that exists, this is pretty pointless. The point of seeing pitches is to get something to hit first and foremost. Soriano did a good enough job getting a pitch to hit early in games.

[wrigley23]

i disagree wholeheartedly. oh well. if we get roberts, he'll hit leadoff. you watch.

[WilcoFan]

The only thing a leadoff hitter needs to do is get on base. I don't understand the point of seeing pitches for the rest of the lineup. It's not like 9 pitches to the leadoff hitter is gonna make every other hitter hit the pitcher better. With all the scouting reports and video that exists, this is pretty pointless. The point of seeing pitches is to get something to hit first and foremost. Soriano did a good enough job getting a pitch to hit early in games.

 

I think this thinking is a holdover from the days before players had millions of pitches from every pitcher in baseball on video. It may have been important, given the few times certain pitchers were ever seen, for the leadoff hitter to give the players on the team an idea of what they were in for. Today, of course, this is irrelevant. Leadoff men need to get on base any way they can. If they make an out-whether or not its a strikeout, groundout, fly out, CAUGHT STEALING, or anything, they haven't done their job.

[jersey cubs fan]

.

 

The stigma associated with strikeouts is inexplicable to me.

 

I think the stigma is explicable. It's the dogmatic obsession with the strikeout once logic has been entered into the discussion that is inexplicable to me.

 

 

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

[David]

The only thing a leadoff hitter needs to do is get on base. I don't understand the point of seeing pitches for the rest of the lineup. It's not like 9 pitches to the leadoff hitter is gonna make every other hitter hit the pitcher better. With all the scouting reports and video that exists, this is pretty pointless. The point of seeing pitches is to get something to hit first and foremost. Soriano did a good enough job getting a pitch to hit early in games.

 

You could argue, though, that a more patient approach overall in our lineup would have that effect derivatively. We tend to have a lot of quick innings, and if more guys saw more pitches (which is obviously a byproduct of, like you said, waiting for a pitch to hit), the opposing pitchers would be more fatigued as the game goes on. We let guys have too many quick efficient innings.

 

That said, I'm not at all advocating taking for the sake of taking, but I would like all my hitters to go up with the general approach of waiting for a pitch they can drive, "their pitch," even if they have to take borderline pitches that might get called strikes to do it. Obviously, they can't go up there doing that every time, because pitchers will adjust, but I feel like that's the best general approach.

[WilcoFan]

i disagree wholeheartedly. oh well. if we get roberts, he'll hit leadoff. you watch.

 

And if he gets on base at a better clip than Soriano, he'll be better. It will have nothing to do with the number of strikeouts, or the "way he swings hard."

[jersey cubs fan]

The only thing a leadoff hitter needs to do is get on base. I don't understand the point of seeing pitches for the rest of the lineup. It's not like 9 pitches to the leadoff hitter is gonna make every other hitter hit the pitcher better. With all the scouting reports and video that exists, this is pretty pointless. The point of seeing pitches is to get something to hit first and foremost. Soriano did a good enough job getting a pitch to hit early in games.

 

 

I want all 9 guys in the lineup to see many pitches to:

 

A) Improve the chances that they'll see a mistake pitch in their at bat.

B) Tire the pitcher so that he may make a mistake later in the game and/or become less effective with fatigue.

C) Get to the bullpen.

 

I don't think there's any value in letting other guys see what he's throwing.

[CubinNY]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

For me they would be a lot more easy to take if they team had a higher OBP.

[David]

i disagree wholeheartedly. oh well. if we get roberts, he'll hit leadoff. you watch.

 

I think most people wouldn't argue really strongly with you on that. DeRosa might be better leadoff option than Soriano, anyway. I don't think it really matters all that much, though, because lineup order means little unless you're talking about a Rey Ordonez or Neifi Perez getting a ton of PAs at the top of the order, but the real problem there would be those guys getting any PAs at all.

[rawaction]

.

 

The stigma associated with strikeouts is inexplicable to me.

 

I think the stigma is explicable. It's the dogmatic obsession with the strikeout once logic has been entered into the discussion that is inexplicable to me.

 

 

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

I think I'm equally upset at any outs. I hate strikeouts looking, because the hitter should have been swinging. I hate swinging Ks, because they are usually on pitches out of the zone or because a hitter guesses wrong. I hate GIDPs. I hate popouts. I hate lineouts, but that's more directed at the D for being positioned right or making a great play.

[cheapseats]

so striking out 25% of the time & not moving runners is a good thing?

 

You know that bad things can happen when you put the ball in play, right?

 

For example, because Theriot makes contact so often, he cost the Cubs 5 double plays more than the average MLB player would have made last year.

 

Soriano, on the other hand, was better at avoiding double plays than any other Cubs starter (unless you want to count Felix Pie).

 

There is a demonstrable negative correlation between strikeout rate and double play rate.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=292385