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

[frostwyrm]

The thread topic seems silly to me. You could look at any of the projected contenders and say they'd be possibly be the best NL team if they added a #2 starting pitcher. Saying it about the Cubs doesn't exactly constitute bold hard-hitting sports journalism.

[David]

I think it would be really nice if our hitters made outs less often.

 

In recent years the Cubs have been both at or near the top and bottom in strikeouts. They've been at or near the top in sacrifices as well. What they haven't been is anywhere near the top in walks taken, OBP or runs scored. That is what matters.

 

Yup.

[CarolinaCubFan]

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

In 97,556 chances. In other words, errors were only made on 1.7% of the chances that fielders had.

 

My numbers are loose, but doesn't that roughly average out to "100" extra baserunners?

[CarolinaCubFan]

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.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

That's why I love baseball, all the variables are a chess game.

 

Putting the ball in play pros:

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

Poor defenders / defenses - A guy that could hit the ball to Chris Duncan four times a game is likely to have a productive day. Prince Fielder may hit a ton, but he's not goin to have great range on Defense.

 

Advancing runners - As Cuse pointed out.

 

We all have our own opinions. My experiece tells me these hypotheticals do matter, I'm just not smart enough to back them up with stats. :D

 

I think the mistake is thinking there are choices involved here. You don't just choose to put it in play or choose to strikeout. You try to hit the ball hard and go from there.

 

Baseball is much less of a chess game than the myth makers in the media would like everybody to believe. The vast majority of outcomes are determined by the ability of the players taking part, mainly the pitcher and the hitter.

 

Some players make a lot of contact, others don't. Each tries to hit the ball hard. One does, one whiffs.

[fromthestretch]

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

In 97,556 chances. In other words, errors were only made on 1.7% of the chances that fielders had.

 

My numbers are loose, but doesn't that roughly average out to "100" extra baserunners?

 

Not necessarily. A fielder could be given an error on a dropped pop foul only to have the hitter make an out on the next pitch. An error could be charged on a throw that allowed a runner to take an extra base in a situation where a good throw would not have resulted in an out (i.e. a hitter lines a base hit to right field with a runner on second, the RF throws home to try to get the runner, throw goes past the catcher allowing the hitter to move from first to second). Don't necessarily assume that every error would result in an additional baserunner.

[Danny82]

now that Hill has 1 full season under his belt, let him prove he's not a #2

 

Personally, I think he still has to prove that he IS a #2.

[David]

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.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

That's why I love baseball, all the variables are a chess game.

 

Putting the ball in play pros:

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

Poor defenders / defenses - A guy that could hit the ball to Chris Duncan four times a game is likely to have a productive day. Prince Fielder may hit a ton, but he's not goin to have great range on Defense.

 

Advancing runners - As Cuse pointed out.

 

We all have our own opinions. My experiece tells me these hypotheticals do matter, I'm just not smart enough to back them up with stats. :D

 

I think the mistake is thinking there are choices involved here. You don't just choose to put it in play or choose to strikeout. You try to hit the ball hard and go from there.

 

Baseball is much less of a chess game than the myth makers in the media would like everybody to believe. The vast majority of outcomes are determined by the ability of the players taking part, mainly the pitcher and the hitter.

 

Some players make a lot of contact, others don't. Each tries to hit the ball hard. One does, one whiffs.

 

 

There are definitely players that aren't always trying to "hit the ball hard" and instead go up there looking to make contact just for the sake of contact. And they usually make weak contact.

 

This is especially true in two strike situations. Some might not agree with me, but I'd rather my guy strike out while trying to drive the ball with two strikes than ground out weakly in an attempt to avoid a strikeout. It's this very same stigma against strikeouts that results in hitters with this garbage mentality.

[CarolinaCubFan]

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

In 97,556 chances. In other words, errors were only made on 1.7% of the chances that fielders had.

 

My numbers are loose, but doesn't that roughly average out to "100" extra baserunners?

 

Not necessarily. A fielder could be given an error on a dropped pop foul only to have the hitter make an out on the next pitch. An error could be charged on a throw that allowed a runner to take an extra base in a situation where a good throw would not have resulted in an out (i.e. a hitter lines a base hit to right field with a runner on second, the RF throws home to try to get the runner, throw goes past the catcher allowing the hitter to move from first to second). Don't necessarily assume that every error would result in an additional baserunner.

 

True. Okay, then let's split that to 50 extra baserunners per year? That's still nearly a extra baserunner in 33% of the games. I could be way off on my numbers.

[CarolinaCubFan]

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.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

That's why I love baseball, all the variables are a chess game.

 

Putting the ball in play pros:

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

Poor defenders / defenses - A guy that could hit the ball to Chris Duncan four times a game is likely to have a productive day. Prince Fielder may hit a ton, but he's not goin to have great range on Defense.

 

Advancing runners - As Cuse pointed out.

 

We all have our own opinions. My experiece tells me these hypotheticals do matter, I'm just not smart enough to back them up with stats. :D

 

I think the mistake is thinking there are choices involved here. You don't just choose to put it in play or choose to strikeout. You try to hit the ball hard and go from there.

 

Baseball is much less of a chess game than the myth makers in the media would like everybody to believe. The vast majority of outcomes are determined by the ability of the players taking part, mainly the pitcher and the hitter.

 

Some players make a lot of contact, others don't. Each tries to hit the ball hard. One does, one whiffs.

 

 

There are definitely players that aren't always trying to "hit the ball hard" and instead go up there looking to make contact just for the sake of contact. And they usually make weak contact.

 

This is especially true in two strike situations. Some might not agree with me, but I'd rather my guy strike out while trying to drive the ball with two strikes than ground out weakly in an attempt to avoid a strikeout. It's this very same stigma against strikeouts that results in hitters with this garbage mentality.

 

You have to compare like hitters though.

 

Dunn and Pujols come to my mind. Both are comparable in power, high obp, and BB. The difference in my mind is Pujols makes better contact than Dunn.

[David]

I'm certainly not arguing that certain hitters aren't better at making contact than other hitters. There's no question of that.

[fromthestretch]

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

In 97,556 chances. In other words, errors were only made on 1.7% of the chances that fielders had.

 

My numbers are loose, but doesn't that roughly average out to "100" extra baserunners?

 

Not necessarily. A fielder could be given an error on a dropped pop foul only to have the hitter make an out on the next pitch. An error could be charged on a throw that allowed a runner to take an extra base in a situation where a good throw would not have resulted in an out (i.e. a hitter lines a base hit to right field with a runner on second, the RF throws home to try to get the runner, throw goes past the catcher allowing the hitter to move from first to second). Don't necessarily assume that every error would result in an additional baserunner.

 

True. Okay, then let's split that to 50 extra baserunners per year? That's still nearly a extra baserunner in 33% of the games. I could be way off on my numbers.

 

Since we're dealing with stats based on events that already took place, you'd probably want to look at the situations in which those errors took place to really gauge any impact they may have had. For example, how many runners reached on an error when the team was already up by five runs? How many reached in the eighth inning of a tie ballgame?

 

I guess a good question would be, if Soriano struck out 80 times instead of 130 times, what would the result have been? How many more double plays would he hit into? How many more sac flies would he have? How many runners that he moved over would have scored? And in how many ballgames would any of this have made a difference?

[Warpticon]

the strikeout argument always gets convoluted because the people who are discussing it are never talking about the same thing.

[inari]

now that Hill has 1 full season under his belt, let him prove he's not a #2

 

Personally, I think he still has to prove that he IS a #2.

 

What more does he have to do? He was probably the best pitcher on the Cubs last year.

[HoopsCubs]

Blanton

 

If the Cubs want Blanton, they better hurry. My brother in NYC just heard Buster Olney on some station saying the Mets just offered: Carlos Gomez, Aaron Heilman, and Kevin Mulvey.

 

And Olney thinks Beane will strongly consider it.

[RynoRules]

Blanton

 

If the Cubs want Blanton, they better hurry. My brother in NYC just heard Buster Olney on some station saying the Mets just offered: Carlos Gomez, Aaron Heilman, and Kevin Mulvey.

 

And Olney thinks Beane will strongly consider it.

 

After the Roberts deal happens (or should I say "if"), I don't see how we can match that offer.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Blanton

 

If the Cubs want Blanton, they better hurry. My brother in NYC just heard Buster Olney on some station saying the Mets just offered: Carlos Gomez, Aaron Heilman, and Kevin Mulvey.

 

And Olney thinks Beane will strongly consider it.

 

After the Roberts deal happens (or should I say "if"), I don't see how we can match that offer.

 

Pie, Marshall, Atkins seems pretty equivalent.

[TheRaven]

I think you could make a good argument that Bedard is a #2.

 

I think you could make a good arguement that Bedard and his 13th place VORP last year is a #1.

 

no kidding. Bedard is a #1 at this moment, so there should be no question on whether he would qualify as a decent #2 option.

[DenverCubs]

Blanton

 

If the Cubs want Blanton, they better hurry. My brother in NYC just heard Buster Olney on some station saying the Mets just offered: Carlos Gomez, Aaron Heilman, and Kevin Mulvey.

 

And Olney thinks Beane will strongly consider it.

 

After the Roberts deal happens (or should I say "if"), I don't see how we can match that offer.

 

Pie, Marshall, Atkins seems pretty equivalent.

It also seems like a lot.

[rawaction]

Blanton

 

If the Cubs want Blanton, they better hurry. My brother in NYC just heard Buster Olney on some station saying the Mets just offered: Carlos Gomez, Aaron Heilman, and Kevin Mulvey.

 

And Olney thinks Beane will strongly consider it.

 

After the Roberts deal happens (or should I say "if"), I don't see how we can match that offer.

 

Pie, Marshall, Atkins seems pretty equivalent.

It also seems like a lot.

 

Eh, I'd probably do it. And I like Felix.

[Magnetic Curses]

i want them to adda good pitcher, i don't acre about the number thingy.

[wilk]

i want them to adda good pitcher, i don't acre about the number thingy.

 

I don't care about the number thingy either but if we HAD to give Blanton a number thingy with the Cubs it'd probably be a 4. Personally, I don't give up Pie for another essentially average pitcher. I'm starting Pie in CF unless he could be used for a major upgrade at SS.

[RammyFanny]

More orioleshangout stuff, nothing directly linking us to Bedard but for some reason I get the feeling that we're the 1 "NL team".

 

We still have three teams in this, 1 NL and 2 AL.

I am not at liberty to discuss the teams but I would say some would be shocked to atleast one of them.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56908&page=2

If we can't get Bedard, i'm all for Roberts, but if we can get Bedard, don't even try to get Roberts with him. A Pie/Marmol/Gallagher/Murton for Bedard package is right up there with the Cueto/Votto/filler and Adam Jones/fillers packages being discussed.

[NoDak]

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.

 

 

The biggest waste is when a lead off hitter ground out/fly out on the first pitch. The reasons I say this are:

 

1. If a batter can see 9 pitches then the pitcher will run up a pitch count earlier and we will get into their pen (usually not a strength for most teams) earlier.

 

2. Scouting reports are good but every night different pitchers have different things working so if the lead-off hitter can see 9 pitches he probably has a good idea of what the pitcher has/does not have that night. As the lead off man walks back to the the dugout other hitters are asking how much the breaking ball is breaking, how much movement is on the fastball, etc. Even though what a pitcher's "stuff" is can change over the course of the game usually the best indicator is what the lead off hitter can give if he is able to see most of what the pitcher has to offer.

 

3. Every pitch thrown can be a "mistake" by the pitcher. The odds of something good happening for the batter in 9 pitches is much greater than 1-2 pitches. Especially with someone like Soriano who can turn a "mistake" into a 400' HR.

 

4. If there are runners on base then there are 9 pitches steal bases, past balls, balks, etc. possible without having to absorb "outs" on sacrifices.

 

5. Often long at bats lead to walks as most pitchers are not able to avoid throwing 4 balls in that many pitches (presuming the batter can lay off of them).

 

The "disadvantages" of taking 9 pitches are (technically):

1. That is 9 pitches that could hit the batters head/hands

 

2. Usually there are at least 1-2 visits to the mound by the catcher which wastes time

 

In short, I would LOVE for Soriano to see 9 pitches per AB. Think about it, that is 36 pitches in 4 ABs. At that rate the pitcher is not going to be around for long before he is tired.

[RammyFanny]

Belkast:

The surprise team is in the NL.

[nilodnayr]

Belkast:

The surprise team is in the NL.

 

Would we be considered the surprise team? We've been linked to Bedard already. Other NL teams

 

Reds---already been linked

Dodgers---already been linked

Mets--haven't heard anything about them interested in Bedard, but we know theyre interested in Santana, so makes sense.

Nationals?---would they deal with the "cross-town rival"? They'd like to make a run at it with the new stadium.

Rockies?

 

The rest of the NL either doesn't need another starter, isn't in a position to contend in the next couple years, or doesnt have the players that'd tempt the O's to be interested IMO.