Should Theriot go back to leading off?

[CubinNY]

In 2006 Ronny Cedeno as the everyday starter hit .245

In 1973 Mike Schmidt as the everyday starter hit .196.

 

In 1986 Barry Bonds as the everyday starter hit .223.

 

In 1990 Sammy Sosa as the everyday starter hit .233.

 

So enough judging a player based on his first year as an everyday starter.

 

cedeno at age 23 had a 54 OPS+

 

schmidt at age 23 had a 93 OPS+

 

bonds at age 21 had a 103 OPS+

 

sosa at age 21 had a 92 OPS+

 

 

in two cases cedeno was 2 years older than the player, and all of the players you mentioned were doing something well - hitting for power, drawing some walks, or both. cedeno wasn't doing either one. pointing this out for no other reason than to say that the comparisons aren't good ones. you need to find someone who was completely unproductive.

 

Keep stretching Truffle, you'll get there some day.

 

That's not the point and you know it.

[soapy]

i still don't see Soriano leading-off as a major issue with this team. it's certainly not ideal, but i don't think it's costing the Cubs runs. i do think Fukudome should be hitting 2nd. i've said before, my primary concern is getting the best hitters the most at-bats for the most part. Soriano is likely to end up as one of the more productive hitters on the team by the end of the season.

[nilodnayr]

am i the only person who thinks Cedeno's gaudy stats would be considerably lower with additional ABs?

 

a full month of .400 on-base and Theriot still can't get anybody off his back on here. tough crowd.

 

No. Its called regression to the mean, a concept that very few here seem to grasp. If you'd like to know more about it, look at Theriot's season last year. A full month or a half month's worth of stats should not dramaticly alter anyone's valuation of a player (except for injury).

[CyHawk_Cub]

am i the only person who thinks Cedeno's gaudy stats would be considerably lower with additional ABs?

 

a full month of .400 on-base and Theriot still can't get anybody off his back on here. tough crowd.

 

No. Its called regression to the mean, a concept that very few here seem to grasp. If you'd like to know more about it, look at Theriot's season last year. A full month or a half month's worth of stats should not dramaticly alter anyone's valuation of a player (except for injury).

 

Kindly pound this into Lou's brain... Thanks.

[SABR Gamer]

In 2006 Ronny Cedeno as the everyday starter hit .245

In 1973 Mike Schmidt as the everyday starter hit .196.

 

In 1986 Barry Bonds as the everyday starter hit .223.

 

In 1990 Sammy Sosa as the everyday starter hit .233.

 

So enough judging a player based on his first year as an everyday starter.

 

cedeno at age 23 had a 54 OPS+

 

schmidt at age 23 had a 93 OPS+

 

bonds at age 21 had a 103 OPS+

 

sosa at age 21 had a 92 OPS+

 

 

in two cases cedeno was 2 years older than the player, and all of the players you mentioned were doing something well - hitting for power, drawing some walks, or both. cedeno wasn't doing either one. pointing this out for no other reason than to say that the comparisons aren't good ones. you need to find someone who was completely unproductive.

 

It's a little much to compare Cedeno to 3 of the greatest players in the history of the game.

[cubfan]

In 2006 Ronny Cedeno as the everyday starter hit .245

In 1973 Mike Schmidt as the everyday starter hit .196.

 

In 1986 Barry Bonds as the everyday starter hit .223.

 

In 1990 Sammy Sosa as the everyday starter hit .233.

 

So enough judging a player based on his first year as an everyday starter.

 

cedeno at age 23 had a 54 OPS+

 

schmidt at age 23 had a 93 OPS+

 

bonds at age 21 had a 103 OPS+

 

sosa at age 21 had a 92 OPS+

 

 

in two cases cedeno was 2 years older than the player, and all of the players you mentioned were doing something well - hitting for power, drawing some walks, or both. cedeno wasn't doing either one. pointing this out for no other reason than to say that the comparisons aren't good ones. you need to find someone who was completely unproductive.

 

It's a little much to compare Cedeno to 3 of the greatest players in the history of the game.

 

I'd also expect better power numbers from 2 OF and a 3B than a SS. I think the moral of the story here is that not everybody goes nuts their rookie year like Arod or Pujols and it should not be expected.

[rawaction]

Why can't people look at a comparison for what it is? Comparing 2 things don't make them similar. It just makes them compared. Nobody is saying Cedeno is going to be a hall of famer and hit over 500 HRs in his career by comparing him to 3 players that did. People are just pointing out that a bad rookie season doesn't mean that player is a bust.

 

What's so hard to understand about that?

[jersey cubs fan]

Why can't people look at a comparison for what it is? Comparing 2 things don't make them similar. It just makes them compared. Nobody is saying Cedeno is going to be a hall of famer and hit over 500 HRs in his career by comparing him to 3 players that did. People are just pointing out that a bad rookie season doesn't mean that player is a bust.

 

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

You said Cedeno and Hall of Famer in the same sentence, therefore you think Cedeno is going to become a Hall of Famer and because of this I can no longer put any stock into what you say.

 

Good day sir.

[rawaction]

Why can't people look at a comparison for what it is? Comparing 2 things don't make them similar. It just makes them compared. Nobody is saying Cedeno is going to be a hall of famer and hit over 500 HRs in his career by comparing him to 3 players that did. People are just pointing out that a bad rookie season doesn't mean that player is a bust.

 

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

You said Cedeno and Hall of Famer in the same sentence, therefore you think Cedeno is going to become a Hall of Famer and because of this I can no longer put any stock into what you say.

 

Good day sir.

 

How many games have you watched? it's obvious he's turned the corner (or in this case, turned the corner, went about 3 blocks, and up to the penthouse on the top floor).

[CuseCubFan69]

Why can't people look at a comparison for what it is? Comparing 2 things don't make them similar. It just makes them compared. Nobody is saying Cedeno is going to be a hall of famer and hit over 500 HRs in his career by comparing him to 3 players that did. People are just pointing out that a bad rookie season doesn't mean that player is a bust.

 

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

You said Cedeno and Hall of Famer in the same sentence, therefore you think Cedeno is going to become a Hall of Famer and because of this I can no longer put any stock into what you say.

 

Good day sir.

 

I'll bet Raw's thinking World Series as well.

[Guest]

In 2006 Ronny Cedeno as the everyday starter hit .245

In 1973 Mike Schmidt as the everyday starter hit .196.

 

In 1986 Barry Bonds as the everyday starter hit .223.

 

In 1990 Sammy Sosa as the everyday starter hit .233.

 

So enough judging a player based on his first year as an everyday starter.

 

cedeno at age 23 had a 54 OPS+

 

schmidt at age 23 had a 93 OPS+

 

bonds at age 21 had a 103 OPS+

 

sosa at age 21 had a 92 OPS+

 

 

in two cases cedeno was 2 years older than the player, and all of the players you mentioned were doing something well - hitting for power, drawing some walks, or both. cedeno wasn't doing either one. pointing this out for no other reason than to say that the comparisons aren't good ones. you need to find someone who was completely unproductive.

 

Hahahahahaha, all NCCF said was you shouldn't judge a player based on his first year starting. IMB! is right, you're better than this, Truffle.

[nilodnayr]

I hate guys who get thrown out stealing every 5 games and can't make plays at SS because of a mediocre arm and mediocre range.

 

Funny because I like guys who hit over .300 and get on base.

 

Like the best short stop on the team, Ronny Cedeno? Oh but he hits for power in addition to those things, that must be why you don't like him.

 

Remember when we gave Ronny a chance at short in 2006? Yeah we are trying to compete for a world series you don't have to big black holes (Pie/Johnson,Cedeno) in your lineup

Oh, the irony.

 

BTW, Pie's been very good since Dave Keller worked with him, but you wouldn't notice because Lou won't effing play him.

 

Yeah and Theriot has been good basically all year but no one wants to admit he is the teams starting shortstop

Everyone's admitting he's the starter. At issue is whether he should be (and he shouldn't)

 

And why is that?

 

Because he is the 2nd best player on the team at his position? It's not a hard concept to grasp, just try harder, I want to have faith that you can do this!

 

Wrong.

 

Right.

 

So the fact that Cedeno is finally playing like he usually does in the minors and that Theriot is blowing away anything he has ever come close to in the minors doesn't even matter?

 

If Cedeno had the same amount of playing time that our starting shortstop Ryan Theriot has I think you would be dissapointed by the result

 

There are these things called minor leagues, and in them Cedeno did play nearly a full year last year. And in that full year he put up an MLE EQA of 292. Ryan Theriot put up an EQA of 247. Thats a gigantic difference.

 

In case you are unfamiliar with EQA...

 

Equivalent Average. A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player's defense. The EqA adjusted for all-time also has a correction for league difficulty. The scale is deliberately set to approximate that of batting average. League average EqA is always equal to .260. EqA is derived from Raw EqA, which is (H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB). REqA is then normalized to account for league difficulty and scale to create EqA.

[nilodnayr]

Remember when we gave Ronny a chance at short in 2006?

Yes I do. Do YOU remember when Mike Schmidt hit .196 as a rookie? The Phillies obviously should have released that worthless bum.

 

You just compared Ronny Cedeno to Mike Schmidt........................................../quote]Yes, to point out the absurdity of basing playing time decisions for THIS year based on a player's performance AS A ROOKIE TWO YEARS AGO.

 

But its better to base how good a player is by 1 month of spot starts and pinch hitting?

 

And I suppose Theriot has hit the magic number of plate appearances where his performance must be real?

 

Every comparison that can be made between the two players favors Cedeno at this point. He's hitting for a higher average, drawing more walks, hitting for more power, playing better defense, running the bases well... and everybody is in agreement that his ceiling his higher anyways.

 

What's the excuse for playing him over Cedeno? That he's the incumbent? That kind of risk-averse management is exactly the reason teams lose more games than their talent should. Seriously... somebody here needs to give me one legitimate point in Theriots favor versus Cedeno. I haven't heard any yet.

 

Here is what Pizza Cutter has to say about when stats become significant.

 

50 PA - swing percentage

100 PA - contact rate

150 PA - K rate, line drive rate, pitches/PA

200 PA - BB rate, grounder rate, GB/FB ratio

250 PA - flyball rate

300 PA - HR rate, HR/FB

350 PA - sensitivity

400 PA - none

450 PA -none

500 PA - OBP, SLG, OPS, 1B rate, popup rate

550 PA - ISO

600 PA - none

650 PA - none

So after 100 PA (roughly a month, if a player is starting nearly everyday), I can tell you about how much a batter likes to swing and how good he is at making contact.

At 150 PA I can tell you if [the batter] likes to hit line drives (and line drives are good…)

At 150 PA, I can also start telling whether [the batter] likes to work the count and whether he’s a strikeout king.

By 250 PA, I can tell a lot about his walking tendencies and what he’s going to be a ground ball hitter or a flyball hitter.

At 300 PA, I finally find out whether or not the player likes to hit the ball out of the park every once in a while.

Finally, a lot of the usual 1-number stats (OBP, SLG, OPS) don’t stablize until 500 PA, as well as knowing whether you’re a singles hitter.

[javy knows my name]

That may table the sample size debate once and for all. Beyond awesome!

[nilodnayr]

That may table the sample size debate once and for all. Beyond awesome!

 

You, good sir, are an optimist.

[bukie]

That may table the sample size debate once and for all. Beyond awesome!

 

You, good sir, are an optimist.

 

There are few things more important in an educated level of discourse than a point of reference.

[TruffleShuffle]

In 2006 Ronny Cedeno as the everyday starter hit .245

In 1973 Mike Schmidt as the everyday starter hit .196.

 

In 1986 Barry Bonds as the everyday starter hit .223.

 

In 1990 Sammy Sosa as the everyday starter hit .233.

 

So enough judging a player based on his first year as an everyday starter.

 

cedeno at age 23 had a 54 OPS+

 

schmidt at age 23 had a 93 OPS+

 

bonds at age 21 had a 103 OPS+

 

sosa at age 21 had a 92 OPS+

 

 

in two cases cedeno was 2 years older than the player, and all of the players you mentioned were doing something well - hitting for power, drawing some walks, or both. cedeno wasn't doing either one. pointing this out for no other reason than to say that the comparisons aren't good ones. you need to find someone who was completely unproductive.

 

Hahahahahaha, all NCCF said was you shouldn't judge a player based on his first year starting. IMB! is right, you're better than this, Truffle.

 

it's a bad comparison. those players were providing some value to their teams, even though they had low batting averages. they were close league-average hitters. cedeno showed no ability to hit major league pitching at age 23; he was one of the five worst players in baseball. plus, two of the players given as examples were two years earlier in their development curve. so, we've shown that adequate major league hitters can become very good major league hitters. great.

 

you're better than this, CaliforniaRaisin.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Seriously, the idea that Cedeno has so much further to go or overcome because he was terrible instead of merely bad is a really awful bit of logic. It's not a sliding scale, depending on the hitter, small adjustments can make a huge difference or a marginal one.

[TruffleShuffle]

Seriously, the idea that Cedeno has so much further to go or overcome because he was terrible instead of merely bad is a really awful bit of logic. It's not a sliding scale, depending on the hitter, small adjustments can make a huge difference or a marginal one.

 

it's not at all. what's terrible logic is assuming that because some other hitters improved a lot, then so can cedeno. in the cases of the players discussed in this thread, they showed in their first full seasons that they had some of the skills - be it patience or the ability to pick a pitch and drive it for doubles/home runs - that are required to become a good major league player. cedeno showed none of the batting attributes needed to become an average or above-average player at the big league level. saying "hey mike schmidt sucked at 23 and he got good!" is a lazy argument. you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

since i'm so wrong, there should be plenty of examples of guys who were God-awful hitters in their first full seasons, but became average or better. i'm surprised that you guys haven't found all these examples to put me in my place once and for all.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seriously, the idea that Cedeno has so much further to go or overcome because he was terrible instead of merely bad is a really awful bit of logic. It's not a sliding scale, depending on the hitter, small adjustments can make a huge difference or a marginal one.

 

it's not at all. what's terrible logic is assuming that because some other hitters improved a lot, then so can cedeno. in the cases of the players discussed in this thread, they showed in their first full seasons that they had some of the skills - be it patience or the ability to pick a pitch and drive it for doubles/home runs - that are required to become a good major league player. cedeno showed none of the batting attributes needed to become an average or above-average player at the big league level. saying "hey mike schmidt sucked at 23 and he got good!" is a lazy argument. you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

since i'm so wrong, there should be plenty of examples of guys who were God-awful hitters in their first full seasons, but became average or better. i'm surprised that you guys haven't found all these examples to put me in my place once and for all.

 

 

The examples have been given before. You just insist on ignoring them.

 

That bolded part is so incredibly dumb. The fact that others hitters have improved a lot is exactly the type of logic that makes sense when saying Cedeno can. Not that he definitely will, or obviously will, or will clearly be great. But he can. That's the whole freaking point that you've so blindly ignored.

[TruffleShuffle]

The examples have been given before. You just insist on ignoring them.

 

From what I recall, there was one pretty good parallel, and pretty much every other one given (mike schmidt) was faulty.

 

That bolded part is so incredibly dumb. The fact that others hitters have improved a lot is exactly the type of logic that makes sense when saying Cedeno can. Not that he definitely will, or obviously will, or will clearly be great. But he can. That's the whole freaking point that you've so blindly ignored.

 

again. my point is that a player can improve when he has shown some of the skills needed to become a quality big league hitter. comparing cedeno to players who exhibited solid patience or power in their major league debut seasons is so incredibly dumb.

[Mizzou]

This is so stupid, and why a lot of Cubs fans piss me off. Theriot is hitting .320 and his OBP is .400. Stop freaking complaining. If and when his numbers become below average, then bitch all you want about his playing time. But until then stop bitching about a guy who has been very productive.

[Chocolate Milk]

We probably shouldn't be looking at Theriot's OBP in a vacuum considering he has been caught stealing 6 times.

[CubinNY]

This is so stupid, and why a lot of Cubs fans piss me off. Theriot is hitting .320 and his OBP is .400. Stop freaking complaining. If and when his numbers become below average, then bitch all you want about his playing time. But until then stop bitching about a guy who has been very productive.

You know why a lot of Cub fans piss me off?

 

Because they don't understand the laws of causality.

[Jon]

This is so stupid, and why a lot of Cubs fans piss me off. Theriot is hitting .320 and his OBP is .400. Stop freaking complaining. If and when his numbers become below average, then bitch all you want about his playing time. But until then stop bitching about a guy who has been very productive.

If you penalize Theriot's OBP for his 6 caught stealings, his OBP drops from .397 to .353. His successful stolen basees don't even come to making up for that drop. Cedeno, on the other hand, is hitting .383/.473/.574 with better range and a superior arm. He shouldn't be playing over Cedeno.