Alfonso Soriano OK with not being leading man

[Mephistopheles]

i was talking about for his career.

[SouthSideRyan]

i was talking about for his career.

 

Excepting his entire minor league career where he stole at a 70% rate.

[Mephistopheles]

i know i couldn't be referring to his career 55-12 mark outside that timeframe or the 87% success rate he had the first two years in his career.

[Sammy Sofa]

Soriano hits 6th.

 

Awful.

 

I could see trying him at #4 or even #5, but #6 is just pissing away AB's.

 

Lee is natural 2 at his age/skills. Bradley and Ramirez are a natural 3-4. Soto and Soriano are more or less interchangeable at 5-6 (if consider Soriano's natural age 33 decline and Soto's age 25 rise).

 

You're welcome to disagree, but calling it 'awful' is reactionary and discredits your contribution. By stating 'pissing away AB's' your basically saying Soriano is measurably and obviously better than any of Bradley, Ramirez, or Soto at 4 or 5, and that simply isn't true. Soriano likely produces the lowest OPS of the bunch in '09, if only by a small margin (I expect all 4 guys to be in the .860-.900 range).

 

soriano is a much better hitter than theriot, so i'd rather get him the extra 60+ at bats at the top of the order

 

Stop with the crazy talk, you madman.

[Mephistopheles]

To put the #s into perspective, the 41/47 rate he had the first two years would be the second best among players with at least 45 SBAs since 1950 - second only to Carlos Beltran. His 55/67 rate outside those six weeks would still place him in the top 20. That's the top 0.1% and 2% of all base stealers. respectively. In fact if you want to throw in the six weeks as well, which had nothing to do with my comment, he's still in the top 10% of all base stealers.

[SouthSideRyan]

i know i couldn't be referring to his career 55-12 mark outside that timeframe or the 87% success rate he had the first two years in his career.

 

Why do you feel it appropriate to write off both his most recent sample of base stealing and his cumulative sample of base stealing. It's not like he was injured last year, he just sucked at it.

[Mephistopheles]

I didn't write it off. Read the quote

 

Attempting to steal a base is a good idea in tons of situations - and with the notable exception of the first six weeks last season, Theriot's been incredibly efficient at stealing bases.

 

I said it was notable...meaning it MEANS something. Why don't you stop fishing for ways to crucify me and read my damn posts.

[SouthSideRyan]

But you've said he's been efficient except for those 6 weeks. He wasn't efficient the remainder of last year. He wasn't efficient throughout his minor league career. With the notable exception of '06 and '07 he hasn't been an efficient base stealer.

[Mephistopheles]

You don't get it. I never said he was one overall. Jesus christ. Besides minor league success rate doesn't map to major league success rate with any usefulness with respect to guys who steal often. 90% of stealing bases is knowing when to go and when not to go. In the minors guys are given the green light the entire time so they can learn things like that. He stole frequently in the minors and didn't always run in opportune times for success. It's an acquired art. Not to mention advanced scouting reports on pitchers' moves, slidesteps, delivery time and catchers' pop times simply don't exist in the minors to the extent they do in the majors. He's not the fastest base runner, but he's one of the smartest, so stuff like this is crucial to him getting thrown out or not.

[Ski]

Fonzie is 38/47 in his Cubs career at stealing attempts. By all means, he should continue running.

 

I don't want him running with the way his legs are breaking down. Honestly I'd tell him to sit his ass on first until he shows he can actually stay healthy

Maybe my memory is distorting things (i.e., just focusing on the negative), but Soriano seems to get picked off a lot, too. I can remember at least a few times when he got caught dozing off at first base.

 

I remember one game where the pitcher threw over like 3 times and picked him off on the 4h or so try, and I'm thinking "Didn't you learn anything from the last 3 throws?"

 

I was annoyed.

[inari]

I'm moderately shocked we haven't seen wrigley23 make an appearance in this thread.

[wrigley23]

For once, others are stepping up & pointing out the other side of the argument so I choose not to pile on. What I find interesting though is the fact that the Soriano leading off issue comes up every year, multiple times/yr & by so many people including a large number of baseball analysts & those in the media. I wonder why that is? Surely they must be all wrong (sarcasm inserted). Lou hits him leadoff as he feels he has to in order to keep the peace with him. Same w/ keeping him in the game in left despite his costly late inning defense. It infuriates many fans as a result. Time is running out on this nucleus of a team. Let's see if the mighty Milton Bradley (held together physically/mentally) by a string is the 101-yr answer. After several downgrades/cost cutting moves, he was the only net addition. Count me as a non-believer in all of this fine mess.

[17 Seconds]

For once, others are stepping up & pointing out the other side of the argument so I choose not to pile on. What I find interesting though is the fact that the Soriano leading off issue comes up every year, multiple times/yr & by so many people including a large number of baseball analysts & those in the media. I wonder why that is? Surely they must be all wrong (sarcasm inserted). Lou hits him leadoff as he feels he has to in order to keep the peace with him. Same w/ keeping him in the game in left despite his costly late inning defense. It infuriates many fans as a result. Time is running out on this nucleus of a team. Let's see if the mighty Milton Bradley (held together physically/mentally) by a string is the 101-yr answer. After several downgrades/cost cutting moves, he was the only net addition. Count me as a non-believer in all of this fine mess.

 

Do you really think you should be using baseball "analysts" and the media to back your argument? I think that would be a better backing argument for someone arguing the opposite.

 

Either way, first in the NL in runs last year with Soriano leading off. Unless the rules change in the playoffs, I don't think this should even be an issue anymore. Last year should have squashed that.

[erik316wttn]

I'd lead off Fukudome myself.

 

Assuming he got his head out of his ass this winter.

[wrigley23]

Do you really think you should be using baseball "analysts" and the media to back your argument? I think that would be a better backing argument for someone arguing the opposite.

 

Either way, first in the NL in runs last year with Soriano leading off. Unless the rules change in the playoffs, I don't think this should even be an issue anymore. Last year should have squashed that.

 

In the context it was raised...yes. Soriano leading off is an issue because so many bring it up all the time. I hear it constantly in the media & by analysts...so yes.

 

Finishing first in runs is here nor there as you are not playing your watered down division in the playoffs. Let's flip it around. The Cubs have been dead last in runs scored the last two years in the playoffs. How's that?

[Sammy Sofa]

In the context it was raised...yes. Soriano leading off is an issue because so many bring it up all the time. I hear it constantly in the media & by analysts...so yes.

 

That doesn't make him leading off a problematic "issue."

 

Finishing first in runs is here nor there as you are not playing your watered down division in the playoffs. Let's flip it around. The Cubs have been dead last in runs scored the last two years in the playoffs. How's that?

 

What a horrible argument. 6 games trumps 324 games? The Cub don't only play teams in their division, and the NLC was hardly "watered down" last year with the Brewers, Cardinals and even the Astros in the playoffs hunt for almost the whole season.

 

And Soriano's "costly late inning defense?" Just stop.

[17 Seconds]

Do you really think you should be using baseball "analysts" and the media to back your argument? I think that would be a better backing argument for someone arguing the opposite.

 

Either way, first in the NL in runs last year with Soriano leading off. Unless the rules change in the playoffs, I don't think this should even be an issue anymore. Last year should have squashed that.

 

In the context it was raised...yes. Soriano leading off is an issue because so many bring it up all the time. I hear it constantly in the media & by analysts...so yes.

 

Finishing first in runs is here nor there as you are not playing your watered down division in the playoffs. Let's flip it around. The Cubs have been dead last in runs scored the last two years in the playoffs. How's that?

 

I still don't understand how the media bringing it up constantly means it's actually a problem. Like I said, if the media is harping about something, there's a good chance it's [expletive]. It's the media. That'swhat they do. The same media that keeps talking about Aaron Miles leading off. As for "analysts" (I'm assuming you're talking about jokers like Steve Phillips, Buster Olney, etc.)..... it's not a surprise some of those guys say that. Most of them are old guys and old-fashioned baseball guys. They still think things like that are important, when really they're not. This is 2009. It's okay to accept the fact that things like leadoff aren't really important. I don't know why you refuse to accept it when it's been explained/proven over and over. You have to open your mind and accept it. Stop being so stubborn.

 

As for the playoffs.... like I said.... unless the rules are different in the playoffs, I don't see your point. So they were a powerhouse offense in the regular season against EVERYBODY, but as soon as the playoffs start, their fatal flaw of Soriano leading off is exposed? That's really what you want to argue? If nobody in your lineup hits, you aren't going to score runs, period. Nobody hit. I don't know why you're acting like we would have scored runs if we had a leadoff hitter. Would a leadoff hitter have made everyone else in the lineup rake for some reason?

[wrigley23]

You've never seen me piping up about the Cub being a strong offensive team. I did say they were the best in the division although we've discovered that is like being given the pork queen title at the county fair. It is a great honor...in your county for what that's worth. For those that claim it makes more sense to put your best hitters at the top. Oh really? Is that why Arod, Pujols, Wright, Braun, etc hit 3rd? On base % remains one of the leading indicators of a successful leadoff hitter. If you scan around baseball, it is certainly far more the rule than the exception. Also, while I do think it is a problem, my point was more that it is an "issue"/"discussion point" just as it follows the thread title...you see it frequently brought up by writers in not only the Chicago media but in the media itself. Like I said a few mo's ago, I speak to baseball scouts in Arizona each spring & have also discussed this w/ minor league coaches from the Cub organization. It is well known that many disagree w/ hit batting slot & feel it is only done by Lou as a coddling measure...same goes for his late inning presence in left. If you don't like hearing about it, put your head back into the sand.

[Mephistopheles]

just because other people do it, it doesnt make it right.

 

millions of people have bought linkin park albums.

[17 Seconds]

You've never seen me piping up about the Cub being a strong offensive team. I did say they were the best in the division although we've discovered that is like being given the pork queen title at the county fair. It is a great honor...in your county for what that's worth. For those that claim it makes more sense to put your best hitters at the top. Oh really? Is that why Arod, Pujols, Wright, Braun, etc hit 3rd? On base % remains one of the leading indicators of a successful leadoff hitter. If you scan around baseball, it is certainly far more the rule than the exception. Also, while I do think it is a problem, my point was more that it is an "issue"/"discussion point" just as it follows the thread title...you see it frequently brought up by writers in not only the Chicago media but in the media itself. Like I said a few mo's ago, I speak to baseball scouts in Arizona each spring & have also discussed this w/ minor league coaches from the Cub organization. It is well known that many disagree w/ hit batting slot & feel it is only done by Lou as a coddling measure...same goes for his late inning presence in left. If you don't like hearing about it, put your head back into the sand.

 

First off, you know the NL Central was a really really good division last year, right?

 

Also, the reason why those guys (Braun, Wright, etc) hit there is because they've proven they're successful at it. Soriano has not. In fact, Soriano has shown time and time again that he significantly worse while batting in the middle of the order.... and this is backed up with huge sample sizes and full seasons. I don't know why you ignore it. Why else was was he significantly worse in those 2 seasons with Texas? The 2 years before that and the 3 years after that he was basically the same hitter....but the 2 years with Texas sandwhiched in between, he was a completely different hitter. If it's not because he was in the middle of the order and not leading off, then what was it? A 2 year slump?

 

You have a point with Lou being stupid about the late inning defensive replacement stuff, but that's a completely different argument. He hits him leadoff because that is where he performs the best. Isn't that what you want a manager to do? Make the players perform the best? Even though it didn't last long and it was probably pointless since Lou didn't give it a real shot, at least he's tried to move him out of the leadoff spot... which shows it's not just him coddling him. He wants him to hit... and he hits when he's batting leadoff. Would you really be more happy batting him 3rd even if it means losing like 70 OPS points? I wouldn't.

 

Also the media/scout stuff is a big time copout/excuse and it's hurting your argument anyways. You keeo harping on it and it makes it sound like you can't defend your arugment well enough on your own. It's no surprise that either of those groups are saying it anyways. The media is the media (c'mon, are we really even talking about the media?) and scouts are all old fashioned guys who think anything SABR related is pure evil. Of course they're saying this stuff. Too bad it's 2009.

 

Scouts should stick to what they do...scouting and evaluating talent. Since when are they in charge of things like managing players and in game strategies anyways? Shouldn't they be in coaching if they want to do that?