Perry Fired; Von Joshua to Replace Him (p. 2)

[David]

Actually, playing lots of small ball will definitely lead to consistently bad offense. Edited June 15, 2009 by David

[E.J.]

Just looking at Soriano's numbers, you can see that he has started a steady decline. His OPS has fallen every year since his best year in 2006.

 

2006: .911

2007: .897

2008: .876

2009: .749

 

Obviously, this season is quite a drop and I expect him to pick it up somewhat, but we have 5 more seasons left on Soriano's contract where he'll be 38 by the end of it. The contract is going to get worse every year.

[Old Style]

Actually, playing lots of small ball will mean definitely lead to consistently bad offense.

You fail English? That's unpossible.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The 2008 Cubs had 13 wins while scoring three runs. This was tied for 2nd in MLB.

They had 3 wins when scoring 2 runs, tied for 17th.

They were one of 12 teams to not win any 1-0 games.

They were part of a 30-way tie for first with no wins when being shut out.

 

It doesn't seem to me that they were particularly bad at winning games when scoring 3 or less, compared to other MLB teams and not imaginary clutch ones.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I understand that team will lose MORE games when scores 3 or less, the point is that the Cubs did it 66 TIMES, compared to 55 and 59 for the Sox and Phillies... The Rays did it 61 times.

 

So compared to the Red Sox, the Cubs had one extra "3 or lower" game per every 15 games.

 

That doesn't seem real likely to swing a playoff series.

[hossdriver]

Actually, playing lots of small ball will mean definitely lead to consistently bad offense.

 

This has zero foundation, when swinging for the fences and bad pitches has led to more strikeouts, GIDP, and rally-killing pop-ups to foul territory have meant a consistently bad offense.

 

When Derrek Lee leads off the inning with a single, and there is ZERO power threat behind him, you MUST do the little things to move him over and drive him in. Its as simple as that. We have a leadoff hitter that doesn't run. We have back-order hitters that can't get the bunt down. We have an entire lineup of guys who choke with a runner on third and less than 2 outs.

 

Shorten up with 2 strikes and go the other way... Theriot just showed you that THAT wins ballgames.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Obviously, this season is quite a drop and I expect him to pick it up somewhat, but we have 5 more seasons left on Soriano's contract where he'll be 38 by the end of it. The contract is going to get worse every year.

 

And while picking it back up is the most likely option, a serious decline in age 33 season for a guy with a ton of miles on his legs isn't exactly unheard of.

[dew1679666265]

Actually, playing lots of small ball will mean definitely lead to consistently bad offense.

 

This has zero foundation, when swinging for the fences and bad pitches has led to more strikeouts, GIDP, and rally-killing pop-ups to foul territory have meant a consistently bad offense.

 

When Derrek Lee leads off the inning with a single, and there is ZERO power threat behind him, you MUST do the little things to move him over and drive him in. Its as simple as that. We have a leadoff hitter that doesn't run. We have back-order hitters that can't get the bunt down. We have an entire lineup of guys who choke with a runner on third and less than 2 outs.

 

Shorten up with 2 strikes and go the other way... Theriot just showed you that THAT wins ballgames.

 

This year we have a team of bad hitters so far, that's why our offense hasn't been good. Last year we had a team of good hitters who were patient, got on base and slugged well - and they were a fantastic offense.

 

Small ball can be useful in certain situations, but it should not be the core of what the team is built around. If it is, you're limiting your ability to be successful.

[dew1679666265]

However, under Perry, the Cubs have always been all-or-nothing slugging teams in the old AL mold. Yes, they scored the most runs in the NL, and won the most games, but they also were very weak against good pitchers who kept the ball in the park. They were 16-50 in 2008 when scoring 3R or less. They didn't do the little things (small ball) to win games against good pitching. Hence, they are 0-6 in 2 playoff appearances...

 

Teams are going to do poorly overall when they score 3 runs or less. Let's look at two playoff teams last year, the Red Sox and the World Champion Phillies for evidence:

 

2008 W/L when scoring 3 runs or less for Boston: 10-45

 

2008 W/L when scoring 3 runs or less for Philadelphia: 12-47

 

Those are the only two I figured up, but I'd wager that most teams follow that lead. Combined playoff record for the two: 18-7, with the Phillies winning the World Series.

 

 

I understand that team will lose MORE games when scores 3 or less, the point is that the Cubs did it 66 TIMES, compared to 55 and 59 for the Sox and Phillies... The Rays did it 61 times.

 

You KNOW that that will be the case in the playoffs too when facing the likes of the Dodgers or Phillies staff. You either have to be HOT at the plate, which the Cubs weren't, or be practiced in small ball and manufacturing runs when you need to.

 

The Cubs DON'T do it. That's why they can't get bunts down, move runners, or score runs on a CONSISTENT basis.

 

Is five games over the course of 162 games that big a difference? It might translate to one more game of three runs or less in the playoffs, but it's certainly not the difference between last year's Cubs and last year's Phillies. Even good teams have a lot of games where they don't score a lot of runs. It happens over 162 game seasons.

 

The goal should be to put together the best team possible, make the playoffs in as good a shape as possible and take your chances from there.

[jersey cubs fan]

Von Joshua is the anti-Reggie Cleveland.

 

No idea he was black. I blame it on Von Hayes, the only other Von I've ever heard of.

[Guest]

Firing Perry is comparable to buying new tires for your car after the transmission blows.

 

Hendry fires Perry because his hands are tied on what moves he can make to improve the team?

 

Who tied Hendry's hands? Hendry!

 

Gerald Perry did not sign all of those guys to no trade contracts. Perry did not give these guys extremely long term deals for huge wads of cash. Perry did not fail to institute a successful learning program for hitting the ball at the minor league level.

 

It is true that Hendry cannot fire himself. However, the guy who hired Hendry can certainly recognize that Gerald Perry is not the guilty one for the failure of this team. If he can't, it's time for a complete and thorough house cleaning of upper management.

 

I think it's awesome that Joshua is getting this promotion. However, the overall strength of the hitting coaches just took a huge hit by letting Gerald Perry go. The coaching staff is now weaker throughout the system, and Hendry is the only one to blame for that, even if he deserved the credit for bringing in those guys here.

 

I'm completely convinced at this point that Hendry is not capable of becoming a successful GM. While I think there is a place for him in the baseball world, being in charge of a major league baseball team is not one of those places.

[Post Count Padder]

I prefer Joshua helping out the AAA club, but it's nice to see him get a chance. Still, I don't think Perry was that much at fault. We just have a bad offense.

[fromthestretch]

You don't change the 'overall' philosophy but you can do things to increase 'contact' when RISP... You don't have to reach back for the 3R homer. Case in point, the Cubs won yesterday on 3 singles and being aggressive 1st to 3rd. Theriot shortened up and went the other way.

 

You know Lowe, or Lincecum, or Santana, or Webb is on the mound and the wind is blowing in, yet the Cubs are hacking away and striking out swinging for Waveland... Play some small ball, and yes, the offense will get jump started. Do it in the early innings and set the tone.

 

16-50 is ATROCIOUS when scoring 3 or less and certainly won't win any games in October...

 

But if you'd rather lead the world in 'Runs' in the regular season and get shutdown in the playoffs, go right ahead...

 

Let's compare the Cubs to a few other playoff teams from last season:

 

Tampa Bay

3 or fewer runs: 20-41 (.328)

Road: 40-41 (.494)

 

Red Sox

3 or fewer runs: 11-45 (.196)

Road: 39-42 (.481)

 

Phillies:

3 or fewer runs: 12-47 (.203)

Road: 44-37 (.543)

 

Cubs:

3 or fewer runs: 16-50 (.242)

Road: 42-38 (.525)

 

So the Cubs had a better winning percentage last season than the world champs in games where they scored three or fewer runs. They had a better road record than the other World Series team.

[SouthSideRyan]

I honestly have no clue what this 3 runs or less record is supposed to prove about the Cubs needing to play more loserball.

[CubColtPacer]

Like you quoted, the Cubs had the MOST RUNS scored in 2008. However, they were one of the least consistent offenses going because on any given day they could put up 7+ (57 times!!!), and just as easily get shut out or held to one run (18 times, 0-18 record). They were barely above .500 on the road, and had a losing record against .500 or better ballclubs right up until mid to late September...

 

The top 5 offenses last year when scoring 1 run or less:

Texas: 18 games overall, 2-16 record

Cubs: 17 games (it might be 18 and I miscounted) 0-17

Boston: 19 games, 2-17

Minnesota: 20 games, 0-20

Detroit: 22 games, 0-22

 

The one run number means nothing because it's so absolutely normal. The Cubs did not have any more troubles with consistency than anybody else.

 

Being barely over .500 on the road ended up being the 3rd best road record in the whole major leagues. Besides, the team who was easily best on the road (the Angels) got bounced in just 1 more game than the Cubs.

 

As for the record against .500 or better teams, I'll have to check later but I doubt the Cubs were sufficiently worse at that than most teams. It's a very strange team that builds up a good record by beating up on the good teams and struggling against the bad ones..normally it's the other way around.

 

You don't change the 'overall' philosophy but you can do things to increase 'contact' when RISP... You don't have to reach back for the 3R homer. Case in point, the Cubs won yesterday on 3 singles and being aggressive 1st to 3rd. Theriot shortened up and went the other way.

 

You know Lowe, or Lincecum, or Santana, or Webb is on the mound and the wind is blowing in, yet the Cubs are hacking away and striking out swinging for Waveland... Play some small ball, and yes, the offense will get jump started. Do it in the early innings and set the tone.

 

I can sort of understand the thought that as the probability of runs goes down that the percentage of small ball needs to go up. At the same time, I don't see any evidence that the Cubs were trying to play for the home run with RISP the whole time. And you know who struck out at a higher rate than the Cubs with RISP last year? Both the Phillies and the Rays struck out a greater percentage of the time, and it didn't seem to affect them in the playoffs.

 

 

16-50 is ATROCIOUS when scoring 3 or less and certainly won't win any games in October...

 

But if you'd rather lead the world in 'Runs' in the regular season and get shutdown in the playoffs, go right ahead...

 

As others have shown, 16-50 is also in the normal range although on the high side of normal. It certainly isn't atrocious.

[Guest]

Von Joshua is the anti-Reggie Cleveland.

 

No idea he was black. I blame it on Von Hayes, the only other Von I've ever heard of.

 

Holy crap. I totally made the same mistake. I was completely convinced that Von Joshua was the tall lanky CFer that played for the Phillies all those years.

 

Ironically enough, Von Hayes had better career stats than Von Joshua, and quite significantly in the OBP department.

[fromthestretch]

Actually, playing lots of small ball will mean definitely lead to consistently bad offense.

 

This has zero foundation, when swinging for the fences and bad pitches has led to more strikeouts, GIDP, and rally-killing pop-ups to foul territory have meant a consistently bad offense.

 

When Derrek Lee leads off the inning with a single, and there is ZERO power threat behind him, you MUST do the little things to move him over and drive him in. Its as simple as that. We have a leadoff hitter that doesn't run. We have back-order hitters that can't get the bunt down. We have an entire lineup of guys who choke with a runner on third and less than 2 outs.

 

Shorten up with 2 strikes and go the other way... Theriot just showed you that THAT wins ballgames.

 

Your obsession with bunting is comical.

 

And swinging for the fences leads to more GIDPs? Weak contact can do the same.

 

As for the "lineup of guys who choke with a runner on third and less than 2 outs", they performed admirably in that situation last year, posting a .346/.390/.515 line in those situations. Considering that they had the same hitting coach up until yesterday, what are they doing differently fundamentally this season that's causing them to post a .248/.340/.371 line in those same situations this season? They weren't the small ball team you crave last season, and they thrived in those situations.

[dew1679666265]

Gerald Perry did not sign all of those guys to no trade contracts.

 

Just out of curiosity, who would it make a huge difference with if they didn't have an NTC?

 

It's pretty obvious that no one would take Soriano's huge remaining contract even if he didn't have an NTC

 

Lee has 10/5 rights making his NTC moot

 

Z would be a possibility to trade

 

Aramis is still in his prime (and if the shoulder injury hurts his offense, his trade value will drop)

 

Ted Lilly has been our best pitcher this year, trading him would hurt our chances next year

 

If Kosuke's overall numbers are for real there's no reason to trade him and if they're not, he won't be tradeable

 

So, out of that group there's one player who's NTC might hurt us - Z. Otherwise there's no reason to trade the player (Lilly, Aramis) or no market for said player (Soriano, Kosuke). I don't see how the NTCs have that horrible a negative effect on our roster. The worse problem is long term contracts to 30+ players who are becoming untradeable with or without NTCs.

[David]

Actually, playing lots of small ball will mean definitely lead to consistently bad offense.

You fail English? That's unpossible.

 

:oops:

 

Got caught phrasing it two different ways there.

[hawkeyecub]

Von Joshua is the anti-Reggie Cleveland.

 

No idea he was black. I blame it on Von Hayes, the only other Von I've ever heard of.

 

Likewise. I did not anticipate that.

[Vanilla Ice]

my feelings are similar to many already posted. i hate to pin the 2009 struggles on Perry after so much success in the second half of 2007 and all of 2008, offensively. having said that, Von Joshua is certainly worthy of the post and i guess i'm happy for him to have the chance, even though my first choice would be to keep him in the minors working with the guys coming up through the system.

 

interestingly enough the cubs are seeing 3.9 P/PA in 2009 v. 3.88 in 2008 (thanks, Fred). that's certainly not the end-all/be-all. just thought it was worth noting.

 

purely anecdotal (i.e. my eyes may be lying to me) it seems a few guys have been less aggressive in the zone this year. Soto and Fontenot in particular come to mind as guys watching very good pitches go down the middle of the plate. at some point i start to wonder if they're just taking pitches for the sake of taking pitches. or, maybe they just haven't been seeing the ball as well as they'd like.

 

fwiw:

fontenot is seeing 4.21 P/PA v. 3.99 in 2008

soto is seeing 4.14 v. 3.98 in 2008

 

Soto has swung at 64.1% of pitches in the zone in 2009.

He swung at 64.1% of pitches in the zone in 2008.

He has swung at less pitches out of the zone this year than he did last year.

He has made contact with more pitches in the zone this year.

 

Fontenot has actually swung at more pitches in the zone this year.

In 2009, he has swung at 67.7% of pitches in the zone

In 2008, he swung at 61.1% of pitches in the zone

He has swung at basically the same amount of pitches out of the zone in the two years.

He has made slightly less contact in the zone this year.

 

I wondered about Bradley, so I did him too.

In 2009, he has swung at 73.1% of pitches in the zone

In 2008, he swung at 72.5% of pitches in the zone

The 73.1% is his highest since 2005.

He has swung at less pitches out of the zone this year.

He has made slightly less contact in the zone than his career average.

 

This is not completely conclusive, but it seems your eyes have betrayed you.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Von Joshua is the anti-Reggie Cleveland.

 

No idea he was black. I blame it on Von Hayes, the only other Von I've ever heard of.

 

Likewise. I did not anticipate that.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Id heard the name many times before, but every time I thought of him, I always pictured Von Hayes in my head, more specfically a 1983(I think) Donruss Von Hayes card I used to have.

[hossdriver]

Look, my argument has nothing to do with wins, or even run totals...

 

I will not argue that teams are more likely to LOSE more games scoring 3R or less than they win.

 

My point was to CONSISTENCY. I would define a consistent team as one who scores 4-7+ more often than it does not, because obviously, that is what will win you the most games, considering the stats that have been posted already...

 

I have compiled a list of the Top 10 Offenses (Runs Scored) in the MLB for 2008, including the other 4 playoff teams that DID NOT make the Top 10 offensively... With each, is the number of games in which the team DID NOT score at least 4 runs, or by my definition, the model of consistency.

 

Texas - 56

Boston - 56

Cub - 66

Minnesota - 59

Detroit - 60

CHW - 65

Cleveland - 64 (only 5 times shut out all 2008)

NYM - 57

Phil - 59

NYY - 70

 

TB - 61

LAD - 73

Mil - 59

LAA - 59

 

As you can see, only 7 teams broke 60 games scoring 3 or less... Most stayed in the high 50's, and only 2 teams in the NL, Cubs and Dodgers, got into the 60's in 2008. This shows that the Cubs and Dodgers were MORE INCONSISTENT in scoring runs on a daily basis. That is, until the Dodgers acquired Manny (only 27 times after the All-star break).

 

My argument is that the Cubs, when cold, as they are now, are ICE cold with no help from fundamentals and small ball. It also means, that when the wind isn't blowing out, they're gonna struggle scoring. When good pitchers come to town, they're gonna suffer.

 

Call it 'Loser Ball' all you want, but then you shouldn't be allowed to discuss whether or not Soriano should be batting leadoff.

 

My reason for posting wasn't to switch to all small ball, but it needs to be practiced and incorporated so the offense can adjust when the time comes. Its even more crucial when your most clutch and powerful hitter is sidelined 6-8 weeks...

 

Didn't mean to ruffle feathers, but I think changing hitting coaches is what the Cubs have needed all along...

[Old Style]

I'm relieved to see that many of you also confused Von Joshua with Von Hayes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not ruling out the idea that the Cubs' offense was inconsistent, but I'd like to see an analysis that doesn't count a 3-run game and a 0-run game equally.