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

MSG T · June 15, 2009

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...

So the Cubs should stop scoring on those days when they're knocking the crap out of the ball and save those runs for the days the wind is blowing in?

hossdriver · June 15, 2009

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.

I don't count them equally at all. Its not like the Cubs were better at NOT getting shutout, its the exact opposite. Out of those 14 teams, the Cubs were like 12th in being able to score 4 or more runs.

They led the league simply because they had a stacked lineup that could put up 7+ on a consistent basis.

Without stats and hefty analysis, most people who watched the majority of Cub games from 2007 until now can discern that the Cubs can struggle just as easily as anyone else because they 'clutch' fundamentals in close games. Yes, their high-dollar payroll got on base and slugged with the best of them, but they also got shut down nearly more than anyone else...

hossdriver · June 15, 2009

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...

So the Cubs should stop scoring on those days when they're knocking the crap out of the ball and save those runs for the days the wind is blowing in?

No you just have to be more than 1-dimensional and be able to adjust to the pitcher and playing conditions, that's all.

fromthestretch · June 15, 2009

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.

I don't count them equally at all. Its not like the Cubs were better at NOT getting shutout, its the exact opposite. Out of those 14 teams, the Cubs were like 12th in being able to score 4 or more runs.

They led the league simply because they had a stacked lineup that could put up 7+ on a consistent basis.

Without stats and hefty analysis, most people who watched the majority of Cub games from 2007 until now can discern that the Cubs can struggle just as easily as anyone else because they 'clutch' fundamentals in close games. Yes, their high-dollar payroll got on base and slugged with the best of them, but they also got shut down nearly more than anyone else...

2008 Cubs (MLB Average)

Overall: .278/.354/.443 (.264/.333/.416)

RISP: .278/.367/.452 (.266/.355/.414)

2 outs, RISP: .222/.337/.361 (.241/.351/.381)

Late & close: .278/.369/.438 (.252/.333/.395)

Tie Game: .279/.355/.447 (.264/.336/.415)

Within 1 Run: .284/.361/.454 (.264/.335/.416)

Within 2 Runs: .280/.356/.449 (.264/.334/.414)

Within 3 Runs: .283/.359/.456 (.264/.334/.416)

Within 4 Runs: .282/.358/.452 (.264/.334/.416)

Margin >4 Runs: .257/.335/.394 (.261/.326/.416)

High Leverage: .275/.359/.429 (.264/.339/.411)

Medium Leverage: .287/.354/.461 (.267/.334/.420)

Low Leverage: .271/.352/.433 (.261/.329/.415)

The Cubs struggled in the "2 outs, RISP" situation. In all other "clutch" situations, they were pretty much right at, if not better than their overall averages. They didn't choke in those situations.

June 15, 2009

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...

So the Cubs should stop scoring on those days when they're knocking the crap out of the ball and save those runs for the days the wind is blowing in?

No you just have to be more than 1-dimensional and be able to adjust to the pitcher and playing conditions, that's all.

Not really, if that 1 dimension is SLG the team is set. Teams are going to get shut out by good pitching on occasion. I'll take a team who can slug and scores multiple runs on a given day over a team that is "muliti-dimensional" and who scores more frequently but, less/game.

People lament the feast or famine, but it's better than small snack or famine everyday.

soapy · June 15, 2009

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

indeed. btw, where did you find those numbers?

Hairyducked Idiot · June 15, 2009

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

indeed. btw, where did you find those numbers?

I think they come from fangraphs.com

hossdriver · June 15, 2009

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...

So the Cubs should stop scoring on those days when they're knocking the crap out of the ball and save those runs for the days the wind is blowing in?

No you just have to be more than 1-dimensional and be able to adjust to the pitcher and playing conditions, that's all.
Not really, if that 1 dimension is SLG the team is set. Teams are going to get shut out by good pitching on occasion. I'll take a team who can slug and scores multiple runs on a given day over a team that is "muliti-dimensional" and who scores more frequently but, less/game.

People lament the feast or famine, but it's better than small snack or famine everyday.

You guys make it seem like I want to go all small ball, and that is not the case. I like dropping 6-8 runs on anybody. But when Brandon Webb or Johan come to town, I also like knowing that the Cubs aren't gonna pack it in because they can't hit homeruns. Right now in 2009, the Cubs aren't even slugging well. I'd like to go into the playoffs knowing the Cubs can score MANY ways rather than playing Dusty ball and waiting on the 3R homer...

If the Cubs are HOT in October, everyone can come crucify me at will. History is on my side though.

Vanilla Ice · June 15, 2009

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

indeed. btw, where did you find those numbers?

I think they come from fangraphs.com

Yep

June 15, 2009

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...

So the Cubs should stop scoring on those days when they're knocking the crap out of the ball and save those runs for the days the wind is blowing in?

No you just have to be more than 1-dimensional and be able to adjust to the pitcher and playing conditions, that's all.
Not really, if that 1 dimension is SLG the team is set. Teams are going to get shut out by good pitching on occasion. I'll take a team who can slug and scores multiple runs on a given day over a team that is "muliti-dimensional" and who scores more frequently but, less/game.

People lament the feast or famine, but it's better than small snack or famine everyday.

You guys make it seem like I want to go all small ball, and that is not the case. I like dropping 6-8 runs on anybody. But when Brandon Webb or Johan come to town, I also like knowing that the Cubs aren't gonna pack it in because they can't hit homeruns. Right now in 2009, the Cubs aren't even slugging well. I'd like to go into the playoffs knowing the Cubs can score MANY ways rather than playing Dusty ball and waiting on the 3R homer...

If the Cubs are HOT in October, everyone can come crucify me at will. History is on my side though.

The problem is that you are basing your argument on a false premise. The false premise is that doing the "small" things is going to work when doing the "big" things doesn't. There's not one bit of evidence to suggest that is the case all of the time or even most of the time.

I don't want to insult you, but at some point you have to turn off the Bob Brenley's of the baseball world because they are full of it. Look at Maddux in his prime. He'd walk a guy who hurt him in the past on purpose, let the team burn an out by bunting him over to second and then get the next guy out on a weak ground ball.

soapy · June 15, 2009

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

indeed. btw, where did you find those numbers?

I think they come from fangraphs.com
Yep

thanks

dew1679666265 · June 15, 2009

You guys make it seem like I want to go all small ball, and that is not the case. I like dropping 6-8 runs on anybody. But when Brandon Webb or Johan come to town, I also like knowing that the Cubs aren't gonna pack it in because they can't hit homeruns. Right now in 2009, the Cubs aren't even slugging well. I'd like to go into the playoffs knowing the Cubs can score MANY ways rather than playing Dusty ball and waiting on the 3R homer...

If the Cubs are HOT in October, everyone can come crucify me at will. History is on my side though.

Dusty played a great deal of small ball - that's why he liked guys like Juan Pierre and Neifi Perez at the top of the order. "Dustyball" is far from sitting back and waiting for the 3-run homer.

Soul · June 15, 2009

You guys make it seem like I want to go all small ball, and that is not the case. I like dropping 6-8 runs on anybody. But when Brandon Webb or Johan come to town, I also like knowing that the Cubs aren't gonna pack it in because they can't hit homeruns. Right now in 2009, the Cubs aren't even slugging well. I'd like to go into the playoffs knowing the Cubs can score MANY ways rather than playing Dusty ball and waiting on the 3R homer...

If the Cubs are HOT in October, everyone can come crucify me at will. History is on my side though.

Dusty played a great deal of small ball - that's why he liked guys like Juan Pierre and Neifi Perez at the top of the order. "Dustyball" is far from sitting back and waiting for the 3-run homer.

Plus the Cubs aren't slugging well because ARam is gone and Bradley can't hit. I can't see any of that being Perry's fault. A hitting coach doesn't dislocate a guy's shoulder and then cause a multi-year vet to forget how to hit, all in the space of a couple months.

But......sometimes the guy that is fired isn't the person who the message is being sent to. That's how I view this move. Perry's gone, but the message is to the players. I don't know of any other way to think about it.

hossdriver · June 15, 2009

The problem is that you are basing your argument on a false premise. The false premise is that doing the "small" things is going to work when doing the "big" things doesn't. There's not one bit of evidence to suggest that is the case all of the time or even most of the time.

I don't want to insult you, but at some point you have to turn off the Bob Brenley's of the baseball world because they are full of it. Look at Maddux in his prime. He'd walk a guy who hurt him in the past on purpose, let the team burn an out by bunting him over to second and then get the next guy out on a weak ground ball.

Greg Maddux is an exception and not the rule. The guys used Jedi mind tricks, which are not illegal by written standards, but fall under that 'unwritten' rule.

It isn't just about bunting. How about going the other way on a H-n-R? How about stealing bags? How about having the aggressive baserunning fundamentals to go 1st to 3rd (relying on the coach instead of looking over the shoulder)? Love watching Lee do that yesterday, BTW. How about squeezing? How about making just enough contact to move runners? How about Sacrifice Hits or Sacrifice Flies?

Its frustrating to watch these guys hit limp grounders, foul out, GIDP, or K with a runner on third...

This is why Tony LaRussa is MILES ahead of MOST other managers. You KNOW he's got his guys laying down the squeeze. You KNOW he's got runners in motion, but his guys are so damned practiced at it, that you cannot defend it.

His team's fundamentals are in a class all their own year in and year out.

hossdriver · June 15, 2009

Dusty's team had low OBP because he refused to preach patience. He played a lot of small ball when he had opportunities, but had NO CLUE how to get more opportunities... That team in 2003 rode Lofton and small ball role players nearly to the pinnacle.

I disagree with the thoughts on Perry. No, he didn't cause Bradley or Soto or Fontenot how to hit, but he had over 2 months to correct hitting slumps and didn't.

All three players are making terrible contact and have huge holes in their swings. This is what the hitting coach is supposed to be able to correct. All have been adequately patient, but their either not seeing the ball well, or have swing flaws...

javy knows my name · June 15, 2009

This is why Tony LaRussa is MILES ahead of MOST other managers. You KNOW he's got his guys laying down the squeeze. You KNOW he's got runners in motion, but his guys are so damned practiced at it, that you cannot defend it.

His team's fundamentals are in a class all their own year in and year out.

Well now I'm sure you're a troll. I'll really miss you and your sig.

dew1679666265 · June 15, 2009

Dusty's team had low OBP because he refused to preach patience. He played a lot of small ball when he had opportunities, but had NO CLUE how to get more opportunities... That team in 2003 rode Lofton and small ball role players nearly to the pinnacle.

He didn't preach patience, but he also supported bringing in players who were either never very good (Neifi, Macias) or never showed any patience (Jacque, Soriano).

Dusty actually manages similarly to the way you seem to want the offense to move toward. He sac bunted a lot, played for one run often, attempted stolen bases often and had players swinging to put the ball in play more than to make good, solid contact.

That style of baseball, especially in this era, will lose you more games than it'll win.

I disagree with the thoughts on Perry. No, he didn't cause Bradley or Soto or Fontenot how to hit, but he had over 2 months to correct hitting slumps and didn't.

All three players are making terrible contact and have huge holes in their swings. This is what the hitting coach is supposed to be able to correct. All have been adequately patient, but their either not seeing the ball well, or have swing flaws...

It's hard to ignore the good job he's done the last two years simply because he couldn't fix a few problems over two months this season. Maybe Joshua will come in and see some things that Perry didn't, but Gerald Perry's instruction was not the root cause of our struggles, so I have trouble justifying his exit.

inari · June 15, 2009

Dusty definitely didn't have anything to do with Soriano coming to the Cubs.

dew1679666265 · June 15, 2009

Dusty definitely didn't have anything to do with Soriano coming to the Cubs.

Yeah, I don't know where I got that from. I'm confusing my years or something...

hossdriver · June 15, 2009

Dusty's team had low OBP because he refused to preach patience. He played a lot of small ball when he had opportunities, but had NO CLUE how to get more opportunities... That team in 2003 rode Lofton and small ball role players nearly to the pinnacle.

He didn't preach patience, but he also supported bringing in players who were either never very good (Neifi, Macias) or never showed any patience (Jacque, Soriano).

Dusty actually manages similarly to the way you seem to want the offense to move toward. He sac bunted a lot, played for one run often, attempted stolen bases often and had players swinging to put the ball in play more than to make good, solid contact.

That style of baseball, especially in this era, will lose you more games than it'll win.

I disagree with the thoughts on Perry. No, he didn't cause Bradley or Soto or Fontenot how to hit, but he had over 2 months to correct hitting slumps and didn't.

All three players are making terrible contact and have huge holes in their swings. This is what the hitting coach is supposed to be able to correct. All have been adequately patient, but their either not seeing the ball well, or have swing flaws...

It's hard to ignore the good job he's done the last two years simply because he couldn't fix a few problems over two months this season. Maybe Joshua will come in and see some things that Perry didn't, but Gerald Perry's instruction was not the root cause of our struggles, so I have trouble justifying his exit.

Both Piniella and Dusty have their faults no doubt. I wouldn't want Dusty back. I would like a happy medium. I'd like to see the Cubs do things (like in the 9th inning yesterday) to CREATE scoring opps, runs, and wins, that's all...

Look, I hate that Perry had to lose his job. I think it is mere coincidence that the Cubs great offense the last two years coincided with increased payroll, key acquisitions, Derrek Lee getting healthy and the like. I'm not sold on pinning the offensive successes on Gerald Perry, nor would I pin the flaws solely on him neither. The team OBP and batting averages are down. The payroll is 3rd in the league and the Cubs are not scoring runs. From a management standpoint and watching 4-5 key guys struggle at the plate with no end in sight, making a coaching move to shake things up is the obvious choice...

hossdriver · June 15, 2009

This is why Tony LaRussa is MILES ahead of MOST other managers. You KNOW he's got his guys laying down the squeeze. You KNOW he's got runners in motion, but his guys are so damned practiced at it, that you cannot defend it.

His team's fundamentals are in a class all their own year in and year out.

Well now I'm sure you're a troll. I'll really miss you and your sig.

I assure you, I'm no troll. Reading a lot of posts here, I can tell I've probably followed the Cubs longer than a lot have been alive. I respect Tony LaRussa for his managerial approach, while at the same time loathe him as a person... The guy wins, plain and simple. He can get Aaron Miles to bat .317. He can make championships out of mediocrity...

dew1679666265 · June 15, 2009

Both Piniella and Dusty have their faults no doubt. I wouldn't want Dusty back. I would like a happy medium. I'd like to see the Cubs do things (like in the 9th inning yesterday) to CREATE scoring opps, runs, and wins, that's all...

I think Hendry was looking for that happy medium this offseason when he brought in Aaron Miles and Joey Gathright and dealt Mark DeRosa. He was looking for more left handed hitting and more speed/grit. The problem is, the players who excel in small ball - Miles, Gathright, Pierre, etc - aren't all that good baseball players.

Look, I hate that Perry had to lose his job. I think it is mere coincidence that the Cubs great offense the last two years coincided with increased payroll, key acquisitions, Derrek Lee getting healthy and the like. I'm not sold on pinning the offensive successes on Gerald Perry, nor would I pin the flaws solely on him neither. The team OBP and batting averages are down. The payroll is 3rd in the league and the Cubs are not scoring runs. From a management standpoint and watching 4-5 key guys struggle at the plate with no end in sight, making a coaching move to shake things up is the obvious choice...

The improved Cub offense was, I think, a mix of both Gerald Perry teaching a more patient approach and acquiring players who had a good overall approach (Soto, Fuku, Edmonds). To give all the credit or all the blame to one of the two is incorrect, I think.

I don't think there was an obvious choice - if there was, it would be a certainty that the problem will now be fixed. Firing Perry was an option, but I don't think it was the best option.

hossdriver · June 15, 2009

Both Piniella and Dusty have their faults no doubt. I wouldn't want Dusty back. I would like a happy medium. I'd like to see the Cubs do things (like in the 9th inning yesterday) to CREATE scoring opps, runs, and wins, that's all...

I think Hendry was looking for that happy medium this offseason when he brought in Aaron Miles and Joey Gathright and dealt Mark DeRosa. He was looking for more left handed hitting and more speed/grit. The problem is, the players who excel in small ball - Miles, Gathright, Pierre, etc - aren't all that good baseball players.

Look, I hate that Perry had to lose his job. I think it is mere coincidence that the Cubs great offense the last two years coincided with increased payroll, key acquisitions, Derrek Lee getting healthy and the like. I'm not sold on pinning the offensive successes on Gerald Perry, nor would I pin the flaws solely on him neither. The team OBP and batting averages are down. The payroll is 3rd in the league and the Cubs are not scoring runs. From a management standpoint and watching 4-5 key guys struggle at the plate with no end in sight, making a coaching move to shake things up is the obvious choice...

The improved Cub offense was, I think, a mix of both Gerald Perry teaching a more patient approach and acquiring players who had a good overall approach (Soto, Fuku, Edmonds). To give all the credit or all the blame to one of the two is incorrect, I think.

I don't think there was an obvious choice - if there was, it would be a certainty that the problem will now be fixed. Firing Perry was an option, but I don't think it was the best option.

I agree that its a combination. I think it has more to do with key acquisitions than anything else because there wasn't a huge lift in OBP during Perry's first year in 2007. The Cubs WERE last in OBP in 2006, but lost Derrek Lee most of the season. They also had key acqs like Ward, Floyd, and Soriano (however slight the OBP increase) to show for it. I don't necessarily buy the idea of 'teaching patience' at the Major League level.

Joshua is known for teaching hitters the mechanics of 'going the other way'. Some may not liken it to 'small ball' like I do, but it lends itself to playing to the other teams deficiencies like defensive alignment and the like. He could have the MOST impact on younger Cub players like Theriot, Fontenot, and Soto who are integral struggling parts of the lineup right now.

Most often when a players tries to make himself into a slugger (or just tries to 'drive the ball' more, ala Ryan Theriot), the swing gets out of control and BA and OBP take a hit while K's go up. I think the Cubs fall into this trap in key situations, generating bad contact and high K rates.

dew1679666265 · June 15, 2009

I agree that its a combination. I think it has more to do with key acquisitions than anything else because there wasn't a huge lift in OBP during Perry's first year in 2007. The Cubs WERE last in OBP in 2006, but lost Derrek Lee most of the season. They also had key acqs like Ward, Floyd, and Soriano (however slight the OBP increase) to show for it. I don't necessarily buy the idea of 'teaching patience' at the Major League level.

To the extent that a hitting coach can "teach" anything to a player, there's definitely merit to a hitting coach teaching his players patience. The patience didn't improve much from 06 to 07, but it did nearly across the board from 07 to 08 (counting only returning players) - it simply takes time.

Joshua is known for teaching hitters the mechanics of 'going the other way'. Some may not liken it to 'small ball' like I do, but it lends itself to playing to the other teams deficiencies like defensive alignment and the like. He could have the MOST impact on younger Cub players like Theriot, Fontenot, and Soto who are integral struggling parts of the lineup right now.

"Small ball" is a reliance on moving runners over by bunting, stealing bases and hitting and running. To my knowledge, Joshua doesn't promote much of that and Lou doesn't either, generally. Joshua is probably as heavily into teaching patience as Perry was, but he may have some hitters make a few adjustments that may help them. Going the other way more often may be part of that.

Most often when a players tries to make himself into a slugger (or just tries to 'drive the ball' more, ala Ryan Theriot), the swing gets out of control and BA and OBP take a hit while K's go up. I think the Cubs fall into this trap in key situations, generating bad contact and high K rates.

Theriot is not a good example of what you're trying to describe. Since he's been pulling the ball more often, he's improved his OPS from .745 to .773 - and that's after a recent slump.

He still goes the other way at times, but his new approach has improved his slugging by 71 points while dropping his OBP by 44 points. And that drop in OBP was likely anyway due to decreased luck (high BABIP and average last year).

UK1679666180 · June 15, 2009

Either method of offense requires 2 things: 1)Men on base 2)Execution once they're on-base. With the decline of slugging % of this year compared to the late 90s and early part of this decade, it is more likely even as far as run expectancy with 1 out and a man on 3rd and a runner on second with no outs. If you're looking for just one run instead of the big inning, you're probably now more likely to get that runner in from 3rd with one out than the runner from 2nd with no outs. The reason for that is... run expectancy overall is hurt by that forced out/sac. bunt becuase it limits the chances the multiple runs in an inning which likely gives the reason run expectancy might still be higher for no outs/runner on 2nd, despite the increased odds of run being scored with the runner on 3rd.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs