Millar’s chances of making Cubs improving

[WrigleyField 22]

Bako wasn't as washed up as Millar is, IMO.

Bako OPS

 

06- .489

07- .534

08- .626

 

Millar

 

07- .785

08- .717

09- .674

 

Neither are any good, but Bako was much more washed up than Millar is.

Those numbers are telling, however one is competing for a spot as a backup corner OF/If where his hitting is a big priority. As a backup catcher, its more important to see what Bako could do behind the plate. And even if you do believe those OPS numbers matter, one is trending upward, while the other is trending downward.

 

Bako is old and all, but his numbers haven't changed much from when he was 26 and OPS'd .667. And his competition was an pretty big unknown at catcher who recently mauled his hand with a circular saw. Millar is going up against better players with fully functioning digits.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And even if you do believe those OPS numbers matter, one is trending upward, while the other is trending downward.

 

That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What does the level of competition have to do with how a player has declined or improved. There has to be certain skill sets that you can evaluate in a vacuum, regardless of the completion level. I mean, you could throw a cardboard cutout at the plate and be able to tell what pitcher is pitching better. Now obviously, you'll still look at past results and trends, but those trends aren't definite. A player can improve or decline their skills.

 

The difference between major-league quality and below replacement-level quality is not noticeable visibly at that level.

[WrigleyField 22]

And even if you do believe those OPS numbers matter, one is trending upward, while the other is trending downward.

 

That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does.

How so?

[WrigleyField 22]

What does the level of competition have to do with how a player has declined or improved. There has to be certain skill sets that you can evaluate in a vacuum, regardless of the completion level. I mean, you could throw a cardboard cutout at the plate and be able to tell what pitcher is pitching better. Now obviously, you'll still look at past results and trends, but those trends aren't definite. A player can improve or decline their skills.

 

The difference between major-league quality and below replacement-level quality is not noticeable visibly at that level.

Thats a load of crap. We've all watched players get noticeably better or worse in their skills at some point. We see pitchers "stuff" come and go, you see players gain or lose weight, add or lose muscle, improve their defense changes in hitting or pitching mechanics, etc. There are a ton of things that you can pick up on. The amount you can learn in a short spring training is limited, but it's part of the puzzle, and in a limited cases can help decide position battles for those last couple spots.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And even if you do believe those OPS numbers matter, one is trending upward, while the other is trending downward.

 

That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does.

How so?

 

A player who has gotten better several years in a row is likely get worse in the immediate future, and vice-versa.

[CUBZ99]

then it's stupid to invite players like Millar to try out, see them tear the cover off the ball and send them home in late march.

 

That was my point when I criticized the signing. In theory it's harmless and meaningless. But with the Cubs, in practice it almost always involves them letting one worthless piece of crap veteran take up roster space without the ability to add an ounce of value to the team.

 

In the case of Millar, I just don't see many better options at this point. It sounds like Tracy has already made the team. And who else is left? Scales? Hoffpauir? Aducci?.... Colvin would be the only player in camp right now that would be more deserving. And even then, I'm not sure if he would not be better served getting more AB's everyday in Iowa rather than part time playing.

[WrigleyField 22]

And even if you do believe those OPS numbers matter, one is trending upward, while the other is trending downward.

 

That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does.

How so?

 

A player who has gotten better several years in a row is likely get worse in the immediate future, and vice-versa.

But in determining who is more washed up, it presents a better argument for the player who isn't getting worse. I mean, really what you're saying is that the guy on a decline has a better chance of improving because he can't get worse. The player who is putting up better results will struggle to continue to improve.

 

I don't want to focus on Bako necessarily because it probably wasn't the best example, but FWIW, taking his whole career, hitting wise, its pretty constant suckage. Yes, we have "the book" on Bako, but his book tells us he's acceptable as a backup catcher if you don't have better options. So last year we brought him in. His and Hill's spring training wasn't the biggest deciding factor, in fact probably one of the smallest, but it still plays a roll. Also its a really small sample, but in his limited at bats last year, Bako's OPS did go up again.

 

Millar's book tells us he was acceptable at one time, and has been pretty steadily getting worse to the point where he doesn't have value.

 

But not focusing on these two, a pretty common spring training scenario is you have two young guys coming from AAA who are fighting over the last bullpen spot. They each have at least comparable numbers. Close enough that an argument could be made for either. And since their young, developmentally there is still a lot going on with their skills, and despite a large number of minor league stats, spring training helps to determine if either has gained an edge.

[CUBZ99]

And even if you do believe those OPS numbers matter, one is trending upward, while the other is trending downward.

 

That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does.

How so?

 

A player who has gotten better several years in a row is likely get worse in the immediate future, and vice-versa.

But in determining who is more washed up, it presents a better argument for the player who isn't getting worse. I mean, really what you're saying is that the guy on a decline has a better chance of improving because he can't get worse. The player who is putting up better results will struggle to continue to improve.

 

I don't want to focus on Bako necessarily because it probably wasn't the best example, but FWIW, taking his whole career, hitting wise, its pretty constant suckage. Yes, we have "the book" on Bako, but his book tells us he's acceptable as a backup catcher if you don't have better options. So last year we brought him in. His and Hill's spring training wasn't the biggest deciding factor, in fact probably one of the smallest, but it still plays a roll. Also its a really small sample, but in his limited at bats last year, Bako's OPS did go up again.

 

Millar's book tells us he was acceptable at one time, and has been pretty steadily getting worse to the point where he doesn't have value.

 

But not focusing on these two, a pretty common spring training scenario is you have two young guys coming from AAA who are fighting over the last bullpen spot. They each have at least comparable numbers. Close enough that an argument could be made for either. And since their young, developmentally there is still a lot going on with their skills, and despite a large number of minor league stats, spring training helps to determine if either has gained an edge.

 

Plus spring training evaluations are not simply based on spring training statistics. Jaramillo can tell if a person is swinging the bat well or whether they are struggling. Like WF22 said, if two guys come into camp with similar backgrounds/skills and are fighting for the same position, why not give it to the guy the coaches feel is the better performer?

[WrigleyField 22]

Plus spring training evaluations are not simply based on spring training statistics. Jaramillo can tell if a person is swinging the bat well or whether they are struggling. Like WF22 said, if two guys come into camp with similar backgrounds/skills and are fighting for the same position, why not give it to the guy the coaches feel is the better performer?

I'd go as far to say that the stats don't mean anything. Some of these guys have only around 20 at bats. A bloop single here, or a strong line drive that was stolen can make a big difference in statistics. So I don't think the spring training stats matter at all.

[UMFan83]

The Millar fluff piece in the Trib today is nausiating.

[17 Seconds]

designated goofball? embarrassing

[chopsx9]

And even if you do believe those OPS numbers matter, one is trending upward, while the other is trending downward.

 

That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does.

How so?

 

A player who has gotten better several years in a row is likely get worse in the immediate future, and vice-versa.

 

 

So...trade the farm for Aaron Miles? Or perhaps the time is right for a return of Cpatt?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I guess Im accepting the fact that Millar has earned a spot on the team at this point. Hes had a super spring, and if he hasnt earned a spot, there was no reason for him to be here to begin with. Theres room for both him and Tracy to fill the final 2 bench spots behind Nady, Hill, and Font/Baker, and if someone gets hurt, we have Hoffpauir, Fuld, and Colvin waiting in the wings, This gives us some very nice deopth off the bench, which we were sorely lacking last year.

 

It was nice to have Blancos glove off the bench last year, but I think that Lou will chose offense over defense for the bench and hope that Font can play a respectable enough SS to spell Theirot every now and then.

 

Nady is our 4th outfilelder.

Tracy can play all corner positions

Millar can play corner infield.

If anything comes up, we have a host of AAAAers waiting in Iowa to come up.

[Guest]

The Cubs aren't going into the season with Nady/Tracy as their backup OF options, especially since Nady apparently needs a Rascal to play defense at the moment.

[Guest]

The Cubs aren't going into the season with Nady/Tracy as their backup OF options, especially since Nady apparently needs a Rascal to play defense at the moment.

I'd predict Nady starts on the DL, with Fuld/Colvin/whomever as 4th OF.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Cubs aren't going into the season with Nady/Tracy as their backup OF options, especially since Nady apparently needs a Rascal to play defense at the moment.

I'd predict Nady starts on the DL, with Fuld/Colvin/whomever as 4th OF.

 

Fine by me either way. If Nady does start on the DL, we have Fuld/Colvin as our 4th outfielder, with Tracy as IF/5th OF and Millar as backup corner IF. If either one of them proves that they cant cut it, then send them on their way when Nady is activated. If they do well, option Fuld/Colvin, unless they prove to be too good, and then you have Nady as your 4th IF and Tracy as the 5th OF. Remember, Fukudome can also spell Byrd in CF from time to time with Nady or Tracy in RF. It would be pretty much what it was in 2007 when we had Ward and Floyd in similar positions.

[Keener98]

According to espnchicago, Tracy has made the team and Millar has been released. Im pretty surprised they made the right decision