According to ESPN, Cubs SOS is 29th in MLB

[champaignchris]

what's the significance of 4000 ABs?

 

It's about how many Girardi got.

 

Cubs haven't drafted anyone that's had as many at bats since 1986.

 

No greater significance than that. Point isn't that we're drafting guys that turn into mediocre big-league ballplayers. Rather, with only a hand full of exceptions, we're drafting guys that barely ever make it to the bigs.

 

By the way, I used AB because that's what comes up on the BR year-by-year draft boards and I'm lazy.

 

However, I listed everyone with at least 2000 AB since 1986 and everyone with at least 500 AB since 2000, of which there were exceedingly few.

[bukie]

It just seems odd to set the arbitrary baseline for "regular" at a guy who played 15 seasons. Plenty of everyday quality players play fewer than that.

[Sammy Sofa]

2008 was fantastic. So was 2007, and so was 2003.

 

"Hellish" is the 1990s. The '00s were great.

 

No they weren't. They were mediocre. 4 sub .500 seasons, 3 95 loss seasons and only 1 90 win season. 3 playoff appearances in 10 years despite a substantial financial advantage over the competition. The Angels, Twins and Athletics had great 2000's, the Cubs just managed to not suck as much as they did the previous decade.

 

I like how you make this response as if someone can be wrong for enjoying the Cubs in the 00's compared to the 90's.

[bukie]

What's a full season worth of PAs, about 600?

 

I'd consider any player with about a good 3 full seasons of time an "everyday player". So, again arbitrarily, > 1500 PAs. That should cover Theriot (and, really, he's been plenty regular the past 3 years). Soto may be coming close to that also.

 

About 740 for an actual 162 game player. 680-700 for most everyday guys. 600 would be taking a fair amount of time off. Three full seasons is going to get you 2000 PA.

 

150 games @ 4 PAs/game = 600. I wouldn't consider missing 10-12 games to be a huge amount of time off. And for catchers, the bar should be lower.

 

Just take a look at actual everyday guys and you will see they are all well above 600 PA, and to further the point, 3 seasons of 600 PA does not equal 1500 PAs. 2000 over three years if much closer to an actual everyday player.

I was going off top-of-head assumptions. Assuming 600 PAs was everyday play, 500 PAs in a season would be 135 games played regularly (~1 day off per week, assuming 4 PA per game average -- technically 540). 1500 PAs over 3 years was a nice round number, as 2000 seemed a touch high of a requirement.

[bukie]

Also, Corey Patterson has 3780 PAs spread over what is now an 11 year career, 6 of which he played at least 120 games. I'd have to think he counts as a Cub-developed regular player.

[NCCubFan]

What's a bad first quarter of a season in the grand scheme of things to a franchise that hasn't drafted an every day position player since Joe Girardi?

 

There are 2 on the current team.

 

How dare you interrupt my hyperbole with facts!!!

 

And Ronny Cedeno is waving to you from Pittsburgh!

 

being an everyday player in Pittsburgh doesn't count (not b/c it's not the Cubs, but b/c Pittsburgh isn't a real MLB team)

Yet somehow they own the Cubs.

 

I'm not claiming that the Cubs are a real major league team either.

 

[Northside Blues]

This is depressing. We should be about 21-17 right now. That's how well we've played.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

[jersey cubs fan]

Also, Corey Patterson has 3780 PAs spread over what is now an 11 year career, 6 of which he played at least 120 games. I'd have to think he counts as a Cub-developed regular player.

 

That would be absurd. That's not a regular player, that's the definition of a journeyman player.

 

The whole point is about developing guys who are good enough to start every day and contribute positively to your team. If it takes a guy a decade to get a few seasons worth of PA, he's not a regular.

[UMFan83]

2008 was fantastic. So was 2007, and so was 2003.

 

"Hellish" is the 1990s. The '00s were great.

 

No they weren't. They were mediocre. 4 sub .500 seasons, 3 95 loss seasons and only 1 90 win season. 3 playoff appearances in 10 years despite a substantial financial advantage over the competition. The Angels, Twins and Athletics had great 2000's, the Cubs just managed to not suck as much as they did the previous decade.

 

I like how you make this response as if someone can be wrong for enjoying the Cubs in the 00's compared to the 90's.

 

Oh it was definitely more fun than the 90's. Although I'd have to say for me personally 1998 was more fun than any year I've ever had as a Cubs fan. But probably because I was 15 and impressionable. Between a playoff run, the home run chase, Kerry Wood every 5 days, commerating Harry and Jack's passings, the 1 game playoffs, it was an exciting year for me. When Neifi Perez actually does something good you know it's a good season.

 

That said, the 00's were much better. Just about every season in the decade I went in with playoff/championship hopes. You can't necessarily say that about the 90's. If the Yankees or Red Sox just had our decade though it would be a huge disapointment.

[jersey cubs fan]

2008 was fantastic. So was 2007, and so was 2003.

 

"Hellish" is the 1990s. The '00s were great.

 

No they weren't. They were mediocre. 4 sub .500 seasons, 3 95 loss seasons and only 1 90 win season. 3 playoff appearances in 10 years despite a substantial financial advantage over the competition. The Angels, Twins and Athletics had great 2000's, the Cubs just managed to not suck as much as they did the previous decade.

 

I like how you make this response as if someone can be wrong for enjoying the Cubs in the 00's compared to the 90's.

 

What are you talking about? How do you get that at all? Seriously? My response was about the 2000's and how they were clearly not great. I even pointed out that the only reason somebody would pretend they were great is because they didn't suck as much as the 90's.

[jersey cubs fan]

Just about every season in the decade I went in with playoff/championship hopes.

 

I think you might be misremembering. There's no way you had championship hopes in 2000 or 2001. Nobody even thought 2003 was going to be special until June.

 

I would bet the only seasons people went into with legit championship hopes were 2004, 2008 and 2009.

[Sammy Sofa]

2008 was fantastic. So was 2007, and so was 2003.

 

"Hellish" is the 1990s. The '00s were great.

 

No they weren't. They were mediocre. 4 sub .500 seasons, 3 95 loss seasons and only 1 90 win season. 3 playoff appearances in 10 years despite a substantial financial advantage over the competition. The Angels, Twins and Athletics had great 2000's, the Cubs just managed to not suck as much as they did the previous decade.

 

I like how you make this response as if someone can be wrong for enjoying the Cubs in the 00's compared to the 90's.

 

What are you talking about? How do you get that at all? Seriously? My response was about the 2000's and how they were clearly not great. I even pointed out that the only reason somebody would pretend they were great is because they didn't suck as much as the 90's.

 

Come on. You can't seriously believe he was calling them "great" in terms of "these were years of truly great, impressive baseball" as opposed to the obvious "these were great years of baseball compared to the 90's."

[jersey cubs fan]

Come on. You can't seriously believe he was calling them "great" in terms of "these were years of truly great, impressive baseball" as opposed to the obvious "these were great years of baseball compared to the 90's."

 

I can only respond to what he wrote. And given his other comments on the subject matter, yes, I truly do believe he thinks the 2000s were literally great for the Cubs and their fans despite the fact that they failed to capitalize on what was thought of by many as a promising decade to come.

[Sammy Sofa]

Come on. You can't seriously believe he was calling them "great" in terms of "these were years of truly great, impressive baseball" as opposed to the obvious "these were great years of baseball compared to the 90's."

 

I can only respond to what he wrote. And given his other comments on the subject matter, yes, I truly do believe he thinks the 2000s were literally great for the Cubs and their fans despite the fact that they failed to capitalize on what was thought of by many as a promising decade to come.

 

But that's still subjective. The 00's can definitely be "great" for a Cubs fan, relatively speaking. It's not a right or wrong position to take. Compared to the other decades I've been a Cubs fan, I definitely found the 00's to be "great."

[jersey cubs fan]

Come on. You can't seriously believe he was calling them "great" in terms of "these were years of truly great, impressive baseball" as opposed to the obvious "these were great years of baseball compared to the 90's."

 

I can only respond to what he wrote. And given his other comments on the subject matter, yes, I truly do believe he thinks the 2000s were literally great for the Cubs and their fans despite the fact that they failed to capitalize on what was thought of by many as a promising decade to come.

 

But that's still subjective. The 00's can definitely be "great" for a Cubs fan, relatively speaking. It's not a right or wrong position to take. Compared to the other decades I've been a Cubs fan, I definitely found the 00's to be "great."

 

I can't comprehend how that is possible. In 98/99/00 people were talking about a decade of dominance to come from the Cubs due to a resurgent farm system. As the decade progressed payroll just kept going up in actual figures and in comparison to the competition, yet they failed by any stretch of the imagination to capitalize on all the momentum. A 90 win season is great, and the Cubs had one of those all decade, compared to three 90 loss seasons. They had several miserable seasons. Their biggest rival won a World Series, their title starved brothers in Boston won 2, their title starved hated brother in Chicago won 1. A potential rotation for the ages fell apart in virtually no time.

 

It was a mediocre decade with a couple bright moments. And while somebody might claim in comparison to the previous decade it was a rousing success, in comparison to expectations entering the decade they fell well short. I just don't see how anybody taking a reasonable view of the decade can claim it was great.

[cubfan]

Also, Corey Patterson has 3780 PAs spread over what is now an 11 year career, 6 of which he played at least 120 games. I'd have to think he counts as a Cub-developed regular player.

 

That would be absurd. That's not a regular player, that's the definition of a journeyman player.

 

The whole point is about developing guys who are good enough to start every day and contribute positively to your team. If it takes a guy a decade to get a few seasons worth of PA, he's not a regular.

 

The only info I have is what I got from this thread but if Girardi is a regular everyday play with 4000 PAs in 15 years how can Patterson not be with 3780 PAs in 11 years? I'm not saying Patterson is a everyday player, just that PAs in a career is probably not the best way to make the distinction.

[Sammy Sofa]

I just don't see how anybody taking a reasonable view of the decade can claim it was great.

 

Nobody's making a reasonable claim that it was ACTUALLY great. People are saying that they thought it was relatively "great," as in "I enjoyed Cubs' baseball more in the 00's than the 90's."

[jersey cubs fan]

Also, Corey Patterson has 3780 PAs spread over what is now an 11 year career, 6 of which he played at least 120 games. I'd have to think he counts as a Cub-developed regular player.

 

That would be absurd. That's not a regular player, that's the definition of a journeyman player.

 

The whole point is about developing guys who are good enough to start every day and contribute positively to your team. If it takes a guy a decade to get a few seasons worth of PA, he's not a regular.

 

The only info I have is what I got from this thread but if Girardi is a regular everyday play with 4000 PAs in 15 years how can Patterson not be with 3780 PAs in 11 years? I'm not saying Patterson is a everyday player, just that PAs in a career is probably not the best way to make the distinction.

 

No, it's not. But the other difference is that catchers play different schedules. Most of them take one or two days off a week, most regulars don't.

[BigSlick]

The only way this season could get any worse is if we start playing well and are in it in September

 

And we lose the divisional/wild card race by just a few games

 

and we look at the schedule of April/May and see how we dropped series after series to the likes of the Nationals, Astros, and started 0-5 against the Pirates

[J.R.]

Come on. You can't seriously believe he was calling them "great" in terms of "these were years of truly great, impressive baseball" as opposed to the obvious "these were great years of baseball compared to the 90's."

 

They were great years. Maybe not great in terms of keeping Jim Hendry in a job, but definitely great in terms of J.R. enjoying the respective seasons.

[Sammy Sofa]

Come on. You can't seriously believe he was calling them "great" in terms of "these were years of truly great, impressive baseball" as opposed to the obvious "these were great years of baseball compared to the 90's."

 

They were great years. Maybe not great in terms of keeping Jim Hendry in a job, but definitely great in terms of J.R. enjoying the respective seasons.

 

Exactly.

[Sammy Sofa]

and we look at the schedule of April/May and see how we dropped series after series to the likes of the Nationals, Astros, and started 0-5 against the Pirates

 

Are we still pretending that the Nationals are hopelessly terrible?

[SouthSideRyan]

and we look at the schedule of April/May and see how we dropped series after series to the likes of the Nationals, Astros, and started 0-5 against the Pirates

 

Are we still pretending that the Nationals are hopelessly terrible?

 

They're not as bad as they've been the past couple years, but they're not good.

[jersey cubs fan]

Come on. You can't seriously believe he was calling them "great" in terms of "these were years of truly great, impressive baseball" as opposed to the obvious "these were great years of baseball compared to the 90's."

 

They were great years. Maybe not great in terms of keeping Jim Hendry in a job, but definitely great in terms of J.R. enjoying the respective seasons.

 

Exactly.

 

You're both lying.

 

2000 was abysmal. 2001 was barely a blip. 2002 was abysmal. 2003 was great. 2004 started great, but then started to get really crappy really crappy until it all fell apart. 2005 was a huge failure. 2006 was a huge failure. 2007 was a nice little season. 2008 was great. 2009 was a big bummer.

 

You are just flat out lying if you say the 2000s were great in terms of your Cubs fandom, or that your enjoyment of them was great.

[SouthSideRyan]

What do you mean 2001 was barely a blip?