Aramis Ramirez Officially Returning in 2011

[Guest]

There's no reason this team can't win in the high 80's and contend in the NL central next year. And there is not justification to just give up on 2011. Ramirez can also block any deal, which he would almost certainly do at least in an effort to get a new contract. So it's not so easy.

 

Where do you think this team gains 10+ wins?

1) They're a better team than they showed in 2010

2) Dunn's offense over what we got from 1B is a very big upgrade

3) Even if we stand pat in the pen, it is highly unlikely to be the disaster it was the first half of this year

4) We should have very good SP depth heading into next year with several good arms getting very close to contributing

5) Assuming we are in it at the deadline next year, we've got better trade assets to plug gaps

6) No Theriot sucking PA's for half a season

 

Is that enough?

[Geech]

1) They're a better team than they showed in 2010

2) Dunn's offense over what we got from 1B is a very big upgrade

3) Even if we stand pat in the pen, it is highly unlikely to be the disaster it was the first half of this year

4) We should have very good SP depth heading into next year with several good arms getting very close to contributing

5) Assuming we are in it at the deadline next year, we've got better trade assets to plug gaps

6) No Theriot sucking PA's for half a season

 

Is that enough?

 

1) I'm not sure I even understand what this means.

 

2) Dunn is optimistically a three win upgrade over Lee. The difference between Lee's performance for the Cobs and Dunn's performance with the Nats was actually less than that, according to Fangraphs. If Dunn's defense at first isn't legit, it will be even less.

 

3) Ok, so that's maybe another three wins? I could easily see Marshall and Marmol not replicating their performances, so that's an offsetting factor.

 

4) Was SP depth a big problem this year? Ted Lilly performed well before he was traded. I don't see this being net gain.

 

5) I think it's dubious that we'll be in it, but if we are, I'm not sure how you would estimate this.

 

6) Blake DeWitt was about a win better than Theriot last season. He's young, but his defense was not good, and his offense was right in line with his career numbers. I think we can expect about 1 win gain here.

 

So that's seven wins, and I think that's making some fairly optimistic assumptions. Right now the Cobs are an 82 win team. We're getting a lot closer to 10 wins than I was expecting, but I don't see a whole lot of room elsewhere for more improvements. Even if we make it, we're still talking about an 85 win team which probably doesn't win the division.

 

I just don't see how the Cobs can really be competitive next season. It just doesn't look like it's there.

[Sammy Sofa]

1) I'm not sure I even understand what this means.

 

It obviously means that the team underperformed.

 

Oh man; "Cobs."

[Guest]

1) I'm not sure I even understand what this means.

 

It obviously means that the team underperformed.

 

Oh man; "Cobs."

Except that they didn't underpreform. They over performed by 2 wins according to their Pythagorean Record: (73-89).

 

I'm not saying they cannot compete within the division next year, but it isn't likely.

[Sammy Sofa]

[expletive] that noise. They were damn near crippled by a gruesome twosome 3-4 for most of the first half. Anyone who predicted that is full of [expletive].

[SouthSideRyan]

1) I'm not sure I even understand what this means.

 

It obviously means that the team underperformed.

 

Oh man; "Cobs."

Except that they didn't underpreform. They over performed by 2 wins according to their Pythagorean Record: (73-89).

 

I'm not saying they cannot compete within the division next year, but it isn't likely.

 

Outperforming Pythagorean record doesn't mean they didn't underperform as a team.

[Guest]

1) They're a better team than they showed in 2010

2) Dunn's offense over what we got from 1B is a very big upgrade

3) Even if we stand pat in the pen, it is highly unlikely to be the disaster it was the first half of this year

4) We should have very good SP depth heading into next year with several good arms getting very close to contributing

5) Assuming we are in it at the deadline next year, we've got better trade assets to plug gaps

6) No Theriot sucking PA's for half a season

 

Is that enough?

 

1) I'm not sure I even understand what this means.

 

2) Dunn is optimistically a three win upgrade over Lee. The difference between Lee's performance for the Cobs and Dunn's performance with the Nats was actually less than that, according to Fangraphs. If Dunn's defense at first isn't legit, it will be even less.

 

3) Ok, so that's maybe another three wins? I could easily see Marshall and Marmol not replicating their performances, so that's an offsetting factor.

 

4) Was SP depth a big problem this year? Ted Lilly performed well before he was traded. I don't see this being net gain.

 

5) I think it's dubious that we'll be in it, but if we are, I'm not sure how you would estimate this.

 

6) Blake DeWitt was about a win better than Theriot last season. He's young, but his defense was not good, and his offense was right in line with his career numbers. I think we can expect about 1 win gain here.

 

So that's seven wins, and I think that's making some fairly optimistic assumptions. Right now the Cobs are an 82 win team. We're getting a lot closer to 10 wins than I was expecting, but I don't see a whole lot of room elsewhere for more improvements. Even if we make it, we're still talking about an 85 win team which probably doesn't win the division.

 

I just don't see how the Cobs can really be competitive next season. It just doesn't look like it's there.

Do you expect Ramirez to be the worst hitter in baseball for the first three months of the season again? There's another couple of wins.

[Guest]

Assuming every team's win total(or pythagorean win total) is their true talent level for basing projections for next year is definitely not the best idea.

[Guest]

Assuming every team's win total(or pythagorean win total) is their true talent level for basing projections for next year is definitely not the best idea.

Who was assuming that?

[SouthSideRyan]

Assuming every team's win total(or pythagorean win total) is their true talent level for basing projections for next year is definitely not the best idea.

Who was assuming that?

 

You said they didn't underperform because they played 2 games better than Pythagoras. How is one supposed to take that?

[Guest]

Assuming every team's win total(or pythagorean win total) is their true talent level for basing projections for next year is definitely not the best idea.

Who was assuming that?

 

You said they didn't underperform because they played 2 games better than Pythagoras. How is one supposed to take that?

 

No one here that I know of has based next year's projections on last years pythagorean win total.

 

They did underperform based on their pythagorean win total. The pythagorean win totals are about the best measurement system we currently have to determine "true talent"* for a given year. Does it have any relation to next year, probably not very much. But no one here said it did.

 

(note: there is no such thing as ture talent)

[MSG T]

Assuming every team's win total(or pythagorean win total) is their true talent level for basing projections for next year is definitely not the best idea.

Who was assuming that?

 

You said they didn't underperform because they played 2 games better than Pythagoras. How is one supposed to take that?

 

No one here that I know of has based next year's projections on last years pythagorean win total.

 

They did underperform based on their pythagorean win total. The pythagorean win totals are about the best measurement system we currently have to determine "true talent"* for a given year. Does it have any relation to next year, probably not very much. But no one here said it did.

 

(note: there is no such thing as ture talent)

 

 

You said,

 

Except that they didn't underpreform. They over performed by 2 wins according to their Pythagorean Record: (73-89).

 

I'm not saying they cannot compete within the division next year, but it isn't likely.

 

 

You can't use Pythagorean Record to determine true talent. They didn't underperform based on runs scored/runs allowed, they did underperform based on the makeup of their roster. Given the players they had, and how those players performed, they underperformed.

[Guest]

Assuming every team's win total(or pythagorean win total) is their true talent level for basing projections for next year is definitely not the best idea.

Who was assuming that?

 

You said they didn't underperform because they played 2 games better than Pythagoras. How is one supposed to take that?

 

No one here that I know of has based next year's projections on last years pythagorean win total.

 

They did underperform based on their pythagorean win total. The pythagorean win totals are about the best measurement system we currently have to determine "true talent"* for a given year. Does it have any relation to next year, probably not very much. But no one here said it did.

 

(note: there is no such thing as ture talent)

 

 

You said,

 

Except that they didn't underpreform. They over performed by 2 wins according to their Pythagorean Record: (73-89).

 

I'm not saying they cannot compete within the division next year, but it isn't likely.

 

 

You can't use Pythagorean Record to determine true talent. They didn't underperform based on runs scored/runs allowed, they did underperform based on the makeup of their roster. Given the players they had, and how those players performed, they underperformed.

No they didn't underperform. You can say they did but you don't have an objective anchor on which to base your assertion.

 

My second paragraph is a different thought, that's why its seperated from the first paragraph. I don't think it's likely that they will comptete for a division title next year and it has nothing to do with their pythagorean record and everything to do with what Ricketts has done thus far. But things could change if he/they decide to spend big on a couple of free agents or make some trades.