Stewart's Crappy Luck

[DiamondMind]

 

Besides, how is it Valbuena's line is OK for you but Stewart's better line means he's a "bum?"

 

they're both bad, we picked up valbuena from the scrap heap. we gave up a decent 26 year old 4th of for stewart.

 

If the front office "failed" with regard to Stewart, it was that they didn't properly understand and diagnose his wrist troubles and the effect they would have on him. Considering multiple doctors apparently failed at that until a few weeks ago, it's not really an egregious miscalculation, but this is a results-based business so they're accountable nonetheless.

 

I totally agree with this. If you delve into the backwoods of the internet too, you can find Rockies fan posts from a few years back lamenting that he refused to get his wrist surgery, and how obvious it was to them that it was majorly affecting his production. Also TT, why do you refer to him as a platoon player? I agree with the sentiment he's a fourth OF most likely, but in 2010 his ops against lhp was actually higher(821/813), and this year while it's 60 points lower, it's still at 845 (911rhp). And yes I realize it's not fair to ignore his 2011 season, but, I just did.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Besides, how is it Valbuena's line is OK for you but Stewart's better line means he's a "bum?"

 

they're both bad, we picked up valbuena from the scrap heap. we gave up a decent 26 year old 4th of for stewart.

 

No, they gave up Tyler Colvin. The Colvin/Stewart trade is the epitome of scrap heap-ing.

[Guest]

I think Stewart was damaged goods. He plays really good defense, I wouldn't mind if they signed him for another year, if he's ready.

[neely crenshaw]

so was it bad luck or an injury?

was the good 2 weeks not a sign of him "coming around" because he was injured?

 

stewarts line is better? really. I must miss something. Of course I know you have your own special stat line but

if luis is .217 .250 .377 .627 and ian is .201 .292 .335 and .627 I just don't see "better"

valbuena has 11 extra base hits and 18rbi in 32 games, ian has 12 extra basehits and 17 rbi in 55 games.

one makes 495k, one makes 2.4mil

[El Duderino]

lock lock lock lock lock

[Sammy Sofa]

We were comparing Stewart's "good month" to Valbuena's "good month" simply because I'm wondering what people who think Stewart is a "bum" see in Valbuena. I don't really have anything against either player; they've both been rather middling this year. Nobody's actually picking sides between the two except for idiots.

 

And their salaries are irrelevant.

[javy knows my name]

lock lock lock lock lock

[neely crenshaw]

We were comparing Stewart's "good month" to Valbuena's "good month" simply because I'm wondering what people who think Stewart is a "bum" see in Valbuena. I don't really have anything against either player; they've both been rather middling this year. Nobody's actually picking sides between the two except for idiots.

 

And their salaries are irrelevant.

 

 

there is nothing to like in either. valbuena's value? he's cheaper.

you however have been a huge backer of stewart based on stats that don't exist. he has been had his entire career save for 80 games four years ago. you simply will not admit to any chance of being wrong or the new FO not making a good deal.

right now. colorado got the better of the deal. colvin is better, but it really doesn't matter. colvin would not change this club. he probably would not be in the future here either, it's actually better for him, because he will at least be a part time starter if not more in colorado. we needed someone to play third base. stewart was down but was once highly thought of, and same for colvin. it was definitely a deal that should have been made, it had potential to help, and limited cost if it didn't. which is what this particular team needs.

i hate to use the word "bum" with any of these guys. they are in the major leagues which makes them good, but neither is the answer nor do i think they were ever supposed to be, if stewart worked out and g=could keep 3rd base warm until hopefully vitters is ready, then great but he hasn't.

it's just hilarious that people keep defending the deal, and stewart in general when it's ok that it didn't work out. it's ok that colorado got the slightly better end of it. we are better with dejesus, lahair and rizzo which are really the who replaced colvin not stewart.

[MSG T]

We were comparing Stewart's "good month" to Valbuena's "good month" simply because I'm wondering what people who think Stewart is a "bum" see in Valbuena. I don't really have anything against either player; they've both been rather middling this year. Nobody's actually picking sides between the two except for idiots.

 

And their salaries are irrelevant.

 

 

there is nothing to like in either. valbuena's value? he's cheaper.

you however have been a huge backer of stewart based on stats that don't exist. he has been had his entire career save for 80 games four years ago. you simply will not admit to any chance of being wrong or the new FO not making a good deal.

right now. colorado got the better of the deal. colvin is better, but it really doesn't matter. colvin would not change this club. he probably would not be in the future here either, it's actually better for him, because he will at least be a part time starter if not more in colorado. we needed someone to play third base. stewart was down but was once highly thought of, and same for colvin. it was definitely a deal that should have been made, it had potential to help, and limited cost if it didn't. which is what this particular team needs.

i hate to use the word "bum" with any of these guys. they are in the major leagues which makes them good, but neither is the answer nor do i think they were ever supposed to be, if stewart worked out and g=could keep 3rd base warm until hopefully vitters is ready, then great but he hasn't.

it's just hilarious that people keep defending the deal, and stewart in general when it's ok that it didn't work out. it's ok that colorado got the slightly better end of it. we are better with dejesus, lahair and rizzo which are really the who replaced colvin not stewart.

 

 

This reads like two different people took turns writing it.

 

Yes people are defending the deal because it was worth taking the chance on Stewart based on what they have up. Whether the deal works/worked out is immaterial. It was worth doing because, as you point out somewhere in there, we needed a 3B and Colvin wasn't going to help this team. I haven't seen anyone that is saying, in hindsight, that the Cubs "won" the deal, just that it was worth making and losing Colvin doesn't matter.

[Sammy Sofa]

We were comparing Stewart's "good month" to Valbuena's "good month" simply because I'm wondering what people who think Stewart is a "bum" see in Valbuena. I don't really have anything against either player; they've both been rather middling this year. Nobody's actually picking sides between the two except for idiots.

 

And their salaries are irrelevant.

 

 

there is nothing to like in either. valbuena's value? he's cheaper.

 

So what? They're both on the team.

 

you however have been a huge backer of stewart

 

Incorrect. Nobody here is a "huge backer of Stewart." There's a huge difference between explaining how you can look at a player/countering hyperbole and being some kind of superfan.

 

based on stats that don't exist. he has been had his entire career save for 80 games four years ago. you simply will not admit to any chance of being wrong or the new FO not making a good deal.

 

I'm wrong all the time; the FO is far from infallable. My point is, and has been, is that arguing whether the Cubs or Rockies "won" between Ian Stewart and Tyler Colvin is nearly meaningless.

 

right now. colorado got the better of the deal. colvin is better, but it really doesn't matter.

 

Now I see what MSG-T was saying when it was like your post was written by two different people; so you DO agree with me?

 

colvin would not change this club. he probably would not be in the future here either, it's actually better for him, because he will at least be a part time starter if not more in colorado. we needed someone to play third base. stewart was down but was once highly thought of, and same for colvin. it was definitely a deal that should have been made, it had potential to help, and limited cost if it didn't. which is what this particular team needs.

i hate to use the word "bum" with any of these guys. they are in the major leagues which makes them good, but neither is the answer nor do i think they were ever supposed to be, if stewart worked out and g=could keep 3rd base warm until hopefully vitters is ready, then great but he hasn't.

 

OK, good so far (though saying Colvin and Stewart were similarly "highly regarded" is a HUGE stretch)...

 

it's just hilarious that people keep defending the deal, and stewart in general when it's ok that it didn't work out.

 

...wait, what? Why wouldn't they see what he can do after his surgery? It's not like they have anyone beating down the door at 3B.

 

it's ok that colorado got the slightly better end of it. we are better with dejesus, lahair and rizzo which are really the who replaced colvin not stewart.

 

Good...point? Man, this was a schizo post.

[DiamondMind]

Why is someone calling for a lock? I'm having fun with this conversation honestly. It's something to talk about. /shrug

[neely crenshaw]

my point from the start has been stewart at his best, is not likely to work out. I look at a poor career line of 6 seasons, and don't see much hope of him jumping up. I also mentioned that playing in colorado, most players don't have their stats jump up when they leave there. i don't look at a hot streak and see a guy that has turned the corner on bad luck. i just see a player on a streak. over the course of a season players tend to revert back to norm. sometimes there are reasons why the norm is low, over the course of 140-162 games played, streaks-good or bad- even out. bad luck and good luck do not continue for an entire season. if a players is a .230 avg .320 obp , 700 ops guy for 6 seasons of stats, he is probable a 230-320-700 guy, not hitting in bad luck. add in the colorado aspect and i didn't see him rebounding, not even now after surgery..but it's possible.

colvin is having a better year. i don't now why you choose to dispute that. it's not the type of year that makes you mad he's not here(or it shouldn't) but a nice year. why is that so hard to for you to say?

you seem intent to downplaying anything colvin does, and promoting the "good" of stewart.

it's ok that colorado got the better right now. I really don't see that changing simply because I don't think stewart ever does much. this isn't brock for brogglio, this isn't a game changer, it's 2 teams taking a chance on pieces that weren't working for them and in the end colorado got a 4th outfielder out of it, and we hoped to find a bridge at 3rd, and didn't.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, we're all very well aware of the simplistic way you look at career stats. Shall we go over DeJesus again?

 

Nobody has any problem pointing out Colvin is technically having a better year than Stewart; it just doesn't matter. It's ridiculous to get worked up in any way over the 0.7 WAR player vs. the 0.0 WAR player.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's ridiculous to get worked up in any way over the 0.7 WAR player vs. the 0.0 WAR player.

 

The weird thing is that Neely has been concluding his posts with this thought...after getting worked up during the previous paragraph about Stewart.

[davell]

Wake me up when you guys(the ones I like their posts and learn from on occasion) see Colvin as a true success and worth getting pissed over. We kicked ass in the Marshall trade, killed the Pads in the Rizzo deal, and if we "lose" a deal involving players that NONE are or were going to be longtime contributors to ANY club, then who gives a flying [expletive]?

[Sammy Sofa]

It's ridiculous to get worked up in any way over the 0.7 WAR player vs. the 0.0 WAR player.

 

The weird thing is that Neely has been concluding his posts with this thought...after getting worked up during the previous paragraph about Stewart.

 

Yeah, it's strange that most of his posts seem to be agreeing with the general sentiment about this now. He's just still inexplicably hung up on the idea of the mythical Ian Stewart superfan or Colvin not getting patted on the head.

[neely crenshaw]

I have never gotten worked up about stewart. I have gotten worked up at people dismissing my thoughts on stewart not improving or hitting in bad luck. That's it.

I have never said anyone should replace him and I have always understood the trade-never had a problem with it.

and I don't think I have to call Colvin a bum or scrub, or downplay his Colorado stats to back the trade

Again my whole point was regardless of babip, a career .235 hitter with a fairly long history is probably a .235 hitter. I added that being a .235 hitter in colorado is not the best trend to show improvement when you go elsewhere. Yet was ridiculed, even dismissed to possibly think he wasn't having bad luck and that he would continue on his pace.

 

As for Dejesus, he has been on a downward trend. At 32, it's not a stretch to say that could continue even moving from oakland to chicago..although that gives one hope he could rebound. He is having a nice year so far. he has certainly been a nice player this year but when you are a 60-65 win team, and at least another season away from being decent, is it as important to run out a 32 year old guy in order to be less awful right now? I said i'd rather have them look at younger guys rather than make sure dejesus and stewart were in the lineup everyday. It was not an indictment of dejesus or signing him, just a thought to find out exactly what some of the younger guys had. I wish they had done that last year, and played LaHair and Colvin nearly everyday rather than fukudome and pena. when you are bad, it doesn't make sense to play vets in order to be less bad.

doesn't seem hard to understand on either.

[Sammy Sofa]

Colvin got plenty of playing time in 2011; he was horrible.

 

And yes, you were ridiculed because you harp on and on about player history regardless of how many PA it is or whether it was the minors or the majors or which league in the minors it was or what health issues were being dealt with. You're determined to find concrete patterns in select stat lines like some kind of annoying baseball Beautiful Mind and then act like they're a lock that a player will succeed or fail...until it's case like Trumbo, and then it's all out the window. That is why you are ridiculed, coupled with how torturous it is to read your posts.

 

And yes, you want to make time for promising young players. The Cubs have a shortage of such in the OF (and had a lack of players willing to take a pitch), and like it or not you need to at least try to field a team, so signing a guy like Dejesus on the cheap makes perfect sense. He's not blocking anyone. Then Stewart is picked up because they also have a dearth of players at 3B and he's an intriguing reclamation project. That's it. That's as far as it goes. Any positive things said about Stewart have been out of the hope that he'd be able to bounce back and be a serviceable 3B option until a long term option was found. Colvin, as you've said yourself, had no future with the team, so it was a break even trade at worst.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Maybe someday Stewart can be reclaimed to those heady days when he was a 1.5 WAR player.

[Sammy Sofa]

Lord only knows why Kyle thinks a relatively affordable 1.5-2.0 WAR player at 3B for a season or two would be a bad thing.

[neely crenshaw]

Colvin got plenty of playing time in 2011; he was horrible.

 

And yes, you were ridiculed because you harp on and on about player history regardless of how many PA it is or whether it was the minors or the majors or which league in the minors it was or what health issues were being dealt with. You're determined to find concrete patterns in select stat lines like some kind of annoying baseball Beautiful Mind and then act like they're a lock that a player will succeed or fail...until it's case like Trumbo, and then it's all out the window. That is why you are ridiculed, coupled with how torturous it is to read your posts.

 

And yes, you want to make time for promising young players. The Cubs have a shortage of such in the OF (and had a lack of players willing to take a pitch), and like it or not you need to at least try to field a team, so signing a guy like Dejesus on the cheap makes perfect sense. He's not blocking anyone. Then Stewart is picked up because they also have a dearth of players at 3B and he's an intriguing reclamation project. That's it. That's as far as it goes. Any positive things said about Stewart have been out of the hope that he'd be able to bounce back and be a serviceable 3B option until a long term option was found. Colvin, as you've said yourself, had no future with the team, so it was a break even trade at worst.

 

you have this way backwards, you are almost talking about yourself here!

I didn't start with stats until I was hit with the line"you state your opinion but have shown no statistics to back it up" so I used them.

you used a stat line for less than 3 weeks to stewart was coming out of bad luck. I only showed sinilar stat lines in an attempt to show you haw ridiculous it is to show a slice of stats to prove a point...not to prove mine. I showed you inge's 3 weeks that were better..even though he was done, I showed a 3 week slice from adam dunn's terrible last year to show that even in the absolute worst possible season, you could find a good couple weeks THAT MEAN NOTHING.

My showing those stats were to presuade you away from your original taunt of me that read:

 

Time IS telling, and we can see reality. As pointed out, these are his numbers in May:

 

.246 .338 .456 .795

 

Surely this will make you reconsider and...

 

.......ohhhhhh. You're one of those.

 

sounds like a partial line disregrading PA...

it's probably more to do the fact that I dared disagree with the hierachy, and was also right. While you keep trying to change the direction to shield the fact that your wrong, and you can't stand it.

 

and for:

Colvin had 220 plate appearances in 2011 and was bad. He started 47 games, over half of those after august 1st when he was already deep in a slump. if you have ever played the hardest thing to do is hit when you are not playing regularly, the next hardest is to dig yourself out of a slump, especially when you are mentally struggling..."see adam dunn". I am not saying this was the problem but it was definitely not the best position to put him in or to find out what he could do. 2010 was very solid, and 2012 has been a little better than 2010.

[SouthSideRyan]

the next hardest is to dig yourself out of a slump

 

It's easy to hit when you're not in a slump because then you're hitting so you're not in a slump, but if you aren't hitting it would be hard to hit, because then you'd be in a slump and not hitting.

[neely crenshaw]

the next hardest is to dig yourself out of a slump

 

It's easy to hit when you're not in a slump because then you're hitting so you're not in a slump, but if you aren't hitting it would be hard to hit, because then you'd be in a slump and not hitting.

 

 

Did you play?I mean really play not some 25 games season in pony ball. If you did you know what this means. Hitters can get completely twisted mentally, and have nothing really wrong with their swings. When this is going on, it is next to impossible to dig yourself out.

 

Pretty funny though.

[KingCubsFan]

Lord only knows why Kyle thinks a relatively affordable 1.5-2.0 WAR player at 3B for a season or two would be a bad thing.

Never forget the Ryan Flaherty/Jeff Baker platoon that would put up a similar WAR to Aramis.

[treebird]

Lord only knows why Kyle thinks a relatively affordable 1.5-2.0 WAR player at 3B for a season or two would be a bad thing.

Never forget the Ryan Flaherty/Jeff Baker platoon that would put up a similar WAR to Aramis.

 

i'm sure kyle hilariously switched to some opposing view immediately after that though. aw shucks what a trixter